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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 26, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamkratoke et al. (“A Selective Spectrofluorometric Determination of Micromolar Level of Cyanide in Water Using Naphthoquinone Imidazole Boronic-Based Sensors and a Surfactant Cationic CTAB Micellar System” J Fluoresc, 2011, 21, 1179-1187) in view of Chavali et al. (“Rapid detection of fluoride in potable water using a novel fluorogenic compound 7-O-tert-butyldiphenylsilyl-4-methylcoumarin” Analytical Chemistry Research, 2015, 6, 26-31).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8: Jamkratoke et al. teaches a method of quantitative determination of cyanide (analyte component) in an aqueous sample comprising mixing of a sensor (indicator) and cationic surfactants such as cetyltrimethylammonium bromide and dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide in ethanol (alcohol) to assemble micelles (forming an indicator solution), followed by introducing cyanide (analyte) and recording fluorescence spectra, wherein fluorescence occurs by cyanide interacting with the sensor (indicator) (abstract; Pg. 1180, Cols. 1-2 and Scheme 1; Pg. 1181, Fig. 2).
Jamkratoke et al. does not teach the method wherein the analyte comprises fluoride and the indicator comprises a silane-fluorophore complex. However, Chavali et al. teaches a method of detecting fluoride by fluorescence with a 7-O-tert-butyldiphenylsilyl-4-methylcoumarin (TBDPSC, Ph2tBu-Mumb) indicator (abstract, Fig. 2). Jamkratoke et al. and Chavali et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely detection of anions by fluorescence. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the analyte and sensor of Chavali et al. with the method of Jamkratoke et al. and would have been motivated to do so allow for an additional analyte for detection if desired and also because Jamkratoke et al. teaches that the micelles can increase the solubility of sensors in water and enhance the complexation ability of sensors (Pg. 1180, Col. 1 of Jamkratoke et al.).
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 9: The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) render obvious all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process and the claimed process steps. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount and the claimed process steps. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the amount of alcohol and surfactant enhances the change in fluorescence of the indicator, the micelles exclude the amount of water and alcohol from a hydrophobic region containing the indicator, and the alcohol extends the shelf life of the indicator would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition and method with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the Applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients. Furthermore, it is noted that the micelles formed by Jamkratoke et al. form an inner hydrophobic region (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10: The surfactant and alcohol in the method of Jamkratoke et al. necessarily exceeds a critical micelle concentration as micelles are formed (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamkratoke et al. (“A Selective Spectrofluorometric Determination of Micromolar Level of Cyanide in Water Using Naphthoquinone Imidazole Boronic-Based Sensors and a Surfactant Cationic CTAB Micellar System” J Fluoresc, 2011, 21, 1179-1187) in view of Chavali et al. (“Rapid detection of fluoride in potable water using a novel fluorogenic compound 7-O-tert-butyldiphenylsilyl-4-methylcoumarin” Analytical Chemistry Research, 2015, 6, 26-31) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karlsson et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0241724).
Jamkratoke et al. in view of Chavali et al. renders obvious the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Jamkratoke et al. teaches cationic surfactants such as cetyltrimethylammonium bromide and dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide are utilized for formation of micelles as set forth above.
Jamkratoke et al. does not teach the method wherein benzyldimethylhexadecylammonium chloride is the cationic surfactant. However, Karlsson et al. teaches benzyldimethylhexadecylammonium chloride as a cationic surfactant for forming micelles (abstract and [0051]). Jamkratoke et al. and Karlsson et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, formation of micelles for immobilizing a target analyte. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the benzyldimethylhexadecylammonium chloride of Karlsson et al. as the cationic surfactant in the method of Jamkratoke et al. and would have been motivated to do so because Karlsson et al. teachers that they are equivalent alternative cationic surfactants for forming micelles for analyzing analytes (MPEP 2144.06).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the analyte and sensor of Chavali et al. with the method of Jamkratoke et al. and would have been motivated to do so allow for an additional analyte for detection if desired and also because Jamkratoke et al. teaches that the micelles can increase the solubility of sensors in water and enhance the complexation ability of sensors (Pg. 1180, Col. 1 of Jamkratoke et al.). In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the benzyldimethylhexadecylammonium chloride of Karlsson et al. as the cationic surfactant in the method of Jamkratoke et al. and would have been motivated to do so because Karlsson et al. teachers that they are equivalent alternative cationic surfactants for forming micelles for analyzing analytes (MPEP 2144.06).
.Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F EST.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 July 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights