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
The Amendment filed 07/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 8-21 are pending in the application and being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection of claims 10, 11, 14, 17, 18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The prior rejections under 35 U.SC 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8, 9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corres et al. (“Tapered optical fiber biosensor for the detection of anti-gliadin antibodies.” Sensors and Actuators B 135 (2008) 166-171) in view of Leung et at (“Effects of geometry on transmission and sensing potential of tapered fiber sensors.” Biosensors and Bioelectronics 21 (2006) 2202–2209), and if found necessary in view of Pereira (IgG anti-gliadin determination with an immunological, Anal Bioanal Chem (2010) 396:2921–2927), and as evidenced by Selle et al. (“Protein-phytate interactions in pig and poultry nutrition: A reappraisal,” Nutrition Research Reviews (2012), 25, 1–17).
Regarding claim 8, Corres teaches an optical fiber surface electric field screening apparatus, comprising an extractor (gliadin-functionalized taper 2 T2) (sections 5.1 and 5.2 on pp. 169-170, anti-gliadin antibody binds to the gliadin-functionalized T2, and thus gliadin-functionalized T2 extracts anti-gliadin antibody), wherein the extractor is provided with an optical fiber (taper 2 T2)(p. 167), the optical fiber is prepared to form, in the middle thereof, a thinned part (waist of T2) wherein a negative electric charge is generated on a surface of the thinned part (interpreted as an intended use. Section 2.1 on p. 167 teaches the taper fiber surface is negatively charged after the piranha treatment. Furthermore gliadin, like other proteins, has net negative electric charge above its the isoelectric point. The isoelectric point of gliadin is pH 6.45 as evidenced by Selle, p. 6, right column. Therefore, gliadin functionalized T2 has a negative when above pH 6.45) and wherein the thinned part is configured to attract and extract a diseased cell or bacterium having a surface with a positive electric charge (interpreted as a functional limitation.
A diseased cell or bacterium is not positively recited. At above pH 6.45 gliadin has net negatively charge surface, thus capable of attracting and extracting a positively charged structure including a disease cell or bacterium having a surface with a positive electric charge. Furthermore, the antigen and antibody binding depends on electrostatic interaction, and thus at above pH 6.45, a negative charge of the gliadin protein bind to a positive charge of anti-gliadin antibody, and the binding enables extraction.
If it is determined that it is necessary to show that the gliadin-functionalized T2 taught by Corres interacts with anti-gliadin antibody at pH 6.45, then the following the obviousness rejection applies. Corres does not explicitly teach that the gliadin-functionalized T2 binds to gliadin-functionalize T2 takes place at above pH 6.45.
However, Pereira teaches an immunosensor for detecting anti-gliadin antibody. Pereira teaches that the anti-gliadin antibody detection step (immunosensor interacts with serum is sample in pH 7.2 buffer) involves anti-gliadin antibody binding to the immunosensor take place in the pH 7.2 as shown in measurement procedure on p.2924. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted pH that Corres employs to conduct the anti-gliadin antibody detection with pH 7.2 because one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized the pH 7.2 would result in the predictable result of providing a pH that is appropriate for anti-gliadin antibody interacting with the sensor for anti-gliadin antibody detection.
In addition, it is found that the teachings of Corres do not teach the limitation “configured to attract and extract a diseased cell or bacterium having a surface with a positive electric charge,” Leung teaches a taper sensor functionalized with anti-E. coli antibody for binding of pathogen E. coli cell as part of the detection mechanism (Leung, abstract and right column 2202). Although E. coli does not have a positive charge, Leung’s teaching demonstrates that an optical fiber functionalized with antibody specific to a cell or bacterium is configures to attract and extract the specific cell or bacterium. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical taper with the antibody specific to a cell or bacterium with a positive electric charge in order to detect the specific cell or bacterium with a reasonable expectation of success).
Corres teaches that the thinned part has diameter of 10 mm and thus fails to teach the thinned part (waist of T2) having a diameter of 6 mm or less.
However, Leung teaches tapered fiber sensors for detection of pathogen E. coli. Leung further teaches the thinned part of the tapered fiber sensor has a diameter of 5.5 mm (Leung, abstract). Leung further teaches that a 5.5 mm taper shows larger sensitivity compared to a larger diameter, 6.25 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of the thinned part of the taper taught by Corres to be 5.5 mm in order to have a higher sensitivity sensor with a reasonable expectation of success (Leung, abstract) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Regarding claim 9, modified Corres teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 8. Corres further teaches the optical fiber surface electric field screening apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the thinned part is surrounded with a layer of organic material (Section 2.1 on p. 167, gliadin, a protein, is crosslinked on to the taper surface).
