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 .
Applicants amendment filed 2/10/2026 has been entered. Claim 4 was amended. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 6-14 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5 are under examination.
Withdrawn rejections
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 2/10/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachmann et al. (CZ 2014-814; published January 6, 2016) in view of Novak (US 6,420,181; patented July 16, 2002).
Applicant claims a bait comprising a maximum of 0.05 g of triacetone triperoxide (TATP) adsorbed on a solid support comprising a cellulose material that is acetylated cellulose, wherein the bait comprises a maximum of 10% by weight of water with respect to the total weight of the bait.
With respect to claims 1-5, Pachmann teaches a training material used for training dogs for detecting explosives (page 1, paragraph 1). The training material comprises explosive and cellulose as a carrier, wherein the explosive is formulated into a solution of water or acetone and incorporated into the cellulose matrix (page 2, paragraph 4). The preferred explosive is triacetone triperoxide (TATP) in an amount of 0.1-90 wt% of the composition and cellulose is preferred because it does not contain plasticizers which are contained in plastics or silicones or organic solvents which interfere with odor detection (page 2, paragraph 5 through page 3, paragraph 4). Depending on the type of explosive the amount is adjusted so that specimens are explosion-proof and explosive (page 3, paragraph 4). The use of cellulose is preferred because it reduces sensitivity in handling the explosives when compared with other solid bulk materials since cellulose releases the explosive by sublimation very slowly the concentration of the explosive is retained for months in the samples (page 3, paragraph 6). Examples were prepared with 1.5g TATP to produce samples with 1.5% TATP on layered sample comprising 3 layered pure cellulose (page 6, paragraphs 1-2).
With reference to claims 1 and 4, Pachmann does not specify a maximum of 0.05 g of TATP however, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to optimize to less than 0.05g because Pachmann teaches adjusting the amount so that specimens are explosion-proof which can be done by reducing the disclose amount from 1.5 grams to a lower range of 0.05 grams or even lower to 0.5-50 mg of TATP to reduce explosive risk. Additionally, with respect to claims 1 and 5, Pachmann does not specify a maximum of 10% by weight water, wherein the TATP is vapor adsorbed on the support, however Pachmann teaches the explosive is formulated into a solution of water or acetone in an amount of 0.1-90 wt% of the composition. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to reduce the amount of water by including acetone as the primary solvent to adsorb TATP onto the substrate with the expectation that acetone will evaporate leaving the TATP vapor adsorbed onto the cellulose support. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to manipulate ranges during routine experimentation to discover the optimum or workable range since the prior art provides the general range.
Pachmann is silent to the use of acetylated cellulose substrate that the triacetone triperoxide is adsorbed onto. With respect to claim 3, Pachmann does not specify the volume of the support is 100-2300mm3 (0.1-2.3 ml).
It is for this reason that Novak is joined.
Novak teach kits for detecting the presence of an analyte in a layer of sorbent material (abstract). The samples are applied to TLC plates in micro-spot test with small micropipet samples (column 5, lines 47-67). The composition of the adsorbent coatings contained on the TLC plates include cellulose and acetylated cellulose (column 8, lines 1-16). The detector reagent includes acetone which is applied to the TLC plate and allows the reagent to evaporate to insure shelf life and stability of pre-deposited reagents (column 16, lines 1-28). The 1microliter aliquots contain 0.001% or more of the analyte on the solid support (column 19, lines 35-67).
Both Pachmann and Novak are drawn to detection devices comprising cellulose supports. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Pachmann and Novak to include acetylated cellulose with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Pachmann and Novak before the time of filing to include acetylated cellulose because Novak teach acetylated cellulose provides as a suitable support for TLC plates in micro spot tests.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Pachmann and Novak to include solid substrate with a volume of 0.1-2.3 ml with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Pachmann and Novak before the time of filing to include substrates with a volume of 0.1-2.3 ml because Novak teach 1microliter aliquots contain 0.001% or more of the analyte on the solid support so adjusting the size of the volume of the substrate with reference to the test sample would have been prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Pachmann teaches that TAPT is incorporated during the formation of the fibrous material being integrated as part of the cellulose matrix such that they are structurally trapped within the fiber whereas Applicants invention uses pre-formed cellulose support in which the TATP is subsequently adsorbed in the open and accessible pores of the material. The Examiner is not persuaded by this argument because the claims are drawn to a product not a method of making the product. MPEP 2112.01 states where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Applicant further argues that the selection of acetylated cellulose is not obvious from the combination of Pachmann and Novak because acetylated cellulose has the unexpected property of reversible adsorption of TATP vapor at room temperature. The Examiner is not persuaded by this argument because both Pachmann and Novak are drawn to detection devices comprising cellulose supports and Novak teaches the adsorbent coatings contained on the TLC plates include cellulose and acetylated cellulose (column 8, lines 1-16). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use acetylated cellulose supports with TATP in detection devices with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
No claims 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 DANIELLE D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
DANIELLE D. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights