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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 12 January 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 13-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein the metal ion is a copper ion (Cu2+), a nickel ion (Ni2+), or a cobalt ion (Co2+)."
The parenthetical limitations render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the narrower limitations within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. Would the cobalt ion Co3+ meet the claimed limitation? A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang ("A Tetraphenylethylene-Based Aggregation-Induced Emission Probe for Fluorescence Turn-on Detection of Lipopolysaccharide in Injectable Water with Sensitivity Down to Picomolar," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 11, Huang discloses a test substance detection method comprising:
mixing a sample (Fig. 4b; para. bridging pp. 8255-8256) containing:
a test substance that is a phospholipid or a glycolipid (lipopolysaccharide, LPS, abstract, Scheme 1) and
water (aqueous samples used throughout reference),
a compound represented by Formula (1) (BT-5, abstract, Scheme 1), wherein A represents a response site which is a group containing a conjugated multiple bond (tetraphenylethylene moiety), L represents a spacer having a chain length of 1 atom that is a linear saturated alkyl chain (see annotation below), and Y (see annotation below) represents a recognition site which is a group interacting with a test substance (via electrostatic and/or hydrophobic interaction, abstract, Scheme 1), and
a surfactant (abstract; Fig. 4b; para. bridging pp. 8255-8256); and
detecting a response at the response site arising from interaction between the recognition site and the test substance ("Upon addition of LPS, the BT-5 aqueous solution showed a concentration-dependent increase in fluorescence spectra. Moreover, BT-5 displayed a high selectivity to LPS in the presence of polysaccharide, surfactants, cations, anions, and several amino acids that may exist in injectable water samples…" abstract; Fig. 4b; para. bridging pp. 8255-8256).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses that the surfactants include CTAB (Fig. 4b; para. bridging pp. 8255-8256), which has a HLB value of 10, as evidenced by the instant disclosure ([0204] of published application).
Regarding claim 9, Huang discloses that the surfactant is a cationic surfactant (Fig. 4b; para. bridging pp. 8255-8256).
Regarding claim 10, Huang discloses that the compound is a compound capable of forming a molecular assembly with the surfactant (BT-5 is capable of forming a molecular assembly with the anionic surfactant SDBS, para. bridging pp. 8255-8256).
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhattacharya ("First report of Zn2+ sensing exclusively at mesoscopic interfaces," Chem. Commun. 2003, IDS; see also newly cited graphical abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
116
166
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1-5, Bhattacharya discloses a test substance detection method comprising:
mixing a sample (Fig. 2, para. bridging pp. 1158-1159) containing:
a test substance (Zn2+ ions) and water (Fig. 2, para. bridging pp. 1158-1159),
a compound represented by Formula (1) [1-pyrenyl-methyl-bis(2-picolyl) amine Pybpa, see above from graphical abstract], wherein A represents a response site which is a group containing a conjugated multiple bond (pyrene moiety), L represents a spacer having a chain length of 1 atom that is a linear saturated alkyl chain, and Y represents a recognition site which is a group interacting with a test substance (dipicolylamine moiety), and
a surfactant (TWEEN 20 or SDS, Fig. 2, para. bridging pp. 1158-1159); and
detecting a response at the response site arising from interaction between the recognition site and the test substance (Fig. 2, para. bridging pp. 1158-1159).
Regarding claim 6 and Formula (Y2), Bhattacharya discloses that the metal ion of sodium ion (Na+) is present for at least the surfactant SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate, para. bridging pp. 1158-1159).
Regarding claim 8, Bhattacharya discloses that the surfactants include neutral polyoxyethylene (20) sorbital monolaurate (TWEEN 20) or SDS (para. bridging pp. 1158-1159), which respectively have a HLB value from 6 to 40, as evidenced by the instant disclosure ([0207], [0209], [02010] of published application).
Regarding claim 9, Bhattacharya discloses that the surfactant is a non-ionic surfactant [neutral polyoxyethylene (20) sorbital monolaurate (TWEEN 20), para. bridging pp. 1158-1159].
Regarding claim 10, Bhattacharya discloses that the compound is a compound capable of forming a molecular assembly with the surfactant (Pybpa bound to mesoscopic surfaces of TWEEN 20 micelles, graphical abstract, para. bridging pp. 1158-1159).
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin ("Sensitive discrimination of glycoproteins and cell differentiation with an array sensing platform exploiting pyrene-derived amphiphile/surfactant assemblies," Chem. Commun., 2019, IDS; see also newly cited graphical abstract and electronic supplementary information).
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, and 6, Lin discloses a test substance detection method comprising:
mixing a sample (third page of ESI) containing:
a test substance (glycoprotein) and water (HEPES buffer solution),
a compound represented by Formula (1) (phenyl boronic acid-functionalized pyrene amphiphile, P2), wherein A represents a response site which is a group containing a conjugated multiple bond (moiety comprising pyrene and portion of linker proximal to pyrene; see annotation above), L represents a spacer having a chain length of from 1 to 10 atoms (portion of linker proximal to phenyl boronic acid; see annotation above), and Y represents a recognition site which is a group interacting with a test substance (phenyl boronic acid), and
a surfactant [decyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (DTAB), Triton X-100 (TX100), or sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)]; and
detecting a response at the response site arising from interaction between the recognition site and the test substance (abstract; Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 6, because claim 7 does not require that Formula (1) comprises Formula (Y2), and because the phenyl boronic acid-functionalized pyrene amphiphile P2 of Lin comprises Formula (Y1) as recited in claim 6, claim 7 is anticipated.
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses that the surfactants include SDS, which has a HLB value of 40, as evidenced by the instant disclosure ([0207], of published application).
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses that the surfactant is a cationic surfactant (DTAB) or a non-ionic surfactant (Triton X-100).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses that the compound is a compound capable of forming a molecular assembly with the surfactant (graphical abstract).
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.
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 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabral ("Sensitive Detection of Broad-Spectrum Bacteria with Small-Molecule Fluorescent Excimer Chemosensors," ACS Sens. 2020) in view of Huang.
PNG
media_image4.png
342
1476
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1-6, 11, and 12, Cabral discloses a test substance detection method (Table 1; page 2757, left col.; Fig. S19) comprising:
mixing a sample (para. bridging pp. 4-5 of SI; Fig. S19, page 20 of SI) containing:
a test substance that is an endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide, LPS) and water (HEPES buffer, which is aqueous),
a compound represented by Formula (1A) (1-C DPA or 4-C DPA; Fig. 2; Fig. S19, a portion of which is reproduced above); and
detecting a response at the response site arising from interaction between the recognition site and the test substance (Table 1; "Titrations with LPS and LTA isolates revealed low nanomolar detection limits for LPS endotoxin with all sensors…," page 2759, last para.; Fig. S19).
Cabral does not disclose that the sample comprises a surfactant.
In the analogous prior art of a fluorescence sensor for lipopolysaccharide (LPS), Huang discloses detecting LPS in the presence of surfactants (abstract; Fig. 4b; para. bridging pp. 8255-8256). Huang teaches that surfactants may exist in injectable water samples (abstract; last para., page 8256) and that LPS is a serious contaminant in injectable water and therefore detection of LPS in clinical injectable water and other injectable drugs is highly desirable, especially in pharmaceutical quality control and health care (page 8252, first para.).
For the benefit of detecting LPS in injectable water for pharmaceutical quality control, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the method of Cabral such that the sample comprises a surfactant, as taught by Huang.
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses that the surfactants include CTAB (Fig. 4b; para. bridging pp. 8255-8256), which has a HLB value of 10, as evidenced by the instant disclosure ([0204] of published application).
Regarding claim 9, Huang discloses that the surfactant is a cationic surfactant (Fig. 4b; para. bridging pp. 8255-8256).
Regarding claim 10, it is considered to be inherent that the compound of Cabral (1-C DPA or 4-C DPA) is a compound that is inherently capable of forming a molecular assembly with the cationic surfactant of Huang, as evidenced by the instant disclosure. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabral in view of Huang as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-12 above, further in view of Gunning (US 2020/0270218; IDS).
Regarding claim 7, sensors 1-C DPA, 4-C DPA, and 7-C DPA of Cabral each are a compound of Formula (1) that comprises a metal coordinating group of Formula (Y2), where Mn+ is Zn2+.
Cabral does not disclose that Mn+ is a copper ion, a nickel ion, or a cobalt ion.
In the analogous prior art of a fluorescence sensor for lipopolysaccharide (LPS) ([0008], [0009], and [0141]), Gunning discloses a sensor that is a compound of Formula (1) ([0087]-[0092]) that comprises a metal coordinating group of Formula (Y2) ([0107], where Mn+ is a metal ion that is a copper ion, a nickel ion, or a cobalt ion ([0108]).
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Given the chemical similarity of the metal ions of claim 7 to the Zn2+ of sensors 1-C DPA, 4-C DPA, and 7-C DPA of Cabral, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the method of Cabral in view of Huang by substituting any one of the copper ion, nickel ion, or cobalt ion disclosed by Gunning for the Zn2+ ion of sensors 1-C DPA, 4-C DPA, and 7-C DPA of Cabral.
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