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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending and under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure filed 07/06/2026 is objected to because of the following informalities: There are several references to colors in relationship to amino acid domains. For example, on pages 7 and 9, references to red, cyan, yellow and pink labels are included. References to color figures or drawings are not permitted unless accompanied with a petition. See below.
Page 12, line 10 states “FIG. 2A illustrates representative time-lapse”. It appears that this is in reference to FIG. 2C.
Page 14, lines 30-31 states “FIG. 5C” twice. One of these is in reference to FIG 5D.
Brief description of FIG 8D on page 17 references red, pink, light blue and blue.
Brief description of FIG 9B references “hot” and “cold” colors.
Brief description of FIG. 9F-G (page 18) states “red” and “blue” dots.
Brief description of FIG11B (page 19) references “red” arrow.
Brief description of FIG 13A references “color-code” and four criteria where highlighted with “color”.
Brief description of FIG 13B (page 20) states labeled in “Red” or “Blue”.
Applicants are reminded that color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification: Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/27/2023 are objected to for the following reasons:
Many of the drawings are blurry and could not readily be discerned. This could cause a printer query return and a delay in prosecution should the drawings not be up to standards. For example, see FIG. 1A, FIG. 1D, FIG. 2E, FIG. 3G, FIG. 23A, FIG. 2A, etc. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Below is snapshot of FIG. 24A:
PNG
media_image1.png
540
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawing for FIG. 9A-B is missing the “a” subheading.
The drawing for FIG. 11C-D is missing the “c” and “d” subheadings.
The drawing for FIG. 24B-G is missing the “b” subheading.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 1, the parenthetical expression (CFP) followed immediately by (ECFP) appears redundant. It is suggested that applicants choose one or the other.
Claim 7 is objected to for being grammatically unclear because the claim reads like a run-on sentence. One suggestion is that the word “is” should precede “attached”.
Claim 11 is objected to for reciting “wherein cell is a human cell” as it appears the word “the” should precede the first recitation of cell.
Claim 13 is objected to for reciting “The cell of claim 6” as it should state, “The method of Claim 6” or “The cell of claim 5”.
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, the phrase "or equivalent" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-6 and 9-17 are included in this rejection as they ultimately depend from Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the YPet domain" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xiang et al. (Cell Mol Bioeng., 4(4), December 2011) teach FRET-based biosensors based on activation of Src. Also see Figure 1, page 11.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY B NICKOL, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)272-0835. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Julie Wu can be reached at 571-272-5205. 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.
/GARY B NICKOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1643
Prosecution Insights