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 February 13th, 2026 is acknowledged. Regarding the Office Action mailed November 18th, 2025:
The submission of a sequence listing and all required amendments related to nucleic acid sequence disclosures are acknowledged.
The rejections set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments, with the exception of the rejection of claim 7 that relates to the electrochemical signal detector. This is modified as necessitated by amendment and found below.
The rejection set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The rejections set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claims 9 and 10.
Maintained, modified, or new rejections are set forth below, as necessitated by the amendments. Responses to arguments, if necessary, follow their respective rejection sections.
Claim Summary
Claims 1-4, and 6-8 have been amended. Claims 5, and 9-10 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-29 are pending. Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention/species. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are under examination and discussed in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - New and Modified - Necessitated by Amendment
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a conductive substrate provided to cover the opening of the reactor” and “a working electrode disposed on the conductive substrate”. It is unclear from these recitations how a conductive substrate covers the opening of the reactor when the working electrode is later described as being disposed on the conductive substrate. “Disposed on” generally means the working electrode is on top of the conductive substrate. However, if the working electrode is on top of the conductive substrate, it is unclear how the conductive substrate itself covers the opening of the reactor. The working electrode would be between the conductive substrate and the reactor. This is not further clarified in the instant specification. On page 7, paragraph 1 and page 21, paragraph 3, the conductive substrate is described as including a working electrode. On page 7, paragraph 3 and page 22, paragraph 1, the conductive substrate is described as either “the conductive substrate may be a working electrode containing ITO” or “the conductive substrate is a working electrode containing ITO”. On page 30, paragraph 2, a working electrode is bonded to an ITO substrate after it is adhered to a reactor. However, none of these descriptions serve as limiting definitions for the configuration of the conductive substrate and working electrode. Turning to the figures, Figures 1 and 9 do show two-layer constructs, but it is unclear from both the labeling on the figures and the figure descriptions in the specification what order the conductive substrate and working electrode are intended to appear. These also do not serve as limiting examples for the configuration of the conductive substrate and working electrode. The above lack of clarity is further complicated by the conflicting descriptions of the conductive substrate and the working electrode being separate, or the conductive substrate being a working electrode, as seen in the above specification citations. Therefore, claim 1 is found indefinite. Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are also found indefinite for their dependence on claim 1 and not further clarifying the identified issue. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “a conductive substrate provided to cover the opening of the reactor” and “a working electrode disposed on the conductive substrate” will be interpreted as a two-layer construct capable of being both a conductive substrate and a working electrode that cover the opening of the reactor.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the electrochemical signal detector is selected from the group consisting of a differential pulse voltammeter (DPV), an anodic stripping voltammetry (ASV), a chronoamperometry (CA), a cyclic voltammetry, a square wave voltammetry (SWV), and an impedance meter.” It is unclear from this recitation whether an electrochemical signal detector is being claimed or whether a form of electrochemical signal measurement technique is being claimed. For example, “square wave voltammetry” is an electrochemical signal measurement technique, not an electrochemical signal detector. However, “differential pulse voltammeter” could be interpreted as a detector, rather than a measurement technique. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the recitation of “wherein the electrochemical signal detector is selected from the group consisting of a differential pulse voltammeter (DPV), an anodic stripping voltammetry (ASV), a chronoamperometry (CA), a cyclic voltammetry, a square wave voltammetry (SWV), and an impedance meter” is interpreted as wherein the electrochemical signal detector uses any one or more measurement techniques of a differential pulse voltammeter (DPV), an anodic stripping voltammetry (ASV), a chronoamperometry (CA), a cyclic voltammetry, a square wave voltammetry (SWV), and an impedance meter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13th, 2026 related to the previous rejection of claim 7 with respect to the electrochemical signal measuring part have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states the amendment to claim 7 and follows this by stating that it is sufficiently clear and definite to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter (Page 13 of the Remarks filed February 13th, 2026).
In response to these arguments, it is noted that while the Applicant has clarified that the electrochemical signal measuring part is an electrochemical signal detector, the same issues related to whether the recited list are intended to be detectors or electrochemical signal measurement techniques remain. This has been noted in the above rejection. Therefore, the argument is not found persuasive.
As noted above, all other 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn given the presented amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - New - Necessitated by Amendment
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This is a new matter rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a working electrode disposed on the conductive substrate and controlling an electron balance generated from the reference electrode and the working electrode”. As written, this limitation reads that the working electrode is on the top surface of the conductive substrate, and further that the working electrode is controlling the electron balance generated from the reference electrode and the working electrode. This limitation is not described in the specification such that the Applicant has possession of the claimed invention. Turning to the specification, the description appears to indicate that the conductive substrate is on top of the working electrode. This is most clearly described on Page 30, paragraph 2, and is also seen in both Figure 1 and Figure 9. The specification further describes the counter electrode as controlling an electron balance generated from the reference electrode and the working electrode. This is described on Page 4, paragraph 2; Page 7, paragraph 1; Page 15, paragraph 4 to Page 16, paragraph 1; and Page 21, paragraph 4. Given these descriptions, the currently claimed “a working electrode disposed on the conductive substrate and controlling an electron balance generated from the reference electrode and the working electrode” is considered new matter that is not adequately described in the instant disclosure. Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are also rejected here for their dependence on claim 1, and therefore also encompassing the identified new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Modified - Necessitated by Amendment
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 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (Rapid and ultrasensitive electrochemical detection of circulating tumor DNA by hybridization on the network of gold-coated magnetic nanoparticles, Chemical Science, March 2021, 12, 5196-5201 plus Supporting Information; previously cited), in view of Salgueiriño-Maceira (Bifunctional Gold-Coated Magnetic Silica Spheres, Chemistry of Materials, May 2006, 18, 2701-2706; previously cited), Bendale (US20030086238A1), Cai (One-Pot Polymerase Chain Reaction with Gold Nanoparticles for Rapid and Ultrasensitive DNA Detection, Nano Research, July 2010, 3, 557-563; previously cited), Shen (Polymerase chain reaction of nanoparticle-bound primers, Biophysical Chemistry, May 2005, 115, 63-66) and Polansky (US20040023207A1; previously cited).
Regarding instant claim 1, Chen teaches detecting target nucleic acids using magnetic nanoparticles comprising: a reactor comprising an aqueous solution inside and an opening on one side (Figure 1A); at least one magnetic nanoparticle dispersed in the aqueous solution (Figure 1A); a conductive substrate provided to cover the opening of the reactor (Figure 1A); a magnet disposed in contact with the conductive substrate outside the reactor for applying a magnetic field to the reactor (Figure 1A); and an electrochemical signal detector comprising: a counter electrode and a reference electrode disposed inside the reactor (Figure 1A; Page 5197, column 2, paragraph 2; Supporting Information, Page S2, under Apparatus); and a working electrode that is also the conductive substrate and controls an electron balance generated from the reference electrode and the working electrode (Figure 1A; Page 5197, column 2, paragraph 2; Supporting Information, Page S2, under Apparatus), wherein the at least one magnetic nanoparticle comprises a shell made of gold and provided to surround the core (Page 5196, column 2, paragraph 1: “gold-coated magnetic nanoparticles (Au@MNPs)”; Page 5197, column 1, paragraph 2).
Chen does not expressly teach that the core of the magnetic nanoparticle is made of iron oxide.
Salgueiriño-Maceira, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the core of a magnetic nanoparticle can be made of iron oxide (Page 2702, column 1, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the nanoparticle of Chen with the iron oxide magnetic nanoparticle core of Salgueiriño-Maceira. Since both Chen and Salgueiriño-Maceira are in the same field of endeavor (e.g. sensing systems based on magnetic nanoparticles), one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the two teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, since both teach on magnetic nanoparticles coated with gold, they are reasonably in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it amounts to substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)). Furthermore, the magnetic properties of iron oxide allow for movement that can be controlled with an external magnetic field (Salgueiriño-Maceira, Page 2702, column 1, paragraph 2).
As noted above, Chen teaches a working electrode that is also the conductive substrate (Figure 1A; Page 5197, column 2, paragraph 2; Supporting Information, Page S2, under Apparatus). Chen does not teach that a working electrode is disposed on the conductive substrate.
Bendale, in a reasonably pertinent field, teaches on a two-layer electrode capable of being both a conductive substrate and a working electrode (Page 2, paragraph [0021]; Page 4, paragraph [0052]; Figure 1; see 112(b) interpretation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the detection via Chen with the electrode of Bendale. Since Bendale teaches on layered electrodes, which is reasonably pertinent to the electrodes of Chen, one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the two teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it amounts to substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)). Furthermore, the electrode design balances maximizing carbon and minimizing internal resistance, and as its further object maximizing “effectivity” and “utilization” of the carbon of the electrode (Page 4, paragraph [0059]).
Chen teaches that a probe is attached to the surface of the magnetic nanoparticle (Page 5197, column 1, paragraph 2). Chen does not expressly teach that this probe may be a forward or reverse primer.
Cai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches on functionalizing the surface of gold nanoparticles with primers (Page 558, column 1, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the probe of Chen with the primer of Cai. Since both Chen and Cai are in the same field of endeavor (e.g. sensing systems based on nanoparticles), one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the two teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it amounts to substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
Chen does not teach a pair of primers comprising: a reverse primer attached to a surface of the at least one magnetic nanoparticle and a forward primer dispersed in the aqueous solution; or a forward primer attached to a surface of the at least one magnetic nanoparticle and a reverse primer dispersed in the aqueous solution. Chen also does not teach wherein the reverse primer or the forward primer attached to the surface of the at least one magnetic nanoparticle is configured for sequence-specific binding and amplification of the target nucleic acids in a polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
Shen, in a reasonably pertinent field, teaches a forward primer attached to a surface of the at least one nanoparticle and a reverse primer dispersed in an aqueous solution (Page 64, column 1, paragraph 3 to column 2, paragraph 1), the forward primer configured for sequence-specific binding and amplification of the target nucleic acids in a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Page 63, column 2, paragraph 2 to Page 64, column 1, paragraph 1; Figure 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the detection via Chen with the primer aspects of Shen. Since Shen teaches on using nanoparticles for PCR, which is reasonably pertinent to the detection taught in Chen, one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the two teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it amounts to substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
Chen does not teach that these components are in a kit.
Polansky, in a reasonably pertinent field, teaches on components within a kit (Page 43, paragraph [0919]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the components of Chen with the kit of Polansky. Since Polansky teaches on the benefits of commercial kits, which is reasonably pertinent to adding the components of Chen to a kit, one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the two teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “[w]ell known advantages of commercial kits include convenience and reproducibility due to manufacturing standardization, quality control and validation procedures” (Polansky, Page 43, paragraph [0919]).
It is noted that the claim 1 limitation regarding wherein the kit is configured to detect the target nucleic acids is interpreted as an intended use of the kit of claim 1. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The kit disclosed by Chen, in view of Salgueiriño-Maceira, Bendale, Cai, Shen, and Polansky, teaches all of the structural limitations of this limitation and thus is configured for the recited intended use of “wherein the kit is configured to detect the target nucleic acids by measuring an electrochemical signal generated from hybridization between the pair of primers and the target nucleic acids after applying the magnetic field to the reactor to move the at least one magnetic nanoparticle toward the conductive substrate.”
Regarding instant claim 2, Chen, in view of Salgueiriño-Maceira, Bendale, Cai, Shen, and Polansky, teaches the kit for detecting target nucleic acids using magnetic nanoparticles of claim 1.
As currently cited, none of the references specifically teach wherein an average diameter of the magnetic nanoparticle: an average thickness of the shell is 1:0.09 to 0.15.
However, Salgueiriño-Maceira further teaches wherein an average diameter of the magnetic nanoparticle: an average thickness of the shell is 1:0.09 to 0.15 (Page 2704, column 1: particle diameter….206nm; Page 2705, column 1, paragraph 1: encased by an outer gold layer approximately 30 nm thick; based on the claimed values here, the shell thickness of 30nm is 0.09 to 0.15 the nanoparticle diameter of ~200nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the nanoparticle of Chen with the nanoparticle size of Salgueiriño-Maceira. Since both Chen and Salgueiriño-Maceira are in the same field of endeavor (e.g. sensing systems based on magnetic nanoparticles), one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the two teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, since both teach on magnetic nanoparticles coated with gold, they are reasonably in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it amounts to substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
Regarding instant claim 3, Chen, in view of Salgueiriño-Maceira, Bendale, Cai, Shen, and Polansky, teaches the kit for detecting target nucleic acids using magnetic nanoparticles of claim 1.
As currently cited, none of the references specifically teach wherein the average diameter of the magnetic nanoparticle is 170 nm to 300 nm and the average thickness of the shell is 15 nm to 40 nm.
However, Salgueiriño-Maceira further teaches wherein the average diameter of the magnetic nanoparticle is 170 nm to 300 nm and the average thickness of the shell is 15 nm to 40 nm (Page 2704, column 1: particle diameter….206nm; Page 2705, column 1, paragraph 1: encased by an outer gold layer approximately 30 nm thick).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the nanoparticle of Chen with the nanoparticle size of Salgueiriño-Maceira. Since both Chen and Salgueiriño-Maceira are in the same field of endeavor (e.g. sensing systems based on magnetic nanoparticles), one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the two teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, since both teach on magnetic nanoparticles coated with gold, they are reasonably in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it amounts to substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
Regarding instant claim 6, Chen, in view of Salgueiriño-Maceira, Bendale, Cai, Shen, and Polansky, teaches the kit for detecting target nucleic acids using magnetic nanoparticles of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein the counter electrode or the reference electrode comprises any one or more of gold (Au), cobalt (Co), platinum (Pt), silver (Ag), carbon nanotube, graphene, and carbon (Supporting Information, Page S2, Apparatus). Bendale further teaches wherein the conductive substrate comprises a carbon substrate material (Page 4, paragraph [0052]; Figure 1; see 112(b) interpretation).
Regarding instant claim 7, Chen, in view of Salgueiriño-Maceira, Bendale, Cai, Shen, and Polansky, teaches the kit for detecting target nucleic acids using magnetic nanoparticles of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein the electrochemical signal detector is a square wave voltammetry (SWV) (Page 5197, column 2, paragraph 2; Supporting Information, Page S2, under Apparatus; see 112(b) interpretation).
Regarding instant claim 8, Chen, in view of Salgueiriño-Maceira, Bendale, Cai, Shen, and Polansky, teaches the kit for detecting target nucleic acids using magnetic nanoparticles of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein the magnet reversibly applies the magnetic field into the reactor one or more times with the conductive substrate interposed between the magnet and the reactor (Figure 1A; Supporting Information, Page S3, paragraph starting at “The characterization…”), and the magnet controls a degree of the moving the at least one magnetic nanoparticle toward the conductive substrate (Figure 1A; Supporting Information, Page S3, paragraph starting at “The characterization…”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (Rapid and ultrasensitive electrochemical detection of circulating tumor DNA by hybridization on the network of gold-coated magnetic nanoparticles, Chemical Science, March 2021, 12, 5196-5201 plus Supporting Information; previously cited), in view of Salgueiriño-Maceira (Bifunctional Gold-Coated Magnetic Silica Spheres, Chemistry of Materials, May 2006, 18, 2701-2706; previously cited), Bendale (US20030086238A1), Cai (One-Pot Polymerase Chain Reaction with Gold Nanoparticles for Rapid and Ultrasensitive DNA Detection, Nano Research, July 2010, 3, 557-563; previously cited), Shen (Polymerase chain reaction of nanoparticle-bound primers, Biophysical Chemistry, May 2005, 115, 63-66) and Polansky (US20040023207A1; previously cited), as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-8 above, and further in view of Mehdipour (Synthesis of gold-coated magnetic conglomerate nanoparticles with a fast magnetic response for bio-sensing, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, December 2020, 9, 1034-1043; previously cited).
Regarding instant claim 4, Chen, in view of Salgueiriño-Maceira, Bendale, Cai, Shen, and Polansky, teaches the kit for detecting target nucleic acids using magnetic nanoparticles of claim 1. Cai further teaches mixing at least one nanoparticle and a reverse primer (Page 558, column 1, paragraph 2).
As currently cited, none of the references specifically teach wherein the at least one magnetic nanoparticle is prepared by preparing the core made of iron oxide, providing a buffer layer containing silicon on a surface of the core, preparing the at least one magnetic nanoparticle by functionalizing an outer surface of the buffer layer with a functional group selected from the group consisting of an amino group (-NH2) and a thiol group (-SH), and forming the shell made of gold.
Mehdipour, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein at least one magnetic nanoparticle is prepared by preparing the core made of iron oxide (Page 1035, column 1, paragraph 3), providing a buffer layer containing silicon on a surface of the core (Page 1035, column 2, paragraph 1), preparing the at least one magnetic nanoparticle by functionalizing an outer surface of the buffer layer with an amino group (-NH2) (Page 1035, column 2, paragraph 1), and forming the shell made of gold (Page 1035, column 2, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the nanoparticle of Chen with the nanoparticle preparation of Mehdipour. Since both Chen and Mehdipour are in the same field of endeavor (e.g. sensing systems based on magnetic nanoparticles), one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the two teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, since both teach on magnetic nanoparticles coated with gold, they are reasonably in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because direct coating of iron oxide nanoparticles with gold is synthetically challenging. To overcome this, an intermediate layer like silica has been used to improve the adhesion of gold to the magnetic core (Mehdipour, Page 1034, column 2, paragraph 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant first gives the prior provided list of references used to reject claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 (Pages 15-16 of the Remarks filed February 13th, 2026). The Applicant then provides pertinent citations from case law related to establishing obviousness (Page 16 of the Remarks filed February 13th, 2026). The Applicant argues that the combination of Chen, Cai, Salgueiriño-Maceira, and Polansky are insufficient to establish obviousness because they do not teach all claimed features in claim 1 (Page 16 of the Remarks filed February 13th, 2026). The Applicant provides relevant sections of the amended claim 1 that the Applicant indicates the current references fail to teach (Pages 16-17 of the Remarks filed February 13th, 2026). The Applicant notes the Examiner’s cited teachings from the previous rejection, while again reiterating sections of the amended claim 1 that the Applicant indicates the current references fail to teach (Pages 17-18 of the Remarks filed February 13th, 2026). The Applicant further notes that given the current references fail to teach the amended claim 1, claims 4 and 6 are also allowable because Mehdipour and Alocilja fail to cure the deficiencies of Chen, Cai, Salgueiriño-Maceira, and Polansky (Page 18 of the Remarks filed February 13th, 2026).
In response to these arguments, it is noted that, given the above references and cited teachings, the amended claim 1 and all remaining dependent claims are considered obvious. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
All claims stand rejected.
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 Allison E Schloop whose telephone number is (703)756-4597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5 ET.
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, Anne Gussow can be reached at (571) 272-6047. 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.
/ALLISON E SCHLOOP/Examiner, Art Unit 1683
/Robert T. Crow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683
Prosecution Insights