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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons.
Regarding Fig. 1A, the illustrated structure of citric acid does not match the actual structure of this compound.
PNG
media_image1.png
237
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
vs.
PNG
media_image2.png
157
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Fig. 1B, Example 1 of the specification equates 2,4-dimethylimidazole to the abbreviation "MelM" ([0102], page 9), yet the illustrated structure of MelM is not 2,4-dimethylimidazole.
PNG
media_image3.png
280
237
media_image3.png
Greyscale
vs.
PNG
media_image4.png
262
283
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Fig. 7, Example 2 of the specification states the following ([0108], page 8; bolding added):
The fluorescent nanoprobe NCQDs@Co-MOFs@MIPs was used for JA detection, where a schematic diagram of the NCQDs@Co-MOFs@MIPs fluorescent probe for JA detection was shown in FIG. 7.
The NCQDs@Co-MOFs@MIPs of Example 2 were prepared in Example 1 using 2,4-dimethylimidazole ([0102], page 9; [0103], page 10). However, Fig. 7 illustrates NCQDs@Co-MOFs comprising 2-methylimidazole instead:
PNG
media_image5.png
287
297
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, the preamble limitation "A preparation method of the fluorescent probe for detection of JA according to claim 1" does not appear to be grammatically correct. A method of preparing a probe is not a method of the probe.
Regarding claim 18, the full word "hours" should be provided in the claim rather than merely using the abbreviation h.
Regarding claim 19, the preamble limitation "A detection method of JA" does not appear to be grammatically correct. A method of detecting jasmonic acid is not a method of jasmonic acid.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 7 recite the limitation "2,4-dimethylimidazole." The chemical structure of 2,4-dimethylimidazole according to its ordinary and customary meaning is below:
PNG
media_image4.png
262
283
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Importantly, the imidazole ring has two methyl substituents.
The specification teaches the following (pages 4-5):
PNG
media_image6.png
116
1027
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
187
1008
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The illustrated formula 1 comprises 2-methylimidazole rather than 2,4-dimethylimidazole.
In Example 1, the specification equates 2,4-dimethylimidazole to the abbreviation "MelM" ([0102], page 9). Fig. 1B provides the following illustration of MelM, which is not the chemical structure of 2,4-dimethylimidazole according to its ordinary and customary meaning:
PNG
media_image3.png
280
237
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term "2,4-dimethylimidazole" is indefinite because the specification and drawings imply non-standard meaning(s) without clearly redefining the term.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the functional monomer" in step (3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16, which depends directly from claim 6, also recites this limitation twice.
Claims 7-9 and 11-15 recite the limitation "the Co-MOF material." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites both "the Co-MOF material" (referring to claim 1) and introduces "an NCQDs-loaded Co-MOF material."
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the functional monomer" twice. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because claim 6 recites "the functional monomer" and claim 7 introduces "a functional monomer."
Claim 19 recites the limitations "the fluorescence intensity at 442 nm" and "the fluorescence intensity at 367 nm." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The preceding limitation of "fluorescence intensities at emission wavelengths of 367 nm and 442 nm" does not require a singular fluorescence intensity at 367 nm and a singular fluorescence intensity at 442 nm.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the ratio of the fluorescence intensities." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "obtaining a JA concentration in the sample to be tested according to a predetermined standard curve and the ratio of the fluorescence intensities; wherein the standard curve is a linear relationship curve between the JA concentration and the ratio of the fluorescence intensity at 442 nm to the fluorescence intensity at 367 nm." For purposes of this rejection, the limitation "the ratio of the fluorescence intensities" is interpreted as referring to "a ratio of the fluorescence intensity at 442 nm to the fluorescence intensity at 367 nm." The limitation of "obtaining a JA concentration … according to a predetermined standard curve and the ratio of the fluorescence intensities" is unclear because the [predetermined] standard curve is itself stated to be "a linear relationship curve between the JA concentration and the ratio of the fluorescence intensity at 442 nm to the fluorescence intensity at 367 nm." How can a concentration be obtained based on both a predetermined standard curve and the very data used to form the predetermined standard curve? Applicant may wish to use distinct terms to distinguish between predetermined values used to build the standard curve (concentration vs. fluorescence intensity ratio) and the obtained fluorescence intensity ratio of the sample and the obtained concentration of the sample.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the JA." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 previously introduces "JA" as a noun twice before: in the preamble ("A detection method of JA") and in the mixing step ("the fluorescent probe for detection of JA according to claim 1").
Claim 20 recites the limitation "wherein the JA has a linear detection range of 1 ng/mL to 800 ng/mL." It is unclear how this limitation further limits the detection method of claim 19. As written, the limitation suggests that the analyte ("the JA") has the recited linear detection range, regardless of detection method used and independent of detection probe.
Claims 4, 10, 16, and 18 are rejected for depending from the above rejected claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5 are allowed.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and/or rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the fluorescent probe of independent claim 1.
Relevant to the claimed invention are the post-dated reviews of the literature by Mao ("Advances and applications of metal–organic framework/molecularly imprinted polymer (MOF/MIP) for fluorescence detection," Coordination Chemistry Reviews 2025) and Geng (Recent progress of the research of metal-organic frameworks-molecularly imprinted polymers (MOFs-MIPs) in food safety detection field," Food Chemistry (2024).
The prior art of Amirzehni ("Surface imprinted CoZn-bimetalic MOFs as selective colorimetric probe: Application for detection of dimethoate," Sensors & Actuators: B. Chemical 2020) discloses a probe comprising CoZn-bimetalic MOFs capped with molecularly imprinted polymer that was coated in the presence of dimethoate as a template.
The prior art of Xu ("Carbon dots embedded metal-organic framework@molecularly imprinted nanoparticles for highly sensitive and selective detection of quercetin," Sensors & Actuators: B. Chemical 2019) discloses carbon dots embedded metal-organic framework@molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles (CDs@MOF@MIP), the MOF being zinc-based (ZIF-8), and the MIP having molecular imprinting of quercetin (QCT).
Dang (CN-108997898-A) discloses a cis-jasmone molecularly imprinted polymer coating (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5043. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, and F, 12-4 P.M.
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.
/MICHELLE ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights