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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
1. Claims 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,648,933 to Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. (“Production of Nano and Microdiamonds with Si–V and N–V Luminescent Centers at High Pressures in Systems Based on Mixtures of Hydrocarbon and Fluorocarbon Compounds,” JETP Letters, 2014, Vol. 99, No. 10, pp. 585–589).
Clevenson et al. teaches diamonds that have nitrogen vacancies (NVs) can be used in sensors to measure temperature based on fluorescence emitted by the NVs. (Abstract and column 7, lines 32-54).
Davydova et al. teaches that nanodiamonds having either Si vacancies (Si-V) or nitrogen vacancies (M-V) provide for new capabilities for the creation of singlephoton emitters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Clevenson et al. to use nanodiamonds with Si vacancies in a temperature sensing probe instead of diamond crystals having N vacancies in view of Davydova et al. teaching that either Si vacancies (Si-V) or nitrogen vacancies (M-V) provide for new capabilities for the creation of single photon emitters.
In Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. monitoring emitted fluorescence intensity to measure temperature would have been obvious.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. renders all the limitations of claim 6 obvious.
Therefore, Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. renders claim 6 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. renders claim 6 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that M is Si.
As noted above, Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. uses Si vacancies.
Therefore, Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. renders claim 6 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 10 recites wherein a standard relative deviation (RSD) of the particle size is from 25 to 40%.
Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. does not teach that a standard relative deviation (RSD) of the particle size is from 25 to 40%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. to adjust the particle size to any desired size, including providing a standard relative deviation (RSD) of the particle size from 25 to 40%, or sort out particles that have a standard relative deviation (RSD) of the particle size is from 25 to 40%.
Therefore, Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. as applied to claim 6 and further in view of Nguyen et al. (“All-optical nanoscale thermometry with silicon-vacancy centers in diamond,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 203102 (2018)) (cited by applicant) and O’Neal et al. (“Photo-thermal tumor ablation in mice using near infrared-absorbing nanoparticles,” Cancer Letters 209 (2004) 171–176).
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. renders claim 6 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the micro space is a cell or an intracellular organelle.
Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. does not teach that the micro space in which temperature is measured if a cell of an intracellular organelle.
Nguyen et al. teaches the use of nanodiamonds having silicon-vacancy centers that are used in in vivo measurements. (page 203102-1 first paragraph).
In referring to in vivo measurements Nguyen et al. references O’Neal et al. O’Neal et al. teaches in vivo regions of cancel cells.
It would have been obvious to one skill in the art to modify Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. to use the nanodiamonds for in vivo thermometry measurements of micro spaces such as cells as taught by Nguyen et al. and O’Neal et al. for proposes of investigating thermal properties of cells.
Therefore, Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al., Nguyen et al. and O’Neal et al. renders claim 7 obvious.
3. Claims 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0342390 to Tsuji et al. (cited by applicant)
As noted above, Clevenson et al. teaches that diamonds that have nitrogen vacancies (NVs) can be used in sensors to measure temperature based on fluorescence emitted by the NVs. (Abstract and column 7, lines 32-54).
Further, as noted above, Davydova et al. teaches that nanodiamonds having either Si vacancies (Si-V) or nitrogen vacancies (M-V) provide for new capabilities for the creation of single photon emitters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Clevenson et al. to use nanodiamonds with Si vacancies in a temperature sensing probe in of diamond crystals having N vacancies in view of Davydova et al. teaching that either Si vacancies (Si-V) or nitrogen vacancies (M-V) provide for new capabilities for the creation of single photon emitters.
In Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. monitoring emitted fluorescence intensity to measure temperature would have been obvious.
Clevenson et al. in view of Davudova et al. does not teach mixing a temperature sensitive probe comprising a group 14 element-doped nanodiamond with cells in water to introduce the temperature-sensitive probe into the cells.
Tsuji et al. teaches introducing temperature sensitive probes into cell by mixing the probes and cells together in a solvent such as water. [0184]
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to further modify Clevenson et al. in view of Davudova et al. and mix the nanodiamonds with water to introduce the nanodiamonds into cells as taught by Tsuji et al. for purposes locating the nanodiamonds in cells of interest.
Therefore, Clevenson et al. in view of Davudova et al. and Tsuji et al. renders claim 8 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. and Tsuji et al. renders claim 8 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that M is Si.
As noted above, Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. and Tsuji et al. uses Si vacancies.
Therefore, Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. and Tsuji et al. renders claim 11 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. and Tsuji et al. renders claim 8 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites wherein a standard relative deviation (RSD) of the particle size is from 25 to 40%.
Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. and Tsuji et al. does not teach that a standard relative deviation (RSD) of the particle size is from 25 to 40%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. and Tsuji et al. to adjust the particle size to any desired size, including providing a standard relative deviation (RSD) of the particle size from 25 to 40%, or sort out particles that have a standard relative deviation (RSD) of the particle size is from 25 to 40%.
Therefore, Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. and Tsuji et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 6-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies upon new prior references of Clevenson et al. in view of Davydova et al. as necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights