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 .
This action is in response to papers filed 3/12/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of the species of water soluble Mn and E. coli in the reply filed on 12/27/2025 is acknowledged. It is noted that the species requirement is withdrawn and the next species is searched.
The following rejections are newly applied as necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-5 are pending.
This action is final.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
The claim objections made in the previous office action is withdrawn based upon amendments to the claims.
The 35 USC 112b rejection made in the previous office action is withdrawn based upon amendments to the claims.
The 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejection made in the previous office action is withdrawn based upon the affidavit under Rule 130(a) and the submission of the translation of the foreign priority document filed 3/12/2026.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Sensors 2018 Vol 18 p. 4166) in view of Yan et al. (ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 2018 Vol 6 p. 4504-4509).
With regard to claim 1, Liu et al. teaches a nucleic acid functionalized metal nanoprobe (abstract). Liu et al. teaches that the nucleic acid molecules and metal cations from a conjugate by electrostatic adsorption (2. Synthesis of gold nanoparticles 2nd paragraph). Liu et al. teaches that it is incubated with an DNA ( 5.2 Deprotection method), but does not specifically teach pathogenic microorganism. Liu et al teaches self-assembly in situ fluorescent (4. Optical properties ). Liu et al. teaches that the nanoprobe has a particle size of 0.8-8 nm (2. Synthesis of gold nanoparticles 3rd paragraph). Liu et al. teaches the use of chloroauric acid (2. Synthesis of gold nanoparticles 2nd paragraph), Liu et al. does not teach a pathogenic microorganism that is E.coli or S. aureus.
The use of metal nanoprobe for E. coli detection is well known in the prior art.
With regard to claim 1, Yan et al. teaches that metal nanoprobes can be co-incubated in E. coli to self-assemble (p. 4504-4505 1st paragraph).
Therefore it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the nanoprobe of Liu et al. to co-incubate with known targets including E. coli, as taught by Yan et al. The ordinary artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success as Yan et al. teaches that metal nanoprobes be used with nucleic acids of E. coli to self-assemble.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Sensors 2018 Vol 18 p. 4166) and Yan et al. (ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 2018 Vol 6 p. 4504-4509) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Mirkin et al. (US Patent Application 2020/0384104 effective date 12/15/2017) and Kilment et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0230213 July 23, 2020 cited on previous IDS).
Liu et al. teaches a nucleic acid functionalized metal nanoprobe (abstract). Liu et al. teaches that the nucleic acid molecules and metal cations from a conjugate by electrostatic adsorption (2. Synthesis of gold nanoparticles 2nd paragraph). Liu et al. teaches that it is incubated with an DNA ( 5.2 Deprotection method), but does not specifically teach pathogenic microorganism. Liu et al teaches self-assembly in situ fluorescent (4. Optical properties ). Liu et al. teaches that the nanoprobe has a particle size of 0.8-8 nm (2. Synthesis of gold nanoparticles 3rd paragraph). Liu et al. teaches the use of chloroauric acid (2. Synthesis of gold nanoparticles 2nd paragraph), Yan et al. teaches that metal nanoprobes can be co-incubated in E. coli to self-assemble (p. 4504-4505 1st paragraph).
With regard to claim 2, Liu et al. teaches designing the nucleic acid functionalized metal nanoprobe by mixing a metal soluble salt solution to obtain cations, but does not teach use of SYBR or confocal microscopy (2 and 3).
With regard to claim 3, Liu et al. teaches use of DNA (3. Third paragraph).
With regard to claim 4, Liu et al. teaches chloroauric acid that can be within the salt range (5.2).
Liu et al. and Yan et al. do not teach use of a SYBR, magnetic device.
With regard to claim 2, Mirken et al. teaches preparation methods that use both SYBR green and confocal microscopy with nanoprobes (para 27-29, 49, 103-107). Yan et al. teaches that metal nanoprobes can be co-incubated in E. coli to self-assemble (p. 4504-4505 1st paragraph).
With regard to claim 2, Kilment et al. teaches that DNA for a nanoprobe (para 128) can be isolated using SYBR green (30 minutes in PCR machine, which is dark).
Therefore it would be prima facie obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method of Claim 2 that is used for the production of the nanopore of Liu and Yan to the method steps of Mirken and Kilment to obtain DNA used for the nanoprobe of Liu and Yan. The ordinary artisan would be motivated as Kliment and Mirken teaches a method to isolate DNA that is used for nanoprobe preparation (para 128).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 KATHERINE D SALMON whose telephone number is (571)272-3316. The examiner can normally be reached 9-530.
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, Wu Cheng (Winston) Shen can be reached at 5712723157. 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.
/KATHERINE D SALMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights