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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group, II, claims 30-31, 33-36, 39, 41 and 44-46 in the reply filed on 12-17-25 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 16, 20, 24, 30-31, 33-36, 39, 41, 44-48, 50, 56-57, 59-60 and 62-63 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 16, 20, 24, 47-48, 50, 56-57, 59-60 and 62-63 are withdrawn as being directed to non-elected inventions. Accordingly, claims 30-31, 33, 36-39, 41 and 44-46 are under examination.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The instant abstract utilized implied phrases see “Embodiments of the present disclosure pertain to”. This language should be avoided.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 30-31, 33-36 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singamaneni et al (US 2019/0360933).
Singamaneni et al discloses a plasmonic sensor comprising a nanostructure core such as gold nanorods or nanoparticles (e.g. para’s 0057-0058, 0064, 0065). Singamaneni et al discloses the gold nanorods or nanoparticles are nanotransducers (e.g. para 0055). Singamaneni et al discloses a plurality of biomolecules (binding agents) are immobilized on the gold nanorods and that the biomolecules can be immobilized to the nanorods with a linker (e.g. para’s 0064, 0066-0067, Fig. 1) Singameni et al discloses that the biomolecules can be DNA, RNA, proteins, peptides and antibodies (e.g. para 0066). Singamaneni et al discloses the biomolecules are capable binding to analytes (e.g. para’s 0055-0056, 0066). Singamaneni et al discloses a coating of a film which forms a coating around the binding agents (e.g. para’s 0021-0028, 0033). Singamaneni et al discloses that the linker can be PEG (polymer) (e.g. para 0067).
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 30-31, 33-35, 41 and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2018/0031549) in view of Messersmith et al (US 2012/0237605).
Chen et al discloses a multiplex LSPR sensor comprising an array of gold nanorods (e.g. para’s 0007-0008, Figs. 1 & 6). Chen et al discloses that the gold nanorods comprises a plurality of antibodies that are capable of binding to one or more analytes (e.g. para 0008, 0053, Figs. 1 & 6). Chen et al discloses that the antibodies can be linked to the surface by a bifunctional linker (e.g. para 0008, page 15, 2nd col). Chen et al discloses that the gold nanorod particles are within a microarray pattern on a substrate (e.g. para 0020, 0043, 0048).
Chen et al differs from the instant invention in failing to teach a coating agent, wherein the coating agent forms a coating around at least some of the analyte binding agents.
Messersmith et al discloses gold nanorods coated with PEG molecules and a polydopamine layer wherein the coating agent forms a coating around at least some of the antibodies and discloses that coating provides a layer around the plurality of antibodies (e.g. para’s 0055-0060, 0104, Figures 18-19). Messersmith et al discloses that this provides a chemical repertoire to form evolutionary modulatory metal nanoparticles which are multifunctional and multicomponent (e.g. para’s 0055-0056). Messersmith also teaches that this provides for enhanced colloidal stability (e.g. para 0104).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a coating such as taught by Messersmith et al on the gold nanorods of Chen et al because Messersmith et al teaches that this provides a chemical repertoire to form evolutionary modulatory metal nanoparticles which are multifunctional and multicomponent. Messersmith also teaches that this provides for enhanced colloidal stability. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success incorporating a coating such as taught by Messersmith et al on the gold nanorods of Chen et al.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al in view of Messersmith et al as applied to claims 30-31, 33-35, 41 and 44-46 above, and further in view of Singamaneni et al (US 2019/0360933).
See above for the teachings of Chen et al and Singamaneni et al.
Chen et al and Singamaneni et al differ from the instant invention in failing to teach the linker is a polymer.
Singamaneni et al teaches that it is known and conventional in the art to utilize a bifunctional PEG (polymer) to conjugate a biomolecule to a gold nanostructure (e.g. para’s 0065-0067).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a PEG linker such as taught by Singamaneni et al into the modified gold nanorod of Chen et al because Singamaneni et al shows that it is well known and conventional in the art. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success incorporating a PEG linker such as taught by Singamaneni et al onto the modified gold nanorod of Chen et al.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al in view of Messersmith et al as applied to claims 30-31, 33-35, 41 and 44-46 above, and further in view of Singamaneni et al (WO 2015/058046) (submitted in the IDS filed 08/24/22).
See above for the teachings of Chen et al and Singamaneni et al.
Chen et al and Singamaneni et al differ from the instant invention in failing to teach the coating agent is an organosiloxane polymer.
Singamaneni et al teaches that it is known and conventional in the art to coat a nanostructure with organosiloxane polymers (e.g. para’s 0009, 0054) Singamaneni et al discloses that this provides for the capability of using a readily available polymer base that can be formed at room temperature in a relative short time period (e.g. para’s 0078, 00104)..
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an organosiloxane coating such as taught by Singamaneni et al onto the modified nanostructures of Chen et al because Singamaneni et al teaches that this provides for the capability of using a readily available polymer base that can be formed at room temperature in a relative short time period. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success incorporating an organosiloxane coating such as taught by Singamaneni et al onto the modified nanostructures of Chen et al.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY W COUNTS whose telephone number is (571)272-0817. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00.
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, Gregory Emch can be reached at 571-272-8149. 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.
/GARY COUNTS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1678