DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment filed on 05/17/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are pending in the application and are considered on merits.
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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “silyl protecting group” without specifically defining the structure which renders the claim unclear and indefinite, sine it is not apparent as to what silyl protecting group is recited in the claim.
Claim 2 and 9 recite “R8aR8bR8c” without specifically defining the structure which renders the claim unclear and indefinite, sine it is not apparent as to what R8aR8bR8c is recited in the claim.
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.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 111410664, IDS) (Wu) in view of Xiong et al. (Analytical Chemistry, 2013, IDS) (Xiong).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a method for detecting a nerve agent in an analyte, said nerve agent having a phosphorus-fluorine bond (par [0002]), which method comprises:
(a) contacting the analyte with a composition comprising a sensor compound;
wherein the sensor compound comprises a basic nitrogen atom and a hydroxyaryl moiety protected by a silyl protecting group (par [0008]); and wherein, in the presence of hydrogen fluoride, said silyl group is cleaved to effect deprotection of the hydroxyl group thus forming a luminescent reporter compound (par [0023]);
(b) irradiating the composition at a predetermined wavelength (par [0023]);
( c) measuring the luminescence to determine if the reporter compound is present (par [0023]); and
( d) determining whether the nerve agent is present in the analyte based on the measurement obtained in step ( c ) (par [0023]).
Wu does not specifically teach that the sensor composition is in solid state. However, in the analogous art of fluoride anion sensor, Xiong teaches that the sensor composition is in solid state (page 4115, par 1). Xiong teaches that “Herein, we invented a new method for detection by adopting the hydrogel as the supporter of reaction between a water insoluble fluorescent probe and in the water environment. This method is highly rapid, selective, and sensitive, which can determine levels in 15 s at the drinking water standard…. just a few microliter samples were required in the analysis procedures with this method” (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the solid state composition sensor, in order to obtain the benefit of “highly rapid, selective, and sensitive” detection.
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches that wherein the sensor compound has the Formula (IA) (par [0008]):
wherein:
A is an optionally substituted aryl group (par [0008]);
X is S, Y is CR3, and Z is CR4 (par [0008]);
R3 is H (par [0008]),
R4 is H (par [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “the method is for vapour phase detection” merely describes an intended use of the method, and does not further limit the step of the method. Therefore, caries no weight in patentability determination.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the method is for detection of contamination on a surface” merely describes an intended use of the method, and does not further limit the step of the method. Therefore, caries no weight in patentability determination.
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses a sensing device for detection of a nerve agent in an analyte (par [0002]), said nerve agent having a P-F bond (par [0002]), the sensing device comprising:
A composition comprising a sensor compound wherein the sensor compound comprises a basic nitrogen atom and a hydroxyaryl moiety protected by a silyl protecting group (par [0008]); and wherein, in the presence of hydrogen fluoride, said silyl group is cleaved to de-protect the hydroxyl group thus forming a luminescent reporter compound (par [0023]);
an irradiation source for irradiating the reporter compound with stimulating radiation at a predetermined wavelength (par [0023]);
a detector for measuring luminescence of the optical sensing element (par [0023]);
means for relating to an operator the luminescence measured by the detector (par [0023]); and
means for delivering the analyte for contacting with the sensor compound (par [0023]).
Wu does not specifically disclose that the sensor composition is in solid state. However, in the analogous art of fluoride anion sensor, Xiong teaches that the sensor composition is in solid state (page 4115, par 1). Xiong teaches that “Herein, we invented a new method for detection by adopting the hydrogel as the supporter of reaction between a water insoluble fluorescent probe and in the water environment. This method is highly rapid, selective, and sensitive, which can determine levels in 15 s at the drinking water standard…. just a few microliter samples were required in the analysis procedures with this method” (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the solid state composition sensor, in order to obtain the benefit of “highly rapid, selective, and sensitive” detection.
Regarding claim 6, Xiong discloses wherein the solid state sensor compound is comprised in a film, a coating on a substrate, a swab or an optical sensing element (page 4115, par 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (CN 111410664, IDS) (Wu).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses an optical sensing element for detection of a nerve agent having a phosphorus-fluorine bond (par [0002]), wherein said sensing element comprises a compound comprising a basic nitrogen atom and a hydroxyaryl moiety protected by a silyl protecting group (par [0008]); and wherein, in the presence of hydrogen fluoride, said silyl group is cleaved to de-protect the hydroxyl group thus forming a luminescent reporter compound (par [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses a sensor compound of Formula (IA), (IB), (IC), (ID), (IE) or (IF) (par [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses a sensor compound of Formula (IA) (par [0008]):
wherein:
A is an optionally substituted aryl group (par [0008]);
X is S, Y is CR3, and Z is CR4 (par [0008]);
R3 is H (par [0008]),
R4 is H (par [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses a sensor compound according to claim 9 selected from SQF1148, SQF1323, SQF1360, SQF1370, SQF1382, SQF1388, SQF1389, SQF1399, SQF13100, SQF13111, SQF1344, SQF1352, SQF1140, SQF1393, SQF1394, SQF1395, and SQF1396 (par [0008]).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses use of a compound according to claim 8 for detecting a nerve agent, wherein said nerve agent has a phosphorus-fluorine bond (par [0002][0008]).
Regarding claim 12, Wu discloses that wherein the nerve agent is a G-series nerve agent, preferably Sarin, Cyclosarin or Soman (par [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOYUN R XU, Ph. D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/XIAOYUN R XU, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797