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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2026 and 05/01/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 5/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4 remain pending in the application. Applicant has canceled claims 2 and 3. The drawings entered on 5/27/2026 overcome the objection made to the claims; accordingly, this objection is withdrawn. The amendments to the claims have overcome each 112(b) and 112(d) rejection previously set forth; each and every rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112 are therefore withdrawn. The amendments to the claims have overcome the double patenting rejections previously set forth; accordingly, these rejections are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, applicant asserts on page 6 of Remarks that Liu and Anju do not teach the mass ratio of the claimed invention for each compound; this argument is found convincing but is rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection required by the amendments. Applicant asserts on page 7 or Remarks that the long wavelength emission is an unexpected result of the solvent-free process and aromatic crystalline precursors; this argument is not found convincing in light of the prior art and has been rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection required by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature Wang et al. 2020, Label-free fluorescence assay based on near-infrared B,N-doped carbon dots as a fluorescent probe for the detection of sialic acid. New J. Chem. 2020; 44 (6): 2350–2356, in view of Niu et al. 2021, Large scale synthesis of red emissive carbon dots powder by solid state reaction for fingerprint identification, Chinese Chemical Letters, Volume 32, Issue 6, 2021, Pages 1953-1956, referred to herein as Wang and Niu, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method for producing carbon quantum dots (“a facile one-pot synthesis of near-infrared B,N co-doped carbon dots (CDs),” abstract) the method comprising preparing a mixture by mixing a crystalline compound (a) containing boron, sulfur, and/or phosphorus and being solid at 1 atm and 25 C (3-aminophenylboronic acid, ABPA, abstract) and a first organic compound (b) containing a reactive group (o-phenylenediamine, OPD, abstract); and preparing carbon quantum dots by heating the mixture at 100 C or higher and 300 C or lower (160 C, ‘Synthesis of near-infrared B,N co-doped carbon dots’ p. 2351); wherein the crystalline compound (a) is a second organic compound different from the first organic compound (b) (ABPA, abstract); the crystalline compound (a) has an aromatic ring in a molecule (phenyl group, Scheme 1, p. 2351); and an amount of the crystalline compound (a) in the mixture is 45 parts by mass or greater and 1000 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the first organic compound (b) (OPD and APBA in a 10:1 mass ratio, p. 2351; this is equivalent to 100 parts by mass to 1000 parts by mass of (a) to (b) as claimed).
Wang does not teach preparing the carbon quantum dots substantially in the absence of a solvent. However, Niu teaches an analogous method of preparing carbon quantum dots (“a rapid solid reaction to synthesize red emissive CDs powder,” p. 1954 col. 1 pp. 1) which is analogous to the instant invention and the teachings of Wang because Niu teaches the synthesis of red emissive carbon quantum dots, and Wang teaches that obtaining red-emitting carbon quantum dots is significant (“it is of great significance to prepare red-emitting carbon quantum dots,” p. 2351 col. 1 pp. 2). Niu teaches the method without solvent (“this reaction needs no solvent,” p. 1954 col. 1 pp. 1). It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Wang and Niu and therefore arrive at the claimed invention; one would be motivated to do so because Niu teaches that the presence of a dispersion medium inhibits key properties, such as light diffraction, quantum yield, and luminescent intensity (p. 1954 col. 1 pp. 1). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 4, Wang and Niu teach the invention as applied to claim 1. Wang further teaches a fluorescence emission peak equal to 645 nm under excitation at 560 nm (p. 2352, Fig 1(c), col. 2); this falls within the claimed range of a maximum emission wavelength of the carbon quantum dots being 570 nm or higher and 750 nm or lower.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights