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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 8 to recite a non-polar target molecule bound to one of the binding sites, and argues that the cited prior art does not teach the limitations of the instant claims. Specifically, Applicant has argued that reference to Tao et al., does not meet the claim limitations because the reference teaches non-polar target molecules binding to an imprinted polymer through pi-pi interactions and van der walls forces. The Examiner notes that the limitations of independent claims 1 and 8 do not limit the interactions between the target molecule and imprinted polymer to any particular type of bond, and contends that any interactions between a non-polar target molecule and an imprinted polymer reads on the claim limitations. Additionally, the Examiner points out that the instant specification states “Without being bound by any particular theory, it is believed that the target molecule may bind to the binding sites in the polymer layer via physical or chemical forces such as hydrogen bonding, π-π interactions, hydrophobic interactions, electrostatic forces, van der walls forces, ionic bonds or even covalent bonds” (Pre-grant Publication paragraph 0015) which clearly indicates that target molecules can bind an imprinted polymer through pi-pi interactions and van der walls interactions. As such, the Examiner has not found Applicant’s arguments with respect to Tao et al., persuasive, thus the rejection as detailed in the previous Office Action is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et al., (US 2007/0141683) in view of Williams et al., (6,807,842),and further in view of Tao et al., (US 2012/0270330).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10, Warner et al., teach a method for detecting benzene (examples 1 and 2) comprising exposing a polymer film to a gas (paragraphs 0011, 0012) wherein the polymer film is templated with a benzenoid compound complementary in shape to benzene (paragraphs 0044, 0045), and measuring a change in the polymer film to detect benzene (paragraph 0056). Warner et al., do not teach an imprinted polymer coated on a resistive material.
Williams et al., teach a molecular recognition sensor comprising a molecularly imprinted polymer imprinted on a resistive material (column 4 lines 53-63). Williams et al., also teach measuring a change in resistance (column 4 lines 53-63). Williams et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide a molecularly imprinted polymer on a resistive material as a means of reducing the effect of interferents on the change in resistance of the sensor (column 2 lines 46 56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Warner et al., to include a resistive sensor having a molecularly imprinted polymer on a resistive material in order to reduce the effect of interferents on the change in resistance of the sensor as taught by Williams et al. Warner et al., in view of Williams et al., do not teach the template molecule selected from toluene and xylene.
Tao et al., chemical detection and analysis comprising a molecularly imprinted polymer (paragraph 0023) wherein toluene and xylene are utilized as template molecules (paragraph 0014). Tao et al., teach that it is advantageous to utilize toluene and/or xylene as a template molecule as a means of detecting BTEX in a gas sample (paragraph 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Warner et al., in view of Williams et al., wherein toluene and/or xylene are utilized as template molecules in order to detect BTEX as taught by Tao et al.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et al., (US 2007/0141683) in view of Williams et al., (6,807,842) in view of Tao et al., (US 2012/0270330) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan et al., (US 5,587,273).
Regarding claim 9, Warner et al., in view of Williams et al., in view of Tao et al., do not teach an imprinted polymer coated on a capacitive material.
Yan et al., teach molecularly imprinted sensor wherein an imprinted polymer is coated onto a capacitive material (column 13 lines 51-54). Yan et al., teach that it is advantageous to coat an imprinted polymer on a capacitive material as a means of detecting minute quantities of analyte with a quick response time (column 14 lines 7-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Warner et al., in view of Williams et al., in view of Tao et al., wherein the imprinted polymer is coated on a capacitive material in order to detect minute quantities of analyte with a quick response time as taught by Yan et al.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner et al., (US 2007/0141683) in view of Yan et al., (US 5,587,273), and further in view of Tao et al., (US 2012/0270330).
Regarding claim 8, Warner et al., teach a method for detecting benzene (examples 1 and 2) comprising exposing a polymer film to a gas (paragraphs 0011, 0012) wherein the polymer film is templated with a benzenoid compound complementary in shape to benzene (paragraphs 0044, 0045), and measuring a change in the polymer film to detect benzene (paragraph 0056). Warner et al., do not teach an imprinted polymer coated on a capacitive material.
Yan et al., teach molecularly imprinted sensor wherein an imprinted polymer is coated onto a capacitive material (column 13 lines 51-54). Yan et al., teach that it is advantageous to coat an imprinted polymer on a capacitive material as a means of detecting minute quantities of analyte with a quick response time (column 14 lines 7-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Warner et al., wherein the imprinted polymer is coated on a capacitive material in order to detect minute quantities of analyte with a quick response time as taught by Yan et al. Warner et al., in view of Yan et al., do not teach toluene and xylene as the template molecule.
Tao et al., chemical detection and analysis comprising a molecularly imprinted polymer (paragraph 0023) wherein toluene and xylene are utilized as template molecules (paragraph 0014). Tao et al., teach that it is advantageous to utilize toluene and/or xylene as a template molecule as a means of detecting BTEX in a gas sample (paragraph 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Warner et al., in view of Yan et al., wherein toluene and/or xylene are utilized as template molecules in order to detect BTEX as taught by Tao et al.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797