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 .
Status of claims / Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to an amendment filed on August 06, 2026.
Claims 1-7, 11-12, 14, 16-23 and 27-28 were previously pending. Applicant amended claims 1-2, 6-7 and 21; cancelled claims 3-4.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-12, 14, 16-23 and 27-28 are currently pending, with claims 14, 22-23 and 27 withdrawn.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-12, 16-21 and 28 are under consideration.
Applicant's claim amendments and arguments overcame the following objections and rejections:
Objections to claims 6 and 21;
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-12 16-21, and 28, in base claims 1 and 7, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b);
Rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d);
Rejections of Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-12 16-21, and 28, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aghvanyan, in view of Richter, as evidenced by Schweitzer and Li.
All of the previously presented prior art rejections have been withdrawn as being obviated by the amendment of the claims, which introduces new limitations that were not previously considered in the prior rejection (e.g., the amended claims 1 and 7 now requires "an ECL co-reactant comprising a radical with a shorter half-life than tripropylamine(TPA)," which was not presented in prior claims and not considered in the prior office action.)
Thus, the scope of the claims has been changed in a manner that were not considered in the previous rejections.
Applicant' s amendments and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed, but are not persuasive to place the claims in condition for allowance for the reasons that follow.
This office action contains new grounds for rejection necessitated by amendment.
Priority
The priority date of the instant claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-12, 16-21 and 28 is 12/30/2021, filling date of the US provisional application NO. 63/295,470.
Claim Interpretation
The claimed subject matter encompasses the embodiment shown in FIG. 20, which Applicant has identified as the elected species in response filed on October 14, 2025.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 06, 2026 have been fully considered.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Claims 1 and 7 were previously rejected in the Non-Final Office Action (02/06/2026, at page 6) under 35 USC § 112(b) for reciting "a binding partner or binding complex," presenting the terms “binding partner” and “binding complex” as alternatives. The rejection was on the basis that, "this claim language is indefinite because it is unclear what distinguishes a "binding partner" from a "binding complex," and vice versa."
Applicant's remarks filed on August 06, 2026, at page 12 provides the following clarification regarding claim interpretation on the record:
"One of skill in the art reading the specification would understand that the "binding partner" is one of the reagents that forms the "binding complex," either of which can be labeled with the oligonucleotide."
Applicant's express clarification that the "binding partner" is one of the reagents that forms the "binding complex," is found sufficient to resolve the indefiniteness issue.
As the "binding partner" is one of the reagents that forms the "binding complex," it is understood that the "binding complex" comprises the binding partner and can further comprise additional elements. Therefore, the prior 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the prior Office Action (Non-Final Office Action- 02/06/2026):
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-12 16-21, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aghvanyan, in view of Richter, as evidenced by Schweitzer and Li.
The prior rejections set forth above have been withdrawn as being obviated by the amendment of the claims, which added new limitations to the claims, that were not considered in the previous rejections.
However, as discussed in detail in the new grounds of rejections below, the claims are still considered obvious, with additional evidence and support provided in the rejection to address the newly amended claims.
To the extent applicable to the current rejections set forth in this Office Action, Applicant's arguments are addressed below.
The Amended Claims Would Have Been Obvious Over the Prior Art
As discussed in the new ground of rejection below, the combined teachings of the prior art teach and suggest all limitations of the claim, including the newly amended limitation requiring "an ECL co-reactant comprising a radical with a shorter half-life than tripropylamine(TPA)."
Unexpected Results Argument Not Persuasive
In the remarks, Applicant asserts unexpected results (Remarks, pp. 14-18). Specifically, Applicant asserts that "TEA, tBDEA, BDEA, MDEA, DEA-PS, as exemplary ECL co-reactants that generate radicals having shorter half-lives than radicals generated by TPA, provide improved assay performance in assay formats in which unbound ECL-labeled probes remain present during ECL measurement." (Remarks, p. 15). Specifically, the improvement is increased sensitivity as a result of the shorter co-reactant radical lifetime.
Applicant's argument has been considered but is not persuasive for two main reasons. First, the asserted unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claim. Second, the asserted benefit was already known in the art.
First, Applicant's argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim. The claim recites "an ECL co-reactant comprising a radical with a shorter half-life than tripropylamine(TPA)." Thus, in this plain claim language, the half-life of the co-reactant radical is compared to the half-life of TPA itself, not to the half-life of the radicals generated by TPA. Therefore, the argument that rely on a half-life comparison between radicals generated by TEA, tBDEA, BDEA, MDEA, DEA-PS, and radicals generated by TPA does not match the scope of the claim language.
Second, even if the claim is amended to require ECL co-reactant that generate radicals having shorter half-lives than radicals generated by TPA, the asserted "unexpected" property is not sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness because it was known in the art and would have been expected.
The asserted benefit of using ECL co-reactants, other than TPA, that generate radicals having shorter lifetimes than the radicals generated by TPA, for improved assay sensitivity, especially in non-wash ECL assay formats, was already known in the art for decades, at least since 2003.
For instance, Tsionsky (US20030175803A1 - Assay buffer, compositions containing the same, and methods of using the same; published 2003-09-18) discloses that certain functionalized tertiary alkylamines with shorter radical lifetime than the TPA-derived radicals, improves ECL assay sensitivity in no-wash ECL assay ([0033]; [0037]-[0040]; [0215]-[0217]).
“[0037] 5.1 ECL Coreactants
[0038] Most, if not all, current commercial applications of ECL technology involve the measurement of ECL labels (and, in particular, organometallic complexes of ruthenium) in the presence of an ECL assay buffer containing tri-n-propylamine (TPA) as a coreactant and phosphate as a pH buffering agent. These ECL assay buffers have been optimized for and have provided excellent performance in commercial ECL instrumentation that employ, as a solid phase for binding assays, magnetic particles that are collected on the surface of a metal (typically, platinum) electrode.
[0039] Applicants have discovered that in some applications, certain functionalized tertiary alkylamines can provide performance that is comparable or better to TPA. These functionalized tertiary amines are especially useful in assays employing carbon-based electrodes (e.g., electrodes comprising carbon particle or carbon nanotubes including composite materials such as plastics and inks) and/or assay reagents (such as binding reagents) that are immobilized onto electrodes. The functionalized tertiary alkylamines of the invention, preferably, have one or more of the following properties: i) they are oxidized on carbon-based electrodes in a one electrode oxidation to give an amine radical cation which can subsequently lose a proton to form a radical reductant (Scheme 1); ii) they have an oxidation potential on carbon-based electrodes that is comparable (within 150 mV) or greater than that of Ru(II)(bpy) 3; iii) they can be oxidized, most preferably at a pH between 6 and 9, at a potential less than that required to breakdown water at a carbon-based electrode; iv) the energy released by the reaction of the radical reductant with Ru(III)(bpy)3 to produce Ru(II)(bpy)3 is sufficient to produce Ru(II)(bpy)3 in a luminescent excited state and v) the lifetimes of the amine radical cation and/or radical reductant are less than the corresponding TPA-derived species.
[0040] Applicants have discovered that, through the use of the functionalized tertiary alkylamines of the invention, it is possible to improve the selectivity of ECL excitation at an electrode for ECL labels bound to the electrode (as opposed to ECL labels that are free in solution). Without being bound by theory, it is believed that this increased selectivity is due to the lower lifetimes of the amine radical cation and/or radical reductant relative to the corresponding TPA-derived species (thus limiting the participation of the reactive species to ECL reactions that occur proximate to the electrode surface). Preferably, the diffusion distance of the amine radical cation and/or radical reductant (the distance that the species can diffuse during its lifetime) is less than 1 μm, more preferably, <500 nm, even more preferably less than 100 nm, even more preferably less than 50 nm and most preferably <10 nm. The high selectivity between free and bound labels has led to improved sensitivity in non-washed ECL assay formats. The ratio of signal from bound label and free label (B/F ratio) may improved by replacing TPA with a non-TPA coreactant of the invention. This improvement is preferably greater than a factor of 2, more preferably greater than a factor of 5 and most preferably greater than a factor of 10.” (Tsionsky, [0037]-[0040])
Therefore, a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected that co-reactants with shorter radical life-time than TPA-derived radical life-time would lead to improved sensitivity in non-wash ECL assay.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant's arguments are not found persuasive.
New Grounds of 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-12, 16-21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aghvanyan (US20190391140A1 - Assay methods ; published 2019-12-26), in view of Richter (US20010023063A1 - Assays employing electrochemiluminescent labels and electrochemiluminescence quenchers ; Published 2001-09-20), as evidenced by
Wang (Wang et al., Catalyst-free activation of persulfate by visible light for water disinfection: Efficiency and mechanisms. Water Res. 2019 Jun 15;157:106-118. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.03.071. Epub 2019 Mar 28. PMID: 30953846);
PubChem (COMPOUND SUMMARY: Tripropylamine; Archived March 22, 2021 on WaybackMachine);
Schweitzer (Schweitzer et al. , Immunoassays with rolling circle DNA amplification: a versatile platform for ultrasensitive antigen detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Aug 29;97(18):10113-9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.170237197. PMID: 10954739; PMCID: PMC27732) and
Li (Li et al. Aptamer-based fluorescent assay for sensitive detection of cardiac Troponin I. J. Beijing Inst. Technol. 2020, 29, 45).
