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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 , recites the phrase “preferably 0.05-0.2 wt.-%”, which renders the claim indefinite. I t is unclear whether the range following the term “preferably” is a required part of the claimed invention. While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the range “preferably 0.05-20.2 wt %” is treated as optional. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 is a use claim. The claim attempts to claim a process of using the composition without setting forth any steps involved in the process. While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be treated as the composition of claim 1 in a construction material. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is a use claim. The claim attempts to claim a process of using the composition without setting forth any steps involved in the process. While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be treated as the composition of claim 1 in a paint, coating agent, binder, concrete, or mortar. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections. Claim s 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110759668A to Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang), using a machine translation of the description. Regarding claim 1 , Zhang discloses a composition for construction purposes (stone paint, para [00 10 ]) comprising 1-1.5 wt % carbon quantum dots (CQDs) (para [0015]), which falls completely within the instantly claimed range of 0.001 - 2 wt.% carbon quantum dots, based on the total weight of the composition. The preamble of the instant claim recites the intended use limitation “for construction purposes” in ln 1. See MPEP 2111.02(II), which states that ‘ To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim ’. In the instant case, Zhang anticipates the composition and discloses that the composition is crack-resistant stone paint in the field of architectural coatings (para [0001]-[000 3 ]). Therefore, the Zhang coating is deemed capable of performing the intended use for construction purposes. Regarding claim 2 , Zhang discloses the composition according to claim 1, characterized in that the composition is a paint (para [0010] ) or coating agent (architectural coating, para [0003]). Regarding claim 4 , Zhang discloses the composition according to claim 1 , characterized in that the composition is liquid (water balance, para [0023]) and cures (forms film after soaking para [0023]) at room temperature for 12-24 hours (para [0049]), which falls within one week. Regarding claim 5 , Zhang discloses the composition according to claim 1, characterized in that the composition contains one or more compounds selected from the group composed of silicate , silicium dioxide (quartz sand/SiO2, para [0012]) , aluminate (para [0016]) , aluminosilicate (attapulgite, para [0013] and [0024]), resin (acrylic, para [0011]) , silicone , and organic polymer ( fluorosilicone polymer, para [001 7 ]) . Regarding claim 6 , Zhang discloses the composition according to claim 5, characterized in that the composition contains at least 78 wt % of the one or more compounds when all are present (lower ranges of para [0011]-[0013], [0016], and [0017]), which falls completely within the instantly claimed range of 30 wt.% of the one or more compounds, based on the total weight of the composition. Regarding claim 8 , Zhang discloses the composition according to claim 1, characterized in that the carbon quantum dots fluoresce upon stimulation with UV light (para [0029]) and are expected to emit light in the wavelength band 400 to 600 nm upon said stimulation with UV light as Zhang anticipates the instantly claimed composition and anticipates the claimed carbon quantum dots . See MPEP 2112.01(II) which states that is the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. Zhang anticipates the instantly claimed composition and anticipates the claimed carbon quantum dots. Therefore, the Zhang carbon quantum dots are deemed to have the same optical properties including but not limited to fluorescing in the wavelength band 400 to 600 nm upon stimulation with UV light. Regarding claim 9 , Zhang discloses a composition according to claim 1 in a construction material (stone paint, para [0010]) . This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para 3b, above. Regarding claim 10 , Zhang discloses a composition according to claim 1 in a paint (para [0010]) or coating agent (architectural coating, para [0003]). This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para 3c, above. 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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. See MPEP 2111.03 cited above. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang. Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the composition according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the composition comprises 0.005-0.5 wt of carbon quantum dots, based on the total weight of the composition. However, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), which states that ‘ Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical ’. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the CQD loading range to facilitate formation of a stone paint with the desired combination of mechanical and aesthetic characteristics (para [0005]-[0006]). This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para 3a, above. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Zhang, teaches a composition comprising the same amount of carbon quantum dots and further comprises an aluminosilicate. However, the aluminosilicate is attapulgite clay which does not contain calcium oxide or alkali oxides as required by the instant claim. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6,635,192 B1 to Schwarz teaches alkali containing aluminosilicate as part of an electrically conducting composite. The Schwarz composite is not luminescent and does not contain quantum dots. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2678 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10-6:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1177 . 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. /L.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1734 /Matthew E. Hoban/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734