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
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "parenthetical expression" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong et al (Thin sold films 518 (2010) 4019-4023) in view of Hart et al (Journal Phys. Chem.
B 2007, 111, 7073-7077).
Applicants’ claimed invention is directed to a zinc carboxylate salt used for
production of a semiconductor nanoparticle, wherein a ratio of carboxylic acids having 8 to 10 carbon atoms in whole of carboxylic acids that form the zinc carboxylate salt is 80.0% by mass or more, and an average branching degree of the whole of the
carboxylic acids that form the zinc carboxylate salt is in a range of 1.1 to 2.9.
Xiong teaches a non-aqueous solution method to synthesize zinc-based
semiconductor thin films and nanoparticles. The reference instructs the practitioner to
prepare a precursor solution by mixing 1 part by volume of 99.0% pure zinc
neodecanoate ([CH3(CH2)5C(CH3)2COOH]2Zn) with 20 parts of 99.9% toluene. This
compound possesses an inherently chemical topology with 2-3 methyl groups branching off the main alkyl chain. See experimental details and discussions.
Xiong satisfies the structural foundation of the independent claim by deploying
99.0% pure source of zinc neodecanoate. Because neodecanoic acid is C10 carboxylic
acid, a 99.0% pure salt inherently means that the ratio of C8-C10 carboxylic acids is
99.0% by mass, satisfying and exceeding the claimed ≥80% by mass requirement.
However, Xiong is silent on explicitly calculating the term average branching degree
(claims 1-3) and the dynamic fluid performance limit requiring the rate change in
viscosity of 95% to 100% (claim 4). A person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention seeking to replicate Xiong’s semiconductor
deposition faces a routine engineering priority: maintaining strict control over precursor
fluid dynamics to ensure film coating uniformity. Because fluid uniformity is a known
result-effective variable dictated entirely by a compound’s underlying molecular
architecture, a PHOSITA would look directly to established physical chemistry literature,
such as Hart to map how batch-to-batch composition variations and branching
configuration govern liquid zinc carboxylate flow integrity. See experimental details and
discussions.
Hart completely cures these analytical and rheological gaps by detailing the
exact physical rules connecting zinc carboxylate molecular structures to their flow
performance. Hart establishes that a liquid zinc carboxylate possessing 2-3 branching
methyl groups on a C10 backbone-as explicitly taught by Xiong-mathematically yields an average branching degree sitting squarely within the claimed 1.1 to 2.9 threshold.
Furthermore, the claimed parameter in claim 4 requiring a rate change in viscosity in the
range of 95% to 100% translate mathematically to a strict stability constraint where the
fluid’s viscosity must not deviate or change by more than 5% from its core baseline
value during processing. See results and discussion.
Hart explicitly verifies this exact performance constraint by testing 13 distinct
liquid zinc carboxylate batches (samples A-M) synthesized under nearly identical
conditions. Hart demonstrates that despite introducing ±2% to simulate raw material
variables, the overall viscosity remains robustly flat, varying by a small margin of only
about 6.0 Pa.s across the entire sample set. Because this 6.0 Pa.s total fluctuation sits
entirely inside a ≤5% absolute change window relative to the baseline viscosity of these
liquid systems, Hart’s experimental data proves that this tight, stable viscosity profile is
an inherent physical hallmark of the highly branched liquid zinc carboxylate taught by
Xiong. See results and discussion.
The claimed invention represents nothing more than the optimization of a known result effective variable and the capture of an inherent property of existing prior art materials,
rendering claims 1-4 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAFAR F PARSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM-6:30PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/JAFAR F PARSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights