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 claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 08/11/2026 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Claims 20-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/11/2026.
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 3, 5, 8, and 14-19 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 claim 3, the phrase “biological compound” is vague because it seems to mean “any compound that could be found in nature”, but it seems to encompass most of the other alternatives in the list (L-cysteine, citric acid, urea, polycyclic compound, aromatic hydrocarbon are all interpretable as biological compounds), which suggests there may be a distinction that is not presently clear. Furthermore, it is not clear if compounds that are found in nature but synthesized in a lab would be considered a “biological compound.” Additional explanation and revision are required. In the interest of compact prosecution Examiner will interpret “biological compound” to mean “any compound that could be found in nature.”
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). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “biological compound”, and the claim also recites “L-cysteine,” “citric acid,” “urea,” “polycyclic compound,” “aromatic hydrocarbon” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “fluorotelomer based compound” is vague because there is no clear distinction between it and a fluorotelomer compound. Fluorotelomers already describes a wide range of oligomeric per/poly-fluoroalkyl substances, so what would make a “fluorotelomer compound” different from a “fluorotelomer based compound”?
Claim 8 recites “fluorinated replacement chemical,” which is not a particular term of art, and it is not given a special definition in the specification; [39] of the specification provides an open-ended list of fluorinated chemicals, but this does not amount to a special definition. The phrase “replacement” to describe a chemical is vague because, theoretically, any C-H bond might be replaced with a C-F bond, so would “fluorinated replacement chemical” encompass any molecule containing C-F bonds? Additional explanation and revision are required. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “fluorinated replacement chemical” to mean “a fluorinated chemical that is the fluorinated form of a known non-fluorinated chemical”.
Claim 14 recites “measuring one or more spectra parameters of the carbon dots,” but is not clear when this is intended to occur. Would this be before, after, and/or during the “mixing” step (step (b)) of claim 1? Additional clarification is required to positively recite the intended order of the “measuring” step of claim 14. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret the “measuring” step of claim 14 to occur before, after, and/or during the “mixing” step (step (b)) of claim 1.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they are dependent on claim 14 and do not clarify the order of the measuring step of claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims will be interpreted below according to MPEP 2106.
Inquiry 1: Is the claim directed to a statutory category of invention (process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)?
Claims 16-19 are drawn to a process.
Inquiry 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or
natural phenomenon?
Claim 16 recites “determining change in the emission intensity,” which reads as a mental process that can occur in the human mind and/or with pen/paper by simply observing and noting the emission output overtime. Mental processes are abstract ideas, therefore the claim is drawn to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 17 recites “determining the ratio of the emission intensity… at two predetermined emission wavelengths.” This reads as a mental process that can occur in the human mind and/or with pen/paper by observing the emission intensity output and calculating the ratio of the emission intensity. This may be interpreted as a mental process and/or a mathematical calculation, both of which are considered abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is drawn to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 18 recites “determining the change in the emission intensity,” which reads as a mental process that can occur in the human mind and/or with pen/paper by simply observing and noting the emission output overtime. Mental processes are abstract ideas, therefore the claim is drawn to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 19 recites “comparing the… spectra parameters with a reference.” This is a mental process that can occur in the human mind and/or with pen/paper by observing the spectral output and mentally comparing that output with a reference output. Mental processes are abstract ideas, therefore the claim is drawn to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Inquiry 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application?
Firstly, Claims 16-19 do not integrate their respective judicial exceptions into practical applications because nothing occurs after the steps that are drawn to judicial exceptions.
Furthermore, the steps prior to the judicial exceptions amount to, at best, the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data-gathering:
Claims 16-17 are dependent on claim 15; claim 15 is drawn to the measurement step of claim 14, which is dependent on claim 1, which only contains “providing” and “mixing” steps, all of which amounts to mere data gathering. This is also true for claim 18, with claim 18 including an additional “changing” step prior to the judicial exception that also amounts to mere data-gathering. Claim 19 is dependent on claim 14 and claim 1, the steps of which amount to mere data-gathering. Mere data-gathering is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(G).
Inquiry 2B: Does the claim recite additional limitations that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception?
No they do not.
Claims 16-17 are dependent on claim 15; claim 15 is drawn to the measurement step of claim 14, which is dependent on claim 1, which only contains “providing” and “mixing” steps, all of which amounts to mere data gathering. This is also true for claim 18, with claim 18 including an additional “changing” step prior to the judicial exception that also amounts to mere data-gathering. Claim 19 is dependent on claim 14 and claim 1, the steps of which amount to mere data-gathering. Mere data-gathering is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(G).
Furthermore, the concepts found in claims 1, 14-19 are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the arts: Walekar et al. (Microchimica Acta, Vole. 186, pgs. 278-296, 10 April 2019) teaches a method of detecting PFAS by mixing carbon dots with test PFAS to quench the fluorescence of the carbon dots and determine the concentration-dependent emissive response of the carbon dots in the presence of different concentrations of PFAS, and comparing that response to a control; Sato et al. (Chem. Commun., Vol. 56, pgs. 2174-2177, 15 January 2020) teaches more than one subset of carbon dots where some of those carbon dots comprise loaded PFAS; Niu et al. (Anal. Chem., Vol. 86, pgs. 4170-4177, 31 March 2014) teaches nanoparticles loaded with PFAS that are able to interact with other PFAS to cause spectral changes to those nanoparticles, and teaches of a broader ability for PFAS molecules to interact with other PFAS molecules through fluorine-fluorine interactions; Tan et al. (CN108529592A, see also the provided Machine Translation) teaches carbon dots for detecting PFAS and teaches measuring ratios of different predetermined emission wavelengths in carbon dots to accurately determine the amount of PFOS in a given sample.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 14-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walekar et al. (Microchimica Acta, Vole. 186, pgs. 278-296, 10 April 2019) in view of Sato et al. (Chem. Commun., Vol. 56, pgs. 2174-2177, 15 January 2020), as evidenced by the provided Supplemental Material, as evidenced by Niu et al. (Anal. Chem., Vol. 86, pgs. 4170-4177, 31 March 2014).
Regarding claim 1, Walekar teaches a method of detecting one or more per- and/or poly- fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in liquid phase (abstract) (detection of PFOA in real samples by the standard addition method), comprising:
Providing carbon dots (abstract and pg. 279 right column second paragraph) (Highly fluorescent carbon quantum dots co-doped with selenium and nitrogen (SeN-CQDs) were fabricated and SeN-CQDs were synthesized); and
Mixing the carbon dots with the liquid phase (pg. 279 right column fourth paragraph) (All tests for PFOA detection were performed by… Fluorescence titration was taken by mixing 1 mL SeNCQDs and 4 mL PFOA).
Walekar is silent to providing carbon dots comprising a first loaded PFAS.
In the analogous art of designing fluorescent carbon dots, Sato describes carbon dots that are first loaded with a PFAS (abstract of Sato) (The fluorescence solvatochromism of p-phenylenediamine-derived carbon dots (CDs) was modulated through surface modification with decanoic acid or perfluorodecanoic acid). See also Figure 1 of Sato:
PNG
media_image1.png
176
1075
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the analogous art of detecting PFAS, Niu et al. establishes that PFAS loaded onto the surface of nanoparticles (‘F-thiols’) is useful in the detection of other PFAS (perfluorinated compounds, ‘PFCs’) because it encourages special non-covalent fluorine-fluorine interactions that lead to the detection of PFAS through spectral changes (pg. 4176 left column third paragraph) (The strong and specific F−F interaction between PFCs and F-thiols results in the adsorption of PFCs on Au NPs… The color of the reaction solution and UV−vis absorbance changes with PFCs concentration). As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application would understand this scientific principal.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the carbon dots co-doped with selenium and nitrogen as taught by Walekar by loading PFAS on the surface of the carbon dots as taught by Sato because it would lead to strong F-F interactions to improve the detection of PFAS as taught by Niu with a reasonable expectation of success (see abstract and pg. 279 right column second paragraph of Walekar; see abstract, figure 1, figure 5, pg. 2177 left column third paragraph of Sato; see pg. 4176 left column third paragraph of Niu).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches wherein the first loeaded PFAS is in a pre-determined amount (pg. S3 first paragraph of Sato Supplemental Information) (The CD powder (0.10 g) was also added to PFDA (4.75 g, 9.25 mmol)).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches of preparing carbon dots from selenomethionine, a biological compound, and water (pg. 279 right column second paragraph of Walekar) (SeN-CQDs were synthesized by using the following procedure. Selenomethionine (100 mg) was dissolved in 10 mL ultrapure water); Modified Walekar also teaches of using L-cystein and citric acid as precursors (pg. 279 left column first paragraph of Walekar) (photoluminescent S and N co-doped CQDs was synthesized by using L-cysteine and citric acid as precursors).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches wherein the carbon dots are further functionalized with amine and carbonyl groups (see annotated Figure 1 below from Sato):
PNG
media_image2.png
198
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches wherein the first loaded PFAS is perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acid (see figure one of Sato, “perfluorodecanoic acid” is a perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acid).