A) Regarding claims 1 and 7, while they are separate independent claims, they will be addressed together below as the claims' scopes largely overlap. Claim 1 is narrower in scope than claim 7 and further recites a binding reagent on a substrate, which immobilizes binding partner and/or binding complex via binding interaction.
The claimed methods would have been obvious as a combination of known ECL assay taught by Aghvanyan, and the known ECL detection probes taught by Richter.
Aghvanyan teaches methods and systems of performing immunoassays for analyte detection, comprising Proximity Ligation and Rolling Circle Amplification using ECL-labeled probes for electrochemiluminescence detection (see examples 1 and example 9; see also Fig. 19).
PNG
media_image2.png
696
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Aghvanyan teaches an electrochemiluminescence (ECL) detection method comprising:
providing a substrate comprising an electrode and having a binding reagent (Fig. 19, capture oligo) immobilized on a surface of the substrate([0006]; [0012]; Fig. 19);
contacting the substrate with a composition (Fig. 19; [0329]), the composition comprising:
i) a binding partner and/or binding complex comprising an oligonucleotide (Fig. 19, 1905-2019-1902), wherein the binding reagent binds the binding partner and/or binding complex;
ii) a plurality of ECL-labeled oligonucleotide probes (Fig. 19, Detection oligonucleotide; [0013] detection probe having ECL label; [0275], detection probe comprising electrochemiluminescence label SULFOTAG) comprising an oligonucleotide sequence that is complementary to an oligonucleotide sequence of the oligonucleotide of the binding partner and/or binding complex;
iii) an ECL co-reactant comprising a radical with a shorter half-life than tripropylamine(TPA) ([0252] lines 17-21, "Species that participate with the ECL label in the ECL process are referred to herein as ECL coreactants. Commonly used coreactants include … persulfate for ECL"; persulfate radical has a half-life of 30-40 µs, as evidenced by Wang, p. 107, left-hand col., line 13, which is shorter than the 4 hours half-life of TPA, see PubChem, p. 31, line 4: "Vapor-phase tripropylamine will be degraded in the atmosphere by reaction with photochemically-produced hydroxyl radicals; the half-life for this reaction in air is estimated to be 4 hrs");
allowing a portion of the plurality of ECL-labeled oligonucleotide probes to hybridize to the oligonucleotide of the binding partner and/or binding complex (Fig. 19),
wherein the binding partner and/or binding complex is bound by the binding reagent(Fig. 19), and wherein another portion of the plurality of ECL-labeled oligonucleotide probes is not hybridized to the oligonucleotide of the binding partner and/or binding complex bound by the binding reagent (Fig. 19; [0329]; [0275], lines 16-19; [0258] lines 15-22, unbound probes are removed by washing);
applying a voltage to the electrode to generate ECL ([0258] lines 22-24; [0012]); and
measuring the ECL ([0258] lines 22-24; [0012-0013]).
Regarding the newly amended limitation "an ECL co-reactant comprising a radical with a shorter half-life than tripropylamine(TPA)," it is taught by Aghvanyan, as evidenced by Wang and PubChem.
Aghvanyan teaches measuring an analyte(s) of interest in the sample an analyte(s) of interest in the sample may be measured using electrochemiluminescence-based assay formats. e.g. electrochemiluminescence (ECL) based immunoassays. And that common co-reactants in the ECL process include persulfate.
The half-life of persulfate radical is 30-40 µs, as evidenced by Wang (p. 107, left-hand col., line 13). The half-life of tripropylamine is 4 hours, as evidenced by PubChem (p. 31, line 4).
A skilled artisan would readily appreciate that 30-40 µs (half-life of persulfate radical) is shorter than 4 hours (half-life of tripropylamine). Accordingly, Aghvanyan's teaching of persulfate as a co-reactant meets the limitation "an ECL co-reactant comprising a radical with a shorter half-life than tripropylamine(TPA)."
In summary, Aghvanyan discloses an electrochemiluminescence (ECL) detection method using ECL labeled probes for detection of analytes. The method involves forming a binding complex attached to a surface comprising an electrode for ELC measurement (Fig 19; [0006]; [0012-0013]), allowing a portion of the ECL-labeled probes to hybridize to the target extension product (e.g., RCA extension product), and removing the portion of excess probes that are not hybridized by through a washing step (Fig. 19; [0329]; [0275], lines 16-19; [0258] lines 15-22, unbound probes are removed by washing).
Although Aghvanyan does not specifically teach selectively dequenching and measuring ECL without removing the probes not hybridized to their targets, these features are obvious in view of Richter. Specifically, Richter's teaching of self-hybridizing, hairpin detection probes that possesses both an ECL label and an ECL quenching moiety, which obviates removal of excess probes in ECL assay.
Richter describes an improved non-separation ECL assaying method and system utilizing an ECL quencher and an ECL label (see Abstract; [0061]).
Particularly relevant to Aghvanyan’s teaching of detection probes labeled with ECL label, Richter provides further advancements by specifically teaching self-hybridizing, hairpin detection probes that possesses both an ECL label and an ECL quenching moiety. In the absence of the target DNA, the probe self-hybridizes (typically forming a hairpin or hairpin-loop structure), bringing the ECL label and the ECL quenching moiety into quenching contact. In the presence of the target DNA, the probe preferentially anneals to the target DNA, and in doing so, separates the ECL label from the ECL quenching moiety so that they are no longer in quenching contact, and the ECL emission increases. Thereby allowing for measurement of ECL emission as indicator for amount of target DNA, without the need for a washing step to remove excess detection probes because those do not hybridize to target will stay quenched and not emit ECL ([0167]).
Richter explains that the use of both an ECL label and ECL quencher enables more desirable non-separation assays([0046]; [0050-0051]; [0061]), eliminating the need for physical separation of unused assay reagents, such as washing steps, which are required in the method disclosed in Aghvanyan:
“[0050] Chemical and biological assays may often be conveniently classified as "separation assays" or "non-separation assays." Generally, in separation assays, the detection product(s) is physically separated from other products and/or unreacted analyte of interest and unreacted assay reagents. (For example, it is often necessary to physically separate the detection product so that only those labels which are part of the detection product are detected, and not those of the excess labeling reagent.) The amount of analyte may then be determined either directly from the amount of labeled detection product, or indirectly from the amount of unused labeling reagent. Separation may often be achieved by exploiting a selective binding reaction between members of a binding pair (e.g., biotin-avidin, antibody-antigen, oligonucleotide hybridization probe-oligonucleotide ). For example, a labeled detection product having one member of a binding pair may be first formed in a fluid phase (e.g., in solution), and separation may then be effected, for example, by capture of the ECL labeled detection product by a solid phase reagent having the other member of the binding pair; the detection product may then be recovered by washing the solid phase free of unreacted analyte and reagents. Many other separation strategies employing binding pairs are well known in the art.
[0051] Assays which do not require a separation step are highly desirable, as they typically require less sample manipulation and are often readily adapted to "real time" assays. Such assays may often be conveniently classified as "non-separation assays." In non-separation assays, the detection product is typically not physically separated from unused assay reagents and unused analyte. Instead, the presence of the detection product is typically detected by a property which at least one of the assay reactants acquires or loses only as a result of contacting the analyte of interest. A number of such non-separation assays have been developed.
…
[0061] Using the efficient ECL quenchers disclosed herein, assays may be developed which employ an ECL label and an ECL quencher and which permit, inter alia, assays such as non-separation assays which offer many, if not all, of the advantages offered by ECL detection methods over other detection methods.” [emphasis added]
Therefore, Richter's teaching of self-hybridizing, hairpin detection probes that possesses both an ECL label and an ECL quenching moiety meet the limitations of selectively dequenching and measuring ECL without removing the probes not hybridized to their targets.
Additionally, with regarding to the newly added co-reactant limitation, similar to Aghvanyan, Richter also teaches a composition for ECL measurement, comprising the same ECL co-reactantꟷ persulfate ([0030]-[0037]). This supports the technical compatibility of the references.
In view of the above, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Aghvanyan by incorporating the hairpin probes comprising both an ECL label and an ECL quencher, as disclosed in Richter, as the detection probes in Aghvanyan's ECL immunoassay.
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the probes disclosed in Richter enable a more desirable assay approach that obviates the need for washing away unbound detection probes. This approach offers potential benefits, such as reduced sample manipulation and greater adaptability to "real-time" assays, as suggested by Richter ([0051]).
Furthermore, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to incorporate the dual-labeled probes from Richter into Aghvanyan's immunoassay method, because the use of molecular beacon-type hairpin probes in immunoassays with RCA, such as the one depicted in Fig. 19 of Aghvanyan, is well-established in the art, as evidenced by Schweitzer and Li (Fig. 1).
Schweitzer is a review article on the topic of Immunoassays with rolling circle DNA amplification, and teaches: "Incorporation of molecular beacon type detector probes into the immunoRCA assay could also eliminate post hybridization washing steps because unhybridized beacons are nonfluorescent." (page 10118, right-hand col, para 3, lines 22-24).
The person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings because both Aghvanyan and Richter pertain to the field of analyte detection using ECL assays with ECL-labeled probes. Their teachings overlap and are technically compatible. A skilled artisan would possess the knowledge and skill to apply hairpin detection probes to an immunoassay using RCA, as this approach is well-known in the art.
Additionally, this combination would have been obvious as it represents the KSR principle of predictable use of prior art elements (i.e., the dual-labeled hairpin probes from Richter) according to a known method (i.e., the ECL assay method in Aghvanyan) to yield predictable results (i.e., eliminate the need for post hybridization washing steps). (See MPEP §2143).
B) Regarding claim 2, Aghvanyan teaches sequential assaying steps ([0329]; [0274-0275]).
Regarding claim 5, Aghvanyan teaches b') contacting the substrate with a first composition comprising the binding partner and/or binding complex and allowing the binding partner and/or binding complex to immobilize on the surface by binding to the binding reagent ([0329]; [0274] lines 14-16); and b") contacting the substrate comprising the immobilized binding partner and/or binding complex with a second composition comprising the plurality of ECL-labeled oligonucleotide probes and allowing a portion of the plurality of ECL-labeled oligonucleotide probes to hybridize to the oligonucleotide of the immobilized binding partner and/or binding complex ([0329]; [0275] lines 6-8); and
Richter teaches contacting the substrate with a third composition comprising an ECL co-reactant ([0195]; [0199]; [0200] ECL assay media is added to sample prior to performing ECL measurement and comprises co-reactants, which "permit the use of simpler means for generating ECL").
Regarding claim 6, Aghvanyan teaches washing the substrate following the contacting the substrate with the binding partner and/or binding complex to remove binding partner and/or binding complex not bound by the binding reagent, wherein the washing is prior to contacting the substrate with the composition comprising the plurality of ECL-labeled oligonucleotide probes ([0275] lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Aghvanyan teaches wherein the binding partner and/or binding complex comprises an analyte (Fig. 19; [0329]).
Regarding claim 12, Aghvanyan teaches analyte comprises a peptide (Fig. 19, autoantibody comprises a peptide).
Regarding claim 16, Aghvanyan teaches wherein the analyte is labeled with the oligonucleotide by binding the analyte with a detection reagent comprising the oligonucleotide(Fig. 19, autoantibody binds to anti-human Ig antibody conjugated to oligo probe).
Regarding claim 17, Aghvanyan teaches the oligonucleotide of the binding partner and/or binding complex comprises multiple copies of the sequence complementary to the oligonucleotide sequence of the plurality of the ECL-labeled oligonucleotide probes (Fig. 19, RCA extends the oligo of 1902, thereby creating multiple binding sites for detection probes; [0142]; [0176-0177]).
Regarding claim 18, Aghvanyan teaches prior to contacting the substrate with the plurality of the ECL-labeled oligonucleotide probes, performing an amplification reaction to generate the multiple copies of the sequence complementary to the oligonucleotide sequence of the plurality of the ECL-labeled oligonucleotide probes (Fig. 19, RCA; [0275]).
Regarding claim 19, Aghvanyan teaches the analyte is labeled with the oligonucleotide by binding the analyte with a detection reagent comprising an oligonucleotide primer, and wherein the oligonucleotide primer is extended by a polymerase to generate the oligonucleotide that comprises the multiple copies of the sequence complementary to the oligonucleotide sequence of the ECL-labeled oligonucleotide probes (Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 20, Aghvanyan teaches rolling circle amplification reaction(Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 21, Richter teaches the ECL-labeled oligonucleotide probes include a stem-loop or hairpin structure, an ECL label, and a quenching moiety, wherein the quenching moiety is in proximity to the ECL label and quenches the ECL label when the oligonucleotide probe is in a stem-loop or hairpin configuration, but does not quench the ECL label when the stem-loop or hairpin structure is in an open configuration, and wherein the selectively dequenching comprises hybridizing the portion of the plurality of ECL-labeled oligonucleotide probes to the to the oligonucleotide of the binding partner and/or binding complex in the open configuration (Richter, [0167]).
Regarding claim 28, Richter teaches piperazine-N,N' -bis(2-ethanesulfonic acid) (PIPES) ([0201] lines 7-8) and triethanolamine (TEA) ([0201] line 7).
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 TIAN NMN YU whose telephone number is (703)756-4694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 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, Gary Benzion can be reached at (571) 272-0782. 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.
/TIAN NMN YU/Examiner , Art Unit 1681 /AARON A PRIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681