Regarding claim 15, modified Corres teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 8. Corres further teaches wherein the optical fiber (T2) is a single-mode optical fiber (Section 2, bottom left on p. 167).
Regarding to claim 16, modified Corres teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 9, wherein T2 meets the instant claim extractor. Corres further teaches wherein the optical fiber (T2) is a single-mode optical fiber (Section 2, bottom left on p. 167).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corres et al. (Tapered optical fiber biosensor for the detection of anti-gliadin antibodies.” Sensors and Actuators B 135 (2008) 166-171) in view of Leung et at (“Effects of geometry on transmission and sensing potential of tapered fiber sensors.” Biosensors and Bioelectronics 21 (2006) 2202–2209), and if found necessary further in view of Pereira (IgG anti-gliadin determination with an immunological, Anal Bioanal Chem (2010) 396:2921–2927), and as evidenced by Selle et al. (“Protein-phytate interactions in pig and poultry nutrition: A reappraisal,” Nutrition Research Reviews (2012), 25, 1–17) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Barshad et al. (US 5416579 A).
Regarding claim 10, modified Corres teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 8. Corres discloses the apparatus is an anti-gliadin antibody (AGA) biosensor useful for determining AGA concentration (“Abstract” on p. 166). Corres further teaches the AGA concentration is detected by the change in transmitted power upon AGA binding to the gliadin-functionalized T2 (Fig. 8). Corres further teaches monitoring of the change in transmitted power is achieved by having a first end of the optical fiber (T2) connected to a laser (a monochromatic light source), and a second end of the optical fiber (T2) connected to a photodetector. (Fig. 3, section 3 on p. 168)
Modified Corres fails to teach the second end of the optical fiber (T2) is connected to a spectrograph.
However, Barshad teaches a method of analyzing cell concentration using an optical fiber. Barshad teaches the method employs a monochromatic input light source, a laser, with a wavelength that matches the absorbance of the fluid to analyzed. Barshad further teaches when such a match is available, only a photodetector is required to measure the intensity of the output beam, instead of a spectrometer; however, a system with spectrometer is preferred, because a spectrometer allows the system to have the flexibility to perform analysis at different wavelengths to accommodate other sample types and component changes (col. 3, lines 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photodetector of the apparatus taught by Corres to be a spectrometer taught by Barshad in order to increase the flexibility of the apparatus to allow for analysis at different wavelengths to accommodate other samples types and component changes with a reasonable expectation of success (Barshad, col. 3, lines 20-32 ) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Regarding claim 17, modified Corres in view of Barshad teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 10. Corres further teaches wherein the optical fiber (T2) is a single-mode optical fiber (Section 2, bottom left on p. 167).
Claims 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corres et al. (“Tapered optical fiber biosensor for the detection of anti-gliadin antibodies.” Sensors and Actuators B 135 (2008) 166-171.) in view of Leung et at (“Effects of geometry on transmission and sensing potential of tapered fiber sensors.” Biosensors and Bioelectronics 21 (2006) 2202–2209), and if found necessary further in view of Pereira (IgG anti-gliadin determination with an immunological, Anal Bioanal Chem (2010) 396:2921–2927), and as evidenced by Selle et al. (“Protein-phytate interactions in pig and poultry nutrition: A reappraisal,” Nutrition Research Reviews (2012), 25, 1–17) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Guan et al. (“Detection of molecular binding via charge-induced mechanical response of optical fibers.” Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, 4375-4381).
Regarding claim 12, modified Corres teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 8. Corres further teaches that the optical fiber surface electric field screening apparatus is an anti-gliadin antibody detection apparatus constructed with a gliadin protein-functionalized optical fiber (“Abstract” on p. 166).
Modified Corres fails to teach wherein the apparatus further comprises an electric field generating apparatus cooperating with the extractor, the electric field generating apparatus is provided with a high-voltage power supply, a positive electrode of the high-voltage power supply is electrically connected to a conductive structure to power the conductive structure to generate an electric field, and then the electric field is applied to the thinned part of the extractor.
However, Guan also teaches an antibody detection system (Fig. 1a) comprises an optical fiber with a protein-functionalized tip as the detection probe (Fig. 1a and “Detection principle” on pp. 4375-4376). Guan teaches the system comprises a AC power source and two platinum electrodes (an electric field generating apparatus) cooperating with the protein-functionalized optical fiber (extractor) (Fig. 1a, “Surface functionalization of optical fibers” on p. 4380), one of the platinum electrodes (positive electrode of the high-voltage power supply) is electrically connected to the second platinum electrode (conductive structure) to power the second platinum electrode (conductive structure) to generate an electric field, and then the electric field is applied to the optical fiber tip (thinned part of the extractor) (Fig. 1a and “Detection principle” on pp. 4375-4376). Guan further teaches the system comprises a light source, a microscope and a CCD camera (Fig. 1), and the system detects the surface charge of the fiber tip by converting the charge into an optical signal, which does not decrease with the mass of the molecule, making it attractive for studying small molecules, and biochemical interactions that involve small mass changes (“Introduction” on p. 4375).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anti-gliadin antibody detection apparatus taught by Corres with the addition of an AC power source, two platinum electrodes, a light source, a microscope and a CCD camera of the antibody detection system taught by Guan to provide a system suitable for detecting small biomolecules with a reasonable expectation of success (Guan, “Introduction” on p. 4375) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teachings of modified Corres as modified by Guan would yield the apparatus of claim 8 further comprises an electric field generating apparatus cooperating with the extractor, the electric field generating apparatus is provided with a high-voltage power supply, a positive electrode of the high-voltage power supply is electrically connected to a conductive structure to power the conductive structure to generate an electric field, and then the electric field is applied to the thinned part of the extractor.
Regarding claim 13, modified Corres teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 9. Corres further teaches that the optical fiber surface electric field screening apparatus is an anti-gliadin antibody detection apparatus constructed with a gliadin protein-functionalized optical fiber (“Abstract” on p. 166).
Modified Corres fails to teach wherein the apparatus further comprises an electric field generating apparatus cooperating with the extractor, the electric field generating apparatus is provided with a high-voltage power supply, a positive electrode of the high-voltage power supply is electrically connected to a conductive structure to power the conductive structure to generate an electric field, and then the electric field is applied to the thinned part of the extractor.
However, Guan also teaches an antibody detection system (Fig. 1a) comprises an optical fiber with a protein-functionalized tip as the detection probe (Fig. 1a and “Detection principle” on pp. 4375-4376). Guan teaches the system comprises a AC power source and two platinum electrodes (an electric field generating apparatus) cooperating with the protein-functionalized optical fiber (extractor) (Fig. 1a, “Surface functionalization of optical fibers” on p. 4380), one of the platinum electrodes (positive electrode of the high-voltage power supply) is electrically connected to the second platinum electrode (conductive structure) to power the second platinum electrode (conductive structure) to generate an electric field, and then the electric field is applied to the optical fiber tip (thinned part of the extractor) (Fig. 1a and “Detection principle” on pp. 4375-4376). Guan further teaches the system comprises a light source, a microscope and a CCD camera (Fig. 1), and the system detects the surface charge of the fiber tip by converting the charge into an optical signal, which does not decrease with the mass of the molecule, making it attractive for studying small molecules, and biochemical interactions that involve small mass changes (“Introduction” on p. 4375).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anti-gliadin antibody detection apparatus taught by Corres with the addition of an AC power source, two platinum electrodes, a light source, a microscope and a CCD camera of the antibody detection system taught by Guan to provide a system suitable for detecting small biomolecules with a reasonable expectation of success (Guan, “Introduction” on p. 4375) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teachings of modified Corres as modified by Guan would yield the apparatus of claim 9 further comprises an electric field generating apparatus cooperating with the extractor, the electric field generating apparatus is provided with a high-voltage power supply, a positive electrode of the high-voltage power supply is electrically connected to a conductive structure to power the conductive structure to generate an electric field, and then the electric field is applied to the thinned part of the extractor.
Regarding claim 19, modified Corres teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 12. Corres further teaches, wherein the optical fiber (T2) is a single-mode optical fiber (Section 2, bottom left on p. 167).
Regarding claim 20, modified Corres teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 13. Corres further teaches, wherein the optical fiber (T2) is a single-mode optical fiber (Section 2, bottom left on p. 167).
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corres (“Tapered optical fiber biosensor for the detection of anti-gliadin antibodies.” Sensors and Actuators B 135 (2008) 166-171) in view of Leung et at (“Effects of geometry on transmission and sensing potential of tapered fiber sensors.” Biosensors and Bioelectronics 21 (2006) 2202–2209), and if found necessary further in view of Pereira (IgG anti-gliadin determination with an immunological, Anal Bioanal Chem (2010) 396:2921–2927), and as evidenced by Selle et al. (“Protein-phytate interactions in pig and poultry nutrition: A reappraisal,” Nutrition Research Reviews (2012), 25, 1–17) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Barshad et al. (US 5416579 A), and further in view of Guan et al (“Detection of molecular binding via charge-induced mechanical response of optical fibers.” Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, 4375-4381).
Regarding claim 14, modified Corres teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 10. Corres further teaches that the optical fiber surface electric field screening apparatus is an anti-gliadin antibody detection apparatus constructed with a gliadin protein-functionalized optical fiber. Corres further discloses one end of the optical fiber is connected to a light source.
Modified Corres fails to teach wherein the apparatus further comprises an electric field generating apparatus cooperating with the extractor, the electric field generating apparatus is provided with a high-voltage power supply, a positive electrode of the high-voltage power supply is electrically connected to a conductive structure to power the conductive structure to generate an electric field, and then the electric field is applied to the thinned part of the extractor.
However, Guan also teaches an antibody detection system (Fig. 1a) comprises an optical fiber with a protein-functionalized tip as the detection probe (Fig. 1a and “Detection principle” on pp. 4375-4376). Guan teaches the system comprises a AC power source and two platinum electrodes (an electric field generating apparatus) cooperating with the protein-functionalized optical fiber (extractor) (Fig. 1a, “Surface functionalization of optical fibers” on p. 4380), one of the platinum electrodes (positive electrode of the high-voltage power supply) is electrically connected to the second platinum electrode (conductive structure) to power the second platinum electrode (conductive structure) to generate an electric field, and then the electric field is applied to the optical fiber tip (thinned part of the extractor) (Fig. 1a and “Detection principle” on pp. 4375-4376). Guan further teaches the system comprises a light source, a microscope and a CCD camera (Fig. 1), and the system detects the surface charge of the fiber tip by converting the charge into an optical signal, which does not decrease with the mass of the molecule, making it attractive for studying small molecules, and biochemical interactions that involve small mass changes (“Introduction” on p. 4375).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anti-gliadin antibody detection apparatus taught by Corres with the addition of an AC power source, two platinum electrodes, a microscope and a CCD camera of the antibody detection system taught by Guan to provide a system suitable for detecting small biomolecules with a reasonable expectation of success (Guan, “Introduction” on p. 4375) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teachings of modified Corres as modified by Guan would yield the apparatus of claim 10 further comprises an electric field generating apparatus cooperating with the extractor, the electric field generating apparatus is provided with a high-voltage power supply, a positive electrode of the high-voltage power supply is electrically connected to a conductive structure to power the conductive structure to generate an electric field, and then the electric field is applied to the thinned part of the extractor.
Regarding claim 21, modified Corres teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 14. Corres further teaches wherein the optical fiber (T2) is a single-mode optical fiber (Section 2, bottom left on p. 167).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corres et al. (“Tapered optical fiber biosensor for the detection of anti-gliadin antibodies.” Sensors and Actuators B 135 (2008) 166-171) in view of Leung et at (“Effects of geometry on transmission and sensing potential of tapered fiber sensors.” Biosensors and Bioelectronics 21 (2006) 2202–2209), and if found necessary further in view of Pereira (IgG anti-gliadin determination with an immunological, Anal Bioanal Chem (2010) 396:2921–2927), and as evidenced by Selle et al. (“Protein-phytate interactions in pig and poultry nutrition: A reappraisal,” Nutrition Research Reviews (2012), 25, 1–17) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Barshad et al. (US 5416579 A), and further in view of Islam (US 20150305627 A1) .
Regarding claim 11, modified Corres teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 10. Corres discloses the apparatus is an anti-gliadin antibody (AGA) biosensor useful for determining AGA concentration (“Abstract” on p. 166). Corres further teaches the AGA concentration is detected by the change in transmitted power at 1310 nm upon AGA binding to the gliadin-functionalized T2 (Fig. 8). Modified Corres teaches the monitoring of the change in transmitted power is achieved by having the first end of the optical fiber (T2) connected to a laser diode (light source)(Corres, section 3 on p. 168), and the second end of the optical fiber (T2) connected to a spectrometer as discussed above.
Modified Corres fails to teach wherein the light source is a super-luminescent diode.
However, Islam teaches an imaging system based on light transmission measurement in the vicinity of 1310 nm (abstract and para. 0045). Islam further teaches that either a laser diode and super-luminescent can be used as a light source. Islam further discloses the advantage of using a super-luminescent diode rather than a laser diode is that the broader bandwidth provided by the super-luminescent diode helps avoid the potential production of laser speckle that can cause interference patterns due to light's scattering (para. 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser diode taught by modified Corres with a super-luminescent diode taught by Islam in order to have a boarder bandwidth to help avoid the potential of interference pattern caused by light scattering with a reasonable expectation of success (Islam, para. 0045) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Regarding claim 18, modified Corres in further view of Islam teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 11. Corres further teaches wherein the optical fiber (T2) is a single-mode optical fiber (Section 2, bottom left on p. 167).
An alternate rejection of Claim 8
Claim 8 and claims 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corres et al. (“Tapered optical fiber biosensor for the detection of anti-gliadin antibodies.” Sensors and Actuators B 135 (2008) 166-171) in view of Leung et at (“Effects of geometry on transmission and sensing potential of tapered fiber sensors.” Biosensors and Bioelectronics 21 (2006) 2202–2209) Research Reviews (2012), 25, 1–17), and further in view of Guan et al. (“Detection of molecular binding via charge-induced mechanical response of optical fibers.” Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, 4375-4381
Regarding claim 8, Corres teaches an optical fiber surface electric field screening apparatus, comprising an extractor (gliadin-functionalized taper 2 T2) (sections 5.1 and 5.2 on pp. 169-170, anti-gliadin antibody binds to the gliadin-functionalized T2, and thus gliadin-functionalized T2 extracts anti-gliadin antibody), wherein the extractor is provided with an optical fiber (taper 2 T2)(p. 167), the optical fiber is prepared to form, in the middle thereof, a thinned part (waist of T2), wherein a negative electric charge is generated on a surface of the thinned part (interpreted as an intended use. Section 2.1 on p. 167 teaches the taper fiber surface is negatively charged after the piranha treatment).
Corres teaches that the thinned part has diameter of 10 mm and thus fails to teaches the thinned part (waist of T2) having a diameter of 6 mm or less.
However, Leung teaches tapered fiber sensors for detection of pathogen E. coli. Leung further teaches the thinned part of the tapered fiber sensor has a diameter of 5.5 mm (Leung, abstract). Leung further teaches that a 5.5 mm taper shows larger sensitivity compared to a larger diameter, 6.25 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of the thinned part of the taper taught by Corres to be 5.5 mm in order to have a higher sensitivity sensor with a reasonable expectation of success (Leung, abstract) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
In addition, Corres fails to teach wherein the thinned part is configured to attract and extract a diseased cell or bacterium having a surface with a positive electric charge.
However, Corres further teaches that the optical fiber surface electric field screening apparatus is an anti-gliadin antibody detection apparatus constructed with a gliadin protein-functionalized optical fiber (Corres, “Abstract” on p. 166). Guan also teaches an antibody detection system (Guan, Fig. 1a) comprises an optical fiber with a protein-functionalized tip as the detection probe (Guan, Fig. 1a and “Detection principle” on pp. 4375-4376). Guan teaches the system comprises a AC power source and two platinum electrodes (an electric field generating apparatus) cooperating with the protein-functionalized optical fiber (extractor) (Guan, Fig. 1a, “Surface functionalization of optical fibers” on p. 4380), one of the platinum electrodes (positive electrode of the high-voltage power supply) is electrically connected to the second platinum electrode (conductive structure) to power the second platinum electrode (conductive structure) to generate an electric field, and then the electric field is applied to the optical fiber tip (thinned part of the extractor) (Fig. 1a and “Detection principle” on pp. 4375-4376). Guan further teaches the system comprises a light source, a microscope and a CCD camera (Fig. 1), and the system detects the surface charge of the fiber tip by converting the charge into an optical signal, which does not decrease with the mass of the molecule, making it attractive for studying small molecules, and biochemical interactions that involve small mass changes (“Introduction” on p. 4375).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anti-gliadin antibody detection apparatus taught by modified Corres with the addition of an AC power source, two platinum electrodes, a light source, a microscope and a CCD camera of the antibody detection system taught by Guan to provide a system suitable for detecting small biomolecules with a reasonable expectation of success (Guan, “Introduction” on p. 4375) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teachings of Corres in view of Leung as modified by Guan would yield the apparatus further comprises an electric field generating apparatus cooperating with the extractor, the electric field generating apparatus is provided with a high-voltage power supply, a positive electrode of the high-voltage power supply is electrically connected to a conductive structure to power the conductive structure to generate an electric field, and then the electric field is applied to the thinned part of the extractor, and thus capable of generating a negative electric charge on a surface of the thinned part, which in turn is configured to attract and extract to attract and extract a diseased cell or bacterium having a surface with a positive electric charge.
Claims 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 & 20 are rejected the same way as shown above rejection in the rejection, using Corres et al. (“Tapered optical fiber biosensor for the detection of anti-gliadin antibodies.” Sensors and Actuators B 135 (2008) 166-171) in view of Leung et at (“Effects of geometry on transmission and sensing potential of tapered fiber sensors.” Biosensors and Bioelectronics 21 (2006) 2202–2209), and if found necessary further in view of Pereira (IgG anti-gliadin determination with an immunological, Anal Bioanal Chem (2010) 396:2921–2927), and as evidenced by Selle et al. (“Protein-phytate interactions in pig and poultry nutrition: A reappraisal,” Nutrition Research Reviews (2012), 25, 1–17), with instead using the instant rejection of Corres et al. (“Tapered optical fiber biosensor for the detection of anti-gliadin antibodies.” Sensors and Actuators B 135 (2008) 166-171) in view of Leung et at (“Effects of geometry on transmission and sensing potential of tapered fiber sensors.” Biosensors and Bioelectronics 21 (2006) 2202–2209) Research Reviews (2012), 25, 1–17), and further in view of Guan et al. (“Detection of molecular binding via charge-induced mechanical response of optical fibers.” Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, 4375-4381, as the base rejection, since these claims use the singular references of Corres and Guan to teach of their additional claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 07/08/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 04/18/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pp. 5-6 that Corres fails to teach an optical fiber having a thinned part having a diameter of 6 um or less and wherein the thinned part is configured to attract and extract a diseased cell or bacterium having a surface with a positive electric charge.
While the examiner agrees that Corres fails to teach the optical fiber having a thinned part having a diameter of 6 mm or less, the examiner respectfully disagrees Corres fail to the thinned part is configured to attract and extract a diseased cell or bacterium having a surface with a positive electric charge. It is first noted that a diseased cell or bacterium is not positively recited, and thus not part the invention. Claim 8 recites “an optical fiber surface electric field screening apparatus, comprising an extractor, wherein the extractor is provided with an optical fiber, wherein the optical fiber is prepared to form, in the middle thereof, a thinned part …. wherein a negative electric charge is generated on a surface of the thinned part.” When a negative electric charge is generated in the thinned part under the appropriate conditions such as pH, the thinned part is configured to attract and extract a structure with a positive electric charge through charge-charge interaction.
Corres teaches the thinned part is modified with gliadin, which has an isoelectric point of pH 6.45 as evidenced by Selle, and thus above pH 6.45, there is net negative charge on the gliadin that is configured to attract and extract anti-gliadin antibody through electrostatic interaction, which reads on what is claimed as the negative charge would attract positive charges. As independent Claim 8 is drawn towards and apparatus, actually attracting and extracting a diseased cell or bacterium is intended use for the claimed apparatus, but is not limiting in the claim since apparatus claims only cover the apparatus/structure itself, and not the intended use thereof. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
With respect to the other part of the limitation applicant argues about, again, “the optical fiber having a thinned part having a diameter of 6 mm or less,” is newly recited. The Leung reference teaches this as shown in the rejection above in combination with Corres.
Since the claims were amended, and Corres does fail to teach one of the newly amended limitations, “a thinned part having a diameter of 6 mm or less,” the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection of 04/18/2025 is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Leung (and if necessary, in further view of Pereira) as evidence by Selle, and alternatively a new ground of rejection is made in view of Leung in further Guan.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-7, filed 07/08/2022, with respect to the rejections of claims 10-14 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Leung (if necessary, in further view of Pereira) as evidence by Selle, as necessitated by amendments made 07/08/2025.
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.
/M.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights