Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 is dependent from claim 12. Originally filed claims, such as claim 11, should only depend from a preceding claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-19 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.
The claimed process is indefinite in view of applicants’ admission on page 12, lines 20-21 that the type of fruit waste used in the process affect the properties and composition of the produced nitrogen-doped carbon dots. In view of this statement, it is unclear what fruit waste material, besides fruit waste obtained from canary melons, when used in the process of claims 1-3 will produce nitrogen doped carbon dots having the claimed the claimed Stokes shift at an excitation wavelength of 300-420 nm, the nitrogen doped carbon dot composition of claim 7, the crystallite size of claim 6, the shape of claim 9 and the properties of claims 8 and 10-18 when hydrothermally treated at 150-250oC.
Claim 4 teaches the fruit waste material is a canary melon. The specification define “fruit waste material” as the biodegradable waste material derived from fruits. Canary melons are not the biodegradable waste material derived from fruits. Thus this claim is indefinite since it defines as fruit as biodegradable waste material derived from fruits. It is noted that page 12, line 15 teaches the fruit waste material used in the claimed process is obtained from a canary melon.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the UV-visible absorption signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim nor in claims 12 and 1, from which claim 11 depends. Thus claim 11 is indefinite.
Claims 14 is indefinite since it depends from itself. Claim 16 is indefinite since it depends from itself. Claim 18 is indefinite since it depends from itself.
Finally, claim 19 is indefinite as to how the process of claim 1 forms the carbon dots on a substrate having a height, or thickness, of 2.5-5.5 nm. The last step of the process of claim 1 is a filtering step which would not form the carbon dots on a substrate since filters are not considered as a substrate in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Zulfajri et al article.
This reference teaches a process for producing nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dots comprising hydrothermally reacting a mixture of ultrapure water, durian seeds as a carbon source and glutamine as a nitrogen source in an autoclave at 160oC, 180oC or 200oC for 15 hours or at 200oC for 5 or 10 hr to obtain a nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dots containing suspension, centrifuging the suspension to remove the hydrochar; and filtering the suspension after centrifugation. This taught process is identical to the process of claims 1 and 2. Durian seeds are fruit waste material and ultrapure water reads on deionized water since that ultrapure water is deionized. The produced carbon dots emit 432-472 nm at an excitation wavelength range of 300-400 nm. Thus the taught dot have the luminescent spectrum that meets the requirements of claim 12. The taught dots have a UV-visible spectrum signal in a 250-500 nm wavelength range and thus meets the requirements of claim 10. The produced dot have a size ranging from 1.2-3.7 nm, which falls within the range of claim 1, and have a spherical shape. Since the taught process is the same as that claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the produced nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dots to have a Stokes shift value in the claimed range for the claimed excitation wavelength range and values of claims 1 and 14-18, a crystallite size within the range of claim 6, and a band gap within the range of claim 8, absent any showing to the contrary. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) MPEP 2112.01.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the art to synthesize nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dots by the taught process using canary melon waste material as a carbon source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
6/5/26
Prosecution Insights