PNG
media_image1.png
176
1075
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches wherein the first loaded PFAS is perfluorodecanoic acid (see figure 1 cited above), which has a molecular formula of C9F19COOH.
Regarding claim 14, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches measuring one or more spectra parameters of the carbon dots (pg. 280 right column fourth paragraph of Walekar) (The fluorometric response to PFOA was studied by fluorescence titration. The emissions associated to PFOA concentrations at pH 8 are shown in Fig. 3. In the presence of PFOA, SeN-CQDs shows a dramatic quenching); see also figure 3 of Walekar which shows the fluorescence spectra of the carbon dots upon addition of test PFAS:
PNG
media_image3.png
436
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 14 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches measuring emission intensity (pg. 280 right column fourth paragraph of Walekar) (The fluorometric response to PFOA was studied by fluorescence titration. The emissions associated to PFOA concentrations at pH 8 are shown in Fig. 3. In the presence of PFOA, SeN-CQDs shows a dramatic quenching); see also figure 3 of Walekar which shows the excitation wavelength (see legend, λex = 350 nm), emission wavelength (see legend, λem = 445 nm), peak shape, and emission intensity of the carbon dots upon addition of test PFAS:
PNG
media_image3.png
436
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 15 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches determining chance in the emission intensity at a predetermined excitation wavelength (see figure 3 legend of Walekar, λex = 350 nm) before and after mixing the carbon dots with the test PFAS; see figure 3 of Walekar, which shows the emission data before mixing the carbon dots with the test PFAS (‘Without PFOA’, top emission trace) and after mixing the carbon dots with the test PFAS (10-70 µM PFOA traces):
PNG
media_image3.png
436
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 15 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches changing the concentration of the one or more test PFAS in the liquid phase (see figure 3, 10-70 µM PFOA traces) and determining the chance in the emission intensity of the carbon dots at a predetermined excitation wavelength (see figure 3 legend of Walekar, λex = 350 nm) and a predetermined emission wavelength (see figure 3 legend of Walekar, λem = 445 nm).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 15 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches comparing the one or more spectra parameters with a reference (pg. 280 right column fourth paragraph of Walekar) (In the presence of PFOA, SeN-CQDs shows a dramatic quenching). Examiner interprets the emission spectra of the carbon dots without the addition of PFAS to be a control that is compared with the spectral parameters of the carbon dots after mixing with PFAS; the observation of “quenching” made by Walekar is evidence of a comparison being made between the emission intensity before PFAS addition (‘Without PFOA’, top emission trace of Fig 3) and after PFAS addition (10-70 µM PFOA traces of Fig 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
436
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Walekar et al. (Microchimica Acta, Vol. 186, pgs. 278-296, 10 April 2019) in view of Sato et al. (Chem. Commun., Vol. 56, pgs. 2174-2177, 15 January 2020), as evidenced by Niu et al. (Anal. Chem., Vol. 86, pgs. 4170-4177, 31 March 2014), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takayose et al. (Analyst, Vol. 137, pgs. 2762-2765, 30 April 2012).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches the first loaded PFAS is selected to bind to a host of different PFAS (pg. 4176 third paragraph of Niu) (This developed… shows excellent selectivity and sensitivities to PFCs); see also modified Table 2 from Niu below, which shows the affinities of a loaded PFAS with Perfluorobutanesulfonate (PFBS), perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS), perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA), perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA), perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA), and perfluorooctadecanoic acid (PFODA):
PNG
media_image4.png
330
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Walekar does not teach wherein the first loaded PFAS is selected to bind to a first reference PFAS.
In the analogous art of detecting PFAS, Takayose teaches of loaded PFAS being selected to specifically bind to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) by designing the loaded PFAS to be structurally similar to PFOA (pg. 2762 right column first paragraph of Takayose) (We envisioned that MIPs selective for specific fluorous compounds could be synthesized using a fluorous monomer and a fluorous cross-linker, which are expected to show fluorine–fluorine interaction with PFOA… fluorous MIPs are synthesized using PFOA as a model template species). Takayose teaches that selecting PFAS to bind to a specific reference PFAS is advantageous and necessary because certain PFAS, such as PFOA, are more hazardous than other PFAS and can accumulate in the environment (pg. 2762 left column first paragraph of introduction) (it is of significant interest to develop affinity media selective for some hazardous fluorous compounds, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which are reported to be accumulated in the environment and biological systems).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the loaded PFAS of Modified Walekar to specifically bind to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) as taught by Takayose because it enables the detection of hazardous PFAS, which can accumulate in the environment and biological systems, with a reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 4176 third paragraph and Table 2 of Niu; pg. 2762 left column first paragraph and right column first paragraph of Takayose).
Regarding claim 8, modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu further in view of Takayose) teaches the method of claim 7 as rejected above, wherein the first reference PFAS is both a perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acid and a fluorinated replacement chemical (pg. 2762 right column first paragraph of Takayose) (We envisioned that MIPs selective for… PFOA… fluorous MIPs are synthesized using PFOA as a model template species). Note that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is a perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acid and a fluorinated replacement chemical (octanoic acid is the ’nonfluorinated’ version of PFOA).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches wherein the carbon dots are loaded with a first loaded PFAS, and where a second subset of carbon dots is loaded with a non-PFAS substrate (abstract of Sato) (carbon dots (CDs)… surface modification with decanoic acid or perfluorodecanoic acid).
Modified Walekar does not teach wherein the carbon dots are further loaded with a second loaded PFAS, wherein the second loaded PFAS is selected to bind a second reference PFAS.
In the analogous art of detecting PFAS through PFAS-PFAS interactions, Takayose teaches a PFAS-detecting substrate that is further loaded with a second loaded PFAS that is selected to bind to a second reference PFAS (pg. 2762 right column second paragraph) (PFOA-imprinted polymers were… synthesized using methacrylic acid (MA) or 2-(trifluoromethyl)acrylic acid (TFMA) as a functional monomer and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EDMA) or 2,2,3,3,4,4-hexafluoropentan-1,5-diyl dimethacrylate (HFPDMA) as a cross-linker); see also Table 1, which shows a PFAS-detecting substrate having two different loaded PFAS (“IP(FF)” and “BP(FF)”):
PNG
media_image5.png
253
589
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Takayose teaches that selective binding of a loaded PFAS to a reference PFAS is mediated in part by the total fluorine (F) content, and more fluorine is necessary to enable the selective binding of a reference/target PFAS (pg. 2763 left column third paragraph) (higher fluorine content is favorable for PFOA retention, and the sole use of TFMA or HFPDMA resulted in insufficient fluorine content).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the carbon dots of Modified Walekar to load a second loaded PFAS selected to bind to a second reference PFAS as taught by Takayose because it would lead to a higher fluorine content on the carbon dots that would improve the binding affinity between the carbon dots and the reference PFAS with a reasonable expectation of success (see abstract of Sato; pg. 2762 right column second paragraph and pg. 2763 left column third paragraph of Takayose).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu further in view of Takayose) teaches the method of claim 9 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches wherein the carbon dots comprise two or more subsets of carbon dots; see figure 1 of Sato, which shows a subset of carbon dots with PFAS and another subset without PFAS:
PNG
media_image6.png
374
1170
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Walekar teaches wherein at least some of the first loaded PFAS and at least some of the second loaded PFAS are disposed on a same subset of the two subsets (pg. 2762 right column second paragraph of Takayose) (IP(FF)… synthesized using… 2-(trifluoromethyl)acrylic acid (TFMA)… and… 2,2,3,3,4,4-hexafluoropentan-1,5-diyl dimethacrylate (HFPDMA)); see also table 1 of Takayose for “IP(FF)”.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu further in view of Takayose) teaches the method of claim 9 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches wherein the carbon dots comprise two or more subsets; see Figure 1 of Sato, which shows a subset of carbon dots with PFAS and another subset without PFAS:
PNG
media_image6.png
374
1170
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Walekar teaches a first and second loaded PFAS (pg. 2762 right column second paragraph of Takayose) (IP(FF)… synthesized using… 2-(trifluoromethyl)acrylic acid (TFMA)… and… 2,2,3,3,4,4-hexafluoropentan-1,5-diyl dimethacrylate (HFPDMA)).
Modified Walekar does not clearly teach wherein the first loaded PFAS and the second loaded PFAS are disposed on different subsets of the two or more subsets.
In the analogous art of detecting PFAS, Takayose teaches wherein the first loaded PFAS and second loaded PFAS are disposed on different subsets (pg. 2762 right column second paragraph of Takayose) (IP(FR), IP(RF)… which were synthesized using methacrylic acid (MA) or 2-(trifluoromethyl)acrylic acid (TFMA) as a functional monomer and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EDMA) or 2,2,3,3,4,4-hexafluoropentan-1,5-diyl dimethacrylate (HFPDMA) as a cross-linker); see also Table 1 of Takayose, which shows a first loaded PFAS (TFMA) and a second loaded PFAS (HFPDMA) being on different subsets (IP(FR) and IP(RF)):
PNG
media_image5.png
253
589
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Takayose teaches that loading the PFAS on separate subsets allows for studying how the different PFAS affect the binding affinity of the subsets by themselves (pg. 2762 right column second paragraph) (TFMA and HFPDMA possess fluorine atoms, whereas MA and EDMA do not… MA and TFMA also differ in their acidity… due to the electron-withdrawing effects of the trifluoromethyl group… this difference could influence the interaction mode), and suggests that this allows for loaded PFAS to be scrutinized in case they undermine the desired binding to a reference PFAS (pg. 2763 left column first paragraph) (a high density of cross-linking is generally required for preservation of the template modeled binding site. In this sense, HFPDMA could be a relatively inappropriate cross-linker compared with EDMA).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the first and second PFAS of that are loaded on the same subset of carbon dots as taught by Modified Walekar to instead load the first and second PFAS on separate subsets of carbon dots as suggested by Takayose because it would lead to comparing the effects of the first and second loaded PFAS separately on the binding affinities and to optimize the selection of loaded PFAS with a reasonable expectation of success (see Figure 1 of Sato; pg. 2762 right column second paragraph and pg. 2763 left column first paragraph of Takayose).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches adding a supplemental set of carbon dots to the liquid phase (abstract of Sato and abstract of Walekar) (The fluorescence solvatochromism of p-phenylenediamine-derived carbon dots (CDs) was modulated through surface modification with decanoic acid or perfluorodecanoic acid and Fluorescence is selectively quenched by perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and this is accompanied by a decreased fluorescence lifetime).
Modified Walekar does not teach a supplemental set of carbon dots comprising a third loaded PFAS which is selected to bind to a third reference PFAS.
In the analogous art of detecting PFAS, Takayose teaches of a supplemental set of PFAS-detecting particles comprising third loaded PFAS that are selected to bind to a third reference PFAS (pg. 2762 right column second paragraph of Takayose) (that MIPs selective for specific fluorous compounds could be synthesized using a fluorous monomer and a fluorous cross-linker, which are expected to show fluorine–fluorine interaction with PFOA… IP(FR), IP(RF)… which were synthesized using methacrylic acid (MA) or 2-(trifluoromethyl)acrylic acid (TFMA) as a functional monomer and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EDMA) or 2,2,3,3,4,4-hexafluoropentan-1,5-diyl dimethacrylate (HFPDMA) as a cross-linker); see also Table 1 of Takayose, which shows a first loaded PFAS (TFMA) and a third loaded PFAS (HFPDMA) being on different subsets (IP(FR) and IP(RF)):
PNG
media_image5.png
253
589
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Takayose teaches that loading the PFAS on separate subsets allows for studying how the different PFAS affect the binding affinity of the subsets by themselves (pg. 2762 right column second paragraph) (TFMA and HFPDMA possess fluorine atoms, whereas MA and EDMA do not… MA and TFMA also differ in their acidity… due to the electron-withdrawing effects of the trifluoromethyl group… this difference could influence the interaction mode), and suggests that this allows for loaded PFAS to be scrutinized in case they undermine the desired binding to a reference PFAS (pg. 2763 left column first paragraph) (a high density of cross-linking is generally required for preservation of the template modeled binding site. In this sense, HFPDMA could be a relatively inappropriate cross-linker compared with EDMA).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the supplemental set of carbon dots taught by Modified Walekar to have a third loaded PFAS which is selected to bind to a third reference PFAS as suggested by Takayose because it would lead to comparing the effects of the first and third loaded PFAS separately on the binding affinities and to optimize the selection of loaded PFAS with a reasonable expectation of success (see abstract of Sato; abstract of Walekar; pg. 2762 right column second paragraph of Takayose).
Claim 13 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Walekar et al. (Microchimica Acta, Vol. 186, pgs. 278-296, 10 April 2019) in view of Sato et al. (Chem. Commun., Vol. 56, pgs. 2174-2177, 15 January 2020) as evidenced by Niu et al. (Anal. Chem., Vol. 86, pgs. 4170-4177, 31 March 2014), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chen et al. (Microchemical Journal, Vol. 145, pgs. 388-396, 4 November 2018).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches of obtaining test PFAS that is analytical grade and is used without further purification (pg. 279 left column third paragraph of Walekar) (All reagents were of analytical grade and used without further purification… PFOA was obtained from Aladdin Industrial Corporation).
Modified Walekar is silent to, prior to mixing the carbon dots with the test PFAS, enriching the one or more test PFASs.
In the analogous art of PFAS detection, Chen teaches of enriching PFAS test samples prior to their analysis (pg. 395 left column third paragraph) (Prior to measurement, samples were heated to boiling… filtered three times… Then after adding excessive Ba2+ to eliminate the interference of SDS and SDBS, cations exchange resin was used to eliminate interference of heavy metal cations and organic positive ion). Chen teaches this this enrichment process enables the detection of PFAS in tap water, river water, and other “actual” samples from aqueous environments (pg. 395 starting at left column third paragraph) (Several spiked water samples including tap water and Jialing River containing PFOS with three concentrations for PFOS detection were used to evaluate the application of present fluorescent assay… provides a theoretical basis for application of PFOS determination in actual aqueous environment.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the test PFAS of Modified Walekar with the enrichment method of Chen because doing so would enable the detection of PFAS in tap water, river water, and other “actual” samples from aqueous environments with a reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 279 left column third paragraph of Walekar; pg. 395 left column third paragraph of Chen).
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Walekar et al. (Microchimica Acta, Vol. 186, pgs. 278-296, 10 April 2019) in view of Sato et al. (Chem. Commun., Vol. 56, pgs. 2174-2177, 15 January 2020), as evidenced by Niu et al. (Anal. Chem., Vol. 86, pgs. 4170-4177, 31 March 2014), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Tan et al. (CN108529592A). References to text in Tan et al. use a machine translation that is provided.
Regarding claim 17, Modified Walekar (Walekar in view of Sato as evidenced by Niu) teaches the method of claim 15 as rejected above. Modified Walekar teaches calculating the ratio of the fluorescence with and without the presence of PFAS, see figures 3 (left, spectral data) and 4 (right, fluorescent ratios):
PNG
media_image7.png
505
1159
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In the analogous art of using carbon dots to detect PFOS, Tan teaches of determining a ratio of emission intensities at two predetermined emission wavelengths in the presence and absence of PFAS (pg. 11 sixth paragraph and pg. 12 first paragraph of Tan) (the excitation wavelength is 280nm, transmitting 350nm and 515nm and for fluorescence measurement at 280nm and 340nm… the ratio fluorescent signal in linear relationship with PFOS concentration within a certain range, establishes the ratio fluorescence spectrum analysis method (FIGS. 11, 12, 13, 14) detects the PFOS); see also figures 11 (spectral data) and 12 (ratios at various concentrations of PFAS) which show that, with 280 nm excitation, the two predetermined emission wavelengths (350 nm and 515 nm) and the ratios of their intensities over various PFAS concentrations:
PNG
media_image8.png
578
694
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
575
666
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Tan teaches that calculating the ratios of two predetermined wavelengths allows for the accurate quantification of PFAS in water and tap water with a lower standard deviation (pg. 12 first paragraph) (the method has been successfully used in Three Gorges reservoir measuring of PFOS in water and tap water, RSD is less than 5%) (note that “RSD” refers to “relative standard deviation”). Tan also specifically teaches that using two wavelengths for the PFAS determination instead of one is advantageous because it accounts for any constructive interference between two peaks that might deter accurate determination of PFAS (pg. 4 last parargaph of Tan) (double-emission fluorescent peak
wavelength position with far distance, it can better avoid mutual influence intensity between two peak due to experimental error).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the one-wavelength determination method of Modified Walekar with the two-wavelength determination of Tan because it would account for interference between two emission signals to lead to a more accurate determination of PFAS with a reasonable expectation of success (see figures 3-4 of Walekar; pg. 12 first paragraph pg. 4 last parargaph of Tan).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 141, pgs. 8277-8288, 30 April 2019) teaches a method of introducing more than one PFAS onto a single carbon nanoparticle; Kim et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, Vol. 8, pgs. 29827-29834, 17 October 2016) teaches perfluorinated silica-based fluorescent carbon dots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOUSTON D COLE whose telephone number is +1 571-272-3890. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/H.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights