DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 8/4/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11-20 under the non-final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the references below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu “Carbon quantum dots derived from different carbons sources for antibacterial applications” and in view of Wu II “Enhanced bacterial killing by vancomycin in staphylococcal biofilms disrupted by novel, DMMA-modified carbon dots depends on EPS production”.
As to Claims 1, 2 and 9, Wu describes carbon quantum dots (title) that are nanosized (abstract). The carbon quantum dots are surface modified to enhance their functionality for various uses (see section 3.4). In one example, Wu explains that carbon quantum dots can be made to have cationic amino groups (section 3.4). As to the planar hydrocarbon base, Wu teaches that the carbon source used can include pyrene (see page 9, (C) under Figure 5). Pyrene are hydrocarbons that have a planar and aromatic structure.
As to the size, Wu teaches that the particles can range in size from 4-8nm (see Fig. 3).
As to the amino groups being on the surface, Wu does not make this feature clear, but Wu cites to articles 75, which goes to another article by Wu, Wu II.
Wu II describes a DMMA-modified carbon dot (title). The reference explains that the product made is surface modified (Introduction, para. 3), and that the carbon dots without the DMMA have amine group at the surface (page 2, right col, para. 2). The amine groups can be considered the nitrogen-doped feature of Claim 1.
Therefore, since Wu cites to Wu II as an example of a surface modified carbon dot and Wu II explains that their prepared quantum dot contains surface amino groups, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the carbon dot of Wu is surface functionalized with amine groups, as explained by Wu II.
As to the carbon quantum dots providing selective adsorption of CO2, since the composition is the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition used the same way would have the same effectiveness.
As to the “consisting of” language, Wu does not describe adding additional components to the carbon quantum dots and nitrogen-containing dopant (discussed above).
As to the additional feature of Claim 11, Wu teaches that the carbon dots have amine groups (see section 3.4). Since this is plural, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that there are at least two amine groups. Further, amine groups have at least one nitrogen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that each amine group contains at least one nitrogen group.
As to the size, Wu teaches that the particles can range in size from 4-8nm (see Fig. 3).
As to the other features, As to the planar hydrocarbon base, Wu teaches that the carbon source used can include pyrene (see page 9, (C) under Figure 5). Pyrene are hydrocarbons that have a planar and aromatic structure.
As to the amino groups being on the surface, Wu does not make this feature clear, but Wu cites to articles 75, which goes to another article by Wu, Wu II.
Wu II describes a DMMA-modified carbon dot (title). The reference explains that the product made is surface modified (Introduction, para. 3), and that the carbon dots without the DMMA have amine group at the surface (page 2, right col, para. 2). The amine groups can be considered the nitrogen-doped feature of Claim 1.
Therefore, since Wu cites to Wu II as an example of a surface modified carbon dot and Wu II explains that their prepared quantum dot contains surface amino groups, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the carbon dot of Wu is surface functionalized with amine groups, as explained by Wu II.
Wu teaches that the carbon dots have amine groups (see section 3.4). Since this is plural, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that there are at least two amine groups. Further, amine groups have at least one nitrogen. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that each amine group contains at least one nitrogen group.
As to the carbon quantum dots providing selective adsorption of CO2 relative to nitrogen and oxygen, since the composition is the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition used the same way would have the same effectiveness.
As to the number of nitrogen-containing groups, the obviousness statement with Dong is re-iterated here.
As to Claims 12, 13, 14 and 15, the references do not specifically state that the quantum dots of Wu, Wu II and Dong have an adsorption selectivity of CO2 over N2 of a specific value range. However, since the composition claimed is the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition used the same way would have the same absorptivity characteristics.
As to Claim 16, Wu teaches that the carbon source used can include pyrene (see page 9, (C) under Figure 5). Pyrene are hydrocarbons that have a planar and aromatic structure.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Wu II as applied to claim 1 or 2 above, and further in view of Dong (CN 108865132), see EPO translation.
Dong describes carbon quantum dots (para. 1) that include a carbon-based source combined with a nitrogen source (para. 13). Claim 1 states that the carbon quantum dots can be functionalized by either amines or nitrogen. Therefore, inclusion of nitrogen meets this feature of the claim.
As to the amount, Dong explains that the C-N, N-H or other N-containing nitrogen-containing bonds can be adjusted in order to regulate the energy level structure and electron cloud distribution of the carbon quantum dots to improve the optical properties and obtain yield high fluorescence quantum yield and high fluorescence intensity (para. 33). Therefore, by further adjusting the ratio of carbon and nitrogen used and the N-containing surface group functionalized on the carbon quantum dots, this can optimize the fluorescence yield within the desired wavelengths and help improve the accuracy of the fluorescent spectral signal detection (para. 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the nitrogen-containing groups modifying the carbon quantum dots, as taught by Dong for use with the carbon dots of Wu and Wu II because Dong explains that by adjusting the ratio of nitrogen, this can optimize the fluorescence yield of the carbon quantum dots to the range desired.
Therefore, as to the nitrogen functional groups used on the carbon quantum dots, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as nitrogen-containing surface functional groups through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, Wu II and Dong as applied to claim 11 above, and in view of Rupa Health.
The references do not teach that the pyrene is synthetic.
Rupa health explains that pyrene can be both naturally occurring or synthetic (see “what is pyrene”).
Therefore, without a showing of unexpected results, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that either the synthetic or natural forms of pyrene can be used in Wu, Wu II and Dong because Rupa Health explains that pyrene is known to be available in either form.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, Wu II and Dong as applied to claim 11 above, and in view of Liu (CN 114921245) and further in view of Liu (CN 110144643), Liu II.
The references describe use of pyrene, but does not describe this modifier as synthetic.
Liu describes a carbon dot modified with an amide group (title). Liu explains that the modifying group (“conjugated molecule”) can include a number of compounds, to include aromatic hydrocarbons, such as pyrene, naphthalene, to name a few (see “Organic Chemistry”, Preferred components). Liu does not state that the modifying groups are synthetically made however.
Liu II describes a method for making graphene quantum dots (embodiment 3), which is made from a synthetic naphthalene precursor (see embodiment 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the amide-dopant precursor as either, such as pyrene or naphthalene, as taught by Liu I, using a synthetic source, as described by Liu II for use with the amide-modified carbon dot of Wu, Wu II and Dong because use of the synthetic-form of the amide precursor is an effective source of this amide-precursor.
Claim(s) 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu “Carbon quantum dots derived from different carbons sources for antibacterial applications” and in view of Wu II “Enhanced bacterial killing by vancomycin in staphylococcal biofilms disrupted by novel, DMMA-modified carbon dots depends on EPS production”.
As to Claims 18, 19 and 20, Wu describes carbon quantum dots (title) that are nanosized (abstract). The carbon quantum dots are surface modified to enhance their functionality for various uses (see section 3.4). In one example, Wu explains that carbon quantum dots can be made to have cationic amino groups (section 3.4). As to the planar hydrocarbon base, Wu teaches that the carbon source used can include pyrene (see page 9, (C) under Figure 5). Pyrene are hydrocarbons that have a planar and aromatic structure.
Wu teaches that the carbon dots have amine groups (see section 3.4). Since this is plural, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that there are at least two amine groups. Further, amine groups have at least one nitrogen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that each amine group contains at least one nitrogen group.
As to the size, Wu teaches that the particles can range in size from 4-8nm (see Fig. 3).
The reference does not teach that the carbon dots include at least two or more amine groups and two or more nitrogen atoms. However, since amine groups include nitrogen atoms, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the two or more amine groups include nitrogen groups. Wu does not clearly state that in addition to the amine groups there is also at least two or more additional nitrogen atoms.
As to this feature, Dong teaches Dong describes carbon quantum dots (para. 1) that include a carbon-precursor modified with a nitrogen source (para. 13). Claim 1 states that the carbon quantum dots can be functionalized by either amines or nitrogen. Therefore, inclusion of nitrogen meets this feature of the claim.
Dong teaches that the carbon quantum dots have a size of 3-5nm (para. 38, para. 3). Dong teaches modification of carbon quantum dots with nitrogen (para. 13). As to the amount, Dong explains that the C-N, N-H or other N-containing nitrogen-containing bonds can be adjusted in order to regulate the energy level structure and electron cloud distribution of the carbon quantum dots to improve the optical properties and obtain yield high fluorescence quantum yield and high fluorescence intensity (para. 33). Therefore, by further adjusting the ratio of carbon and nitrogen used and the N-containing surface group functionalized on the carbon quantum dots, this can optimize the fluorescence yield within the desired wavelengths and help improve the accuracy of the fluorescent spectral signal detection (para. 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the nitrogen-containing groups modifying the carbon quantum dots, as taught by Dong because Dong explains that by adjusting the ratio of nitrogen, this can optimize the fluorescence yield of the carbon quantum dots to the range desired.
Therefore, as to the nitrogen functional groups used on the carbon quantum dots, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as nitrogen-containing surface functional groups through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to the carbon dots having selected adsorption of CO2 over N2 and O2, the specification explains that carbon quantum dots “(CQD) show selective adsorption for CO2 relative to N2 and O2” (see published specification, para. 9). The “magnitude of the selectivity is a function of CQD size and the amount of doping and functionalization” (see published specification, para. 9). Therefore, the presence of CQD already has CO2 over N2 and O2 adsorption. Inclusion of nitrogen and/or amine improves the CO2 feature, but does not impart the CO2 adsorption feature on the CQD. Therefore, the presence of CQD in Dong would meet the CO2 adsorption feature.
As to the how the carbon quantum dots are made, specifically, that the are made from lignin, although the references does not explicitly teach that the carbon dots are made from lignin, as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Wu I and II and Dong meets the requirements of the claimed product, the references clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights