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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding the amendment filed 01/14/2026: Claims 1 and 4-7 are pending. Claims 2-3 and 8 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Canfarotta et al (“A novel thermal detection method based on molecularly imprinted nanoparticles) as recognition elements", NANOSCALE, val. 10, no. 4, 1 January 20178 (2018-01-01), pages 2081-2039, cited in IDS, heretofore referred to as Canfarotta) in view of Ward (US 2008/0251723 A1, heretofore referred to as Ward) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues: “In the Office Action, the Examiner acknowledges that the Canfarotta-Ward combination does not disclose claim 1's resistance measuring device. To make up for this deficiency, the Examiner turns to Cornelis.
Cornelis describes a device having a heating element including a core. Cornelis's core includes an electrically conducting portion, an electric isolating layer provided at a surface of the core, and a plurality of binding sites to which target particles can bind. (See Cornelis, abstract.)
Cornelis's heating element is heated by Joule heating to a defined temperature. Cornelis calculates the temperature of the heating element by measuring the electrical resistance of the heating element. (See, e.g., Cornelis, p. 11, I. 28 to 31.)
Cornelis's device also includes a processing mean for deriving characteristics of target particles based on an electric output. However, Cornelis does not use resistance to derive characteristics of the target particles. That is, Cornelis only uses resistance to determine a temperature of the heating element. Cornelis instead uses heating current to derive the characteristics of target particles. (See Cornelis, p. 2, I. 28 to 32; p. 7, I. 20 to 21.)
Analysis: Claim 1 Rejection
The cited reference combination does not disclose -as set forth in amended claim 1- "a resistance measuring device connected to the negative temperature coefficient thermistor or positive temperature coefficient thermistor."
As described above, the Examiner points to Cornelis as disclosing claim 1's resistance measuring device. However, Cornelis only suggests the use of a resistance measurement device for the purpose of Joule heating a heating element to a predefined temperature. As claim 1's coated thermistor is not a heating element and does not need to be heated to such a predefined temperature, the skilled person would have no motivation to incorporate Cornelis' resistance measurement device in the sensing device of the invention.
As described above, Cornelis uses the electrical resistance measurement of the heating element only to heat the heating element to a defined temperature: "The device of FIG.
2 preferably works as follows: the heating element or wire 100 is heated up by for example [sic] by Joule heating to a defined temperature which may be calculated by measuring the electrical resistance of the heating element 100." (Cornelis, p. 11, I. 28 to 31.)
As described on page 13, I. 2 to 6, Cornelis's "wire is configured to sustain heating up to a predefined temperature (e.g. 37 C) by passing a controlled current (I) through or surround it (e.g. Joule heating) while the resistance of the wire is measured by using at least a two-point geometry and preferably a four-point geometry. The temperature of the wire is related to its electrical resistance and preferably monitored as a function of time."
Cornelis thus proposes measuring the resistance of the wire only for the purpose of controlling the Joule heating of the heating element / wire.
Claim 1's sensing device comprises a resistance measuring device connected to the thermistor. Claim 1's resistance measuring device can monitor the resistance of the thermistor, which is indicative of the binding of molecules to the molecularly imprinted polymer coating. (See, e.g., application as filed, p. 3, I. 31 to p. 4, I. 2.) Claim 1's resistance measuring device thus has an entirely different purpose to Cornelis's resistance measuring device, namely sensing target molecule binding rather than controlling Joule heating.
Further, the current application makes clear that such heating is not required. For example, p. 3, I. 6 to 12 of the present application sets out: "Additionally, with the use of thermistors in such an arrangement, rather than heating a substrate and employing thermocouples is that the thermistor is able to provide a more accurate indication of the presence of target molecules. This is, in part, because there is no need to heat the substrate, which introduces power fluctuations, and so there is less noise in the system, thereby allowing a more accurate determination of the resistance of the thermistor." Additionally, p. 4, I. 5 - 6 of the application as filed explains: "Additionally, as a heating element is not required, the power requirement of the device is relatively low."
For at least the foregoing reasons, the cited reference combination does not disclose or render prima facie obvious the subject matter of claim 1 and the rejection should be withdrawn. Similar comments apply to claim 6. The remaining claims depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 or 6 and are not obvious over the applied references for at least the above reasons.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, Cornelis teaches “a resistance measuring device connected to the thermistor (Cornelis; Pg 13, Lines 1-9; Cornelis teaches a two-point probe measuring resistance, i.e. a multimeter)”. Cornelis further specifically states “The thermal resistance of an empty wire (with no particles present at the binding sites) is determined by the thickness of the electrical isolating layer. Therefore, the heat will dissipate through. When particles, present in a sample one wishes to evaluate, bind at the binding sites present on the heating element 100, the thermal resistance at the solid-liquid or solid-gas interface changes, e.g. increases as a result.” on Pg 11, Line 31-Pg 12, Line 2.
Applicant further argues: “Claim 6 recites "using any change in the resistance of the functionalized nanoparticle coated thermistor to determine the presence of a target molecule". In the Office Action , the Examiner points to Cornelis, p. 11, I. 19 to p. 12, I. 14 as disclosing this feature. We respectfully disagree.
While Cornelis measures the resistance of the coated heated element, Cornelis also makes clear that this measurement is for Joule heating. In p. 11, I. 28 to 31, Cornelis clearly states: "The device of FIG. 2 preferably works as follows: the heating element or wire 100 is heated up by for example [sic] by Joule heating to a defined temperature which may be calculated by measuring the electrical resistance of the heating element 100."
Cornelis does not mention using any change in this resistance to determine the presence of a target molecule. Instead, Cornelis broadly refers to measuring a parameter linked to the thermal resistance. For example, p. 12, I. 2 to 4: "Measuring a parameter linked to this change, e.g. increase in thermal resistance advantageously provides properties of the sample to be evaluated." Cornelis never suggests that this parameter could be the electrical resistance. Cornelis only proposes using the current (see p. 7, I. 20 - 21), the voltage and phase angle at the 3-omega frequency (see p. 14, I. 31 to p. 15, I. 4 and p. 18, I. 1 to 3) as output parameters to determine the properties of the solution.
For at least the above reasons, the cited reference combination does not disclose the subject matter of claim 6.” As discussed above, Cornelis teaches using the thermal resistance to determine a target molecule, “The thermal resistance of an empty wire (with no particles present at the binding sites) is determined by the thickness of the electrical isolating layer. Therefore, the heat will dissipate through. When particles, present in a sample one wishes to evaluate, bind at the binding sites present on the heating element 100, the thermal resistance at the solid-liquid or solid-gas interface changes, e.g. increases as a result.” on Pg 11, Line 31-Pg 12, Line 2. Therefore the rejection stands.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Canfarotta in view of Ward in view of Cornelis (WO2018/138299 A1, heretofore refered to as Cornelis) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Canfarotta in view of Ward in view of Cornelis.
Regarding claim 1, Canfarotta teaches a sensing device (Canfarotta; Thermocouple of section 2.4 of NPL) comprising: a thermal sensor (Canfarotta; Thermocouple of section 2.4 of NPL) comprising:
a functionalized nanoparticle coating associated with a target molecule (Canfarotta; nanoMIP of section 2.4 of NPL), such that the thermal sensor is sensitive to the target molecule due to:
the target molecule binding to the functionalized nanoparticle coating altering a thermal conductivity of the functionalized nanoparticle coating thereby changing a resistance of the thermal sensor and indicating a presence of the target molecule (Canfarotta; paragraph 3 of section 2.4 of NPL; Canfarotta teaches the thermal conductivity of the MIP coating changes and is measured by the thermocouple),
wherein the coating comprises a nanoscale molecularly imprinted polymer (Canfarotta; paragraph 1 of section 1 and section 2.2).
Canfarotta is silent on wherein the thermal sensor can be a negative temperature coefficient thermistor or positive temperature coefficient thermistor.
Ward teaches wherein the thermistor is a negative temperature coefficient thermistor or positive temperature coefficient thermistor (Ward; Fig 2, Element 200, Par 0108-0110, and Par 0138; Ward teaches that the thermistor comprising functionalized nanotubes between to electrodes may be a positive or negative coefficient thermistor).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Canfarotta with the negative temperature coefficient thermistor or positive temperature coefficient thermistor of Ward in order to provide better detection based on the material used for the thermistor (Ward; Table 1 and Par 0110-0111).
The combination of Canfarotta and Ward is silent on a resistance measuring device connected to the thermistor.
Cornelis teaches and a resistance measuring device connected to the thermistor (Cornelis; Pg 13, Lines 1-9; Cornelis teaches a two-point probe measuring resistance, i.e. a multimeter).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Canfarotta and Ward with the resistance measuring device of Cornelis in order to provide multiple measurements of the system (Cornelis; Pg 18, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Canfarotta, Ward, and Cornelis teaches the thermistor according to claim 1. Cornelis further teaches wherein the sensing device comprises the thermistor and at least one additional thermistor (Cornelis; Pg 7, Lines 12-15; Cornelis teaches at least a second wire may be used as a sensor).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Canfarotta, Ward, and Cornelis teaches the thermistor according to claim 1. Cornelis further teaches wherein the sensing device is a biomimetic sensor for detecting the presence of biomolecules in a sample (Cornelis; Pg 2, Lines 7-15; Cornelis teaches detecting biomolecules).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Canfarotta and Ward teaches the thermistor of claim 1.
The combination of Canfarotta and Ward is silent on a method of detecting for the presence of a particle comprising the steps of: inserting the thermistor of the sensing device of claim 1 into a sample; monitoring a resistance of the functionalized nanoparticle coated thermistor to identify any change therein when inserted into the sample; and using any change in the resistance of the functionalized nanoparticle coated thermistor to determine the presence of a target molecule.
Cornelis teaches a method of detecting for the presence of a particle comprising the steps of: inserting the thermistor of claim 1 into a sample (Cornelis; Fig 4 and Pg 13, Lines 10-32; Cornelis teaches surrounding the thermistor with the fluid to be tested); monitoring the resistance of the functionalized nanoparticle coated thermistor to identify any change therein when inserted into the sample (Cornelis; Pg 13, Lines 1-9; Cornelis teaches measuring the electrical resistance of the wire over time); and using any change in the resistance of the functionalized nanoparticle coated thermistor to determine the presence of a target molecule (Cornelis; Pg 11, Line 19-Pg 12, Line 14; Cornelis teaches the changes to resistance is used to monitor the binding sites to determine if target molecule is binding there).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Canfarotta and Ward with method of Cornelis in order to provide measurements of special features of the bioparticles of interest (Cornelis; Pg 3, Lines 16-21).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Canfarotta, Ward, and Cornelis teaches the method according to claim 6. Cornelius further teaches wherein the target molecule is a biomolecule (Cornelis; Pg 2, Lines 7-15; Cornelis teaches detecting biomolecules).
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 ADAM S CLARKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (571)272-2258. 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.
/ADAM S CLARKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights