DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/20/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 9-17 are cancelled. Claims 1-8 and 18-23 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 § 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, 8 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariyappan et al. (Journal of Fluorescence, 2019) (Mariyappan) in view of Petrus et al. (Dalton Transactions, 2013) (Petrus).
Regarding claim 1, Mariyappan teaches a fluorescence sensing method using a salicylate derivative for detecting Zn2+ and observing fluorescence as the salicylate derivative binds Zn2+ (Fig. 8 & 9, page 742). Mariyappan teaches that zinc compound selectively recognizes salicylate while other ions do not (Fig. 7 & 9, page 734). Petrus shows that methyl salicylate chelates with Zn2+ (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to rely on the established Zn–salicylate chelation chemistry of Petrus when designing or interpreting the salicylate Zn sensor of Mariyappan, since Petrus demonstrates that salicylate ligands form stable Zn complexes via O,O′ chelation — the same interaction underlying Mariyappan’s sensing mechanism.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Zn2+ for bind methyl salicylate and observe fluorescence indicating the binding. The result is predictable.
Regarding claim 2, a person skilled in the art would have recognized that the compound listed in claim 2 all contains Zn2+, therefore can be used for sensing methyl salicylate.
Regarding claim 3, Mariyappan teaches that wherein the sensing utilizes a phenomenon in which methyl salicylate reacts with the zinc compound to form a complex and exhibit fluorescence emission (Fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 4, Mariyappan teaches that wherein the sensing utilizes a phenomenon in which methyl salicylate reacts with the zinc compound to form a complex and exhibit fluorescence emission (Fig. 7-8). When fluorescence emission changes, the electrochemical behavior is also changed, because changes in fluorescence emission are fundamentally linked to changes in the electrochemical behavior (redox state) of molecules, a relationship utilized in techniques like fluorescence-enabled electrochemical microscopy (FEEM) and electrochemical fluorescence switching. When an applied electrochemical potential alters a molecule's redox state, it often changes its structure and ability to fluoresce (bright or dim), which can be directly correlated to the electron transfer occurring at an electrode.
Regarding claim 5, since methyl salicylate reacts with the zinc compound to form a complex and exhibit electrochemical change, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a change in current value caused by a reaction of the zinc compound and methyl salicylate for sensing salicylate derivative. The result is predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Mariyappan-Petrus fairly suggests a methyl salicylate sensor for detecting methyl salicylate, at least comprising:
i) a recognition section for methyl salicylate that comprises a zinc compound (Fig. 7-8); and
ii) a detection section that detects recognition of methyl salicylate by the recognition section (Fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 8, Mariyappan fairly suggests the detection section comprising an optical and/or electrochemical detection element and a computer, wherein the methyl salicylate sensor has a program that causes the computer to execute:
i) receiving a signal from the optical and/or electrochemical detection element (Fig. 8);
ii) analyzing the received signal to determine presence or absence of methyl salicylate and/or a concentration thereof (Fig. 9); and
iii) outputting an analysis result (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 18, Mariyappan fairly suggests that wherein the detection section comprises an optical detection section that optically detects recognition of methyl salicylate by the recognition section (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 19, Mariyappan teaches that wherein the optical detection section at least comprises an excitation light source and a detection element (page 739, par 1).
Regarding claim 20, Mariyappanfairly suggests that wherein the detection section comprises an electrochemical detection section that electrochemically detects recognition of methyl salicylate by the recognition section.
Regarding claim 21, Mariyappan fairly suggests that wherein the electrochemical detection section comprises an electrochemical cell having an electrode that detects a current caused by oxidation of a complex formed by the zinc compound and methyl salicylate.
Claim(s) 7 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariyappan in view of Petrus as applied to claims 1-6, 8 and 18-21, and further in view of Ramasamy et al. (US 2018/0142277, IDS) (Ramasamy).
Regarding claim 7, Mariyappan teaches that wherein the methyl salicylate sensor at least comprises:
i) a recognition section for methyl salicylate that comprises a zinc compound (Fig. 8); and
ii) a detection section that detects recognition of methyl salicylate by the recognition section (page 739, par 1).
Mariyappan does not specifically teach that the method can be used for detecting pathogen infection in a crop.
However, Ramasamy teaches that the method can be used for detecting pathogen infection in a crop (Fig. 9, par [0008]), comprising installing methyl salicylate sensor in a vicinity of the crop, and detecting methyl salicylate by the methyl salicylate sensor (Fig. 9, par [0008]).
Regarding claim 22, Mariyappan teaches/suggests that the detection section comprising an optical and/or electrochemical detection element and a computer, wherein the methyl salicylate sensor has a program that causes the computer to execute:
i) receiving a signal from the optical and/or electrochemical detection element (page 739, par 1);
ii) analyzing the received signal to determine presence or absence of methyl salicylate and/or a concentration thereof (page 739, par 1); and
iii) outputting an analysis result (page 739, par 1).
Regarding claim 23, Ramasamy teaches that wherein the methyl salicylate sensor is installed near the crop (par [0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art o optimize the distance between the methyl salicylate sensor and the crop by routine experimentation.
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