Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 17/962,198

LIGHT-EMITTING NANOPARTICLES, CELL DETECTION METHOD USING SAME, ANIMAL TREATMENT METHOD, MEDICAL DEVICE, CELL VISUALIZATION METHOD, AND METHOD FOR REDUCING INJURY TO CELL

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 07, 2022
Priority
Mar 28, 2016 — JP 2016-064240 +2 more
Examiner
DICKINSON, PAUL W
Art Unit
1618
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
National Institute Of Technology
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allowance Rate
661 granted / 1047 resolved
+3.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1086
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
§112
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1047 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/13/20256 has been entered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objects are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. New Grounds of Rejection 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 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. It’s unclear what it means for a organic light-emitting dye to be a fluorescein-based dye molecule and in what way the dye is “based” on fluorescein. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated over WO2008073856A2 to Bhatia. Bhatia teaches a luminescent (light-emitting) nanoparticle (paragraphs 16-18; 104, 127, 129, 152, claims) comprising a matrix material, a light-emitting substance (paragraph 152) dispersed in the matrix material, and a surfactant dispersed in the matrix material together with the light-emitting substance, wherein the matrix material may comprise calcium phosphate (Ca being a cationic element; and P and O being an anionic element) (paragraphs 306) and wherein the light-emitting nanoparticle has an average particle diameter of 50 nm to 500 nm or 50 nm to 450 nm (paragraph 78), wherein the light emitting substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of an organic light-emitting dye, and a rare earth ion, wherein the organic light-emitting dye is a fluorescein-based dye molecule, wherein a contained concentration of the organic light-emitting dye is 1 mmol percent to 6 mol precent with respect to Ca that is a cationic element of the matrix material, wherein a contained concentration of the organic light-emitting dye is 1 mmol% to 6 mol% (paragraph 48) wherein the rare earth ion is trivalent Eu (paragraph 148),. Regarding the recitation “wherein an excitation wavelength and a light emission wavelength are in the visible light region,” “used for” and “used as” in claims 13 and 15-16, respectively, a composition cannot be separated from its properties. As the light-emitting nanoparticle of Bhatia is the same as the present light-emitting nanoparticle, it must have the same characteristics, that is, exhibit an excitation wavelength and a light emission wavelength are in the visible light region, and further as the composition of Bhatia is structurally identical to the composition of the present claims, it must be fully capable of being used for the same intended uses as the present claims, that is used for bioimaging and used as a therapeutic agent and which supports a drug at a pore of a surface. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that "just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel." Id. See also MPEP § 2112.01 with regard to inherency and product-by-process claims and MPEP § 2141.02 with regard to inherency and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. MPEP 2112, I. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W DICKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM to 7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hartley can be reached on 571-272-0616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PAUL W DICKINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1618
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 9 earlier events
Jul 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112
Feb 05, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 14, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112
Jul 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 14, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12734255
RADIOPAQUE POLYMERS WITH ENHANCED RADIOPACITY
7y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12734257
TERAGNOSTIC METHOD FOR CANCER PATIENTS
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12708606
LITHIUM FLUORIDE NANOPARTICLES FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHONDROCYTES IN OSTEOARTHRITIS
3y 4m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12673926
NOVEL TETRAZINE COMPOUNDS FOR IN VIVO IMAGING
5y 1m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12649001
COMPLEXES FOR DELIVERY OF ANTIGENIC PEPTIDES
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+9.5%)
3y 3m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1047 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month