On The examiner reviewing your application at the PTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to examiner Sarae Bausch.
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 without traverse of group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 06/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/19/2026.
Claims 1-6 are under examination.
Priority
Receipt of certified copies of foreign document CN202110071495.7 is acknowledged.
It is acknowledged that this application is a CIP of PCT/CN2022/072553, however there is no certified English translation of either document, PCT/CN2022/072553 and CN202110071495.7.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
Summary of Requirements for Patent Applications Filed On Or After July 1, 2022, That Have Sequence Disclosures
37 CFR 1.831(a) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.831(b) must contain a “Sequence Listing XML”, as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.835. This “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure may be submitted:
1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter “Legal Framework”) in XML format, together with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML file in a separate paragraph of the specification (an incorporation by reference paragraph) as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) identifying:
a. the name of the XML file
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes; or
2. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML format according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
a. the name of the XML file;
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes.
SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AND THE REQUIRED RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Specific deficiency - This application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.834 because it does not contain a “Sequence Listing XML” as a separate part of the disclosure. A “Sequence Listing XML” is required because the specification comprises sequences without a sequence listing. Specifically figure 3 comprises 4 nucleotide sequences that do not have a sequence identifier and there is no sequence listing in the application.
Required response - Applicant must provide:
• A “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure, as described above in item 1. or 2.; together with
o A statement that indicates the basis for the amendment, with specific references to particular parts of the application as originally filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(3);
o A statement that the “Sequence Listing XML” includes no new matter as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(4)
AND
• A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation by reference paragraph as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2), consisting of:
o A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
o A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
o A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specific deficiency - Sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(c). Sequence identifiers for sequences (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings. Fig 3 comprises sequences that do not have identifiers and there is no sequence listing of record.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Amended drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
• A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
• A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
• A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
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 1-6 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.
Claims 1-6 recite a composite magnetic nanomaterial based on a DNA tetrahedron. The recitation of “based on a DNA tetrahedron” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the composite magnetic nanomaterial is based on a DNA tetrahedron. The claim recites in the wherein phrase molybdenum disulfide particles, magnetic nanoparticles coating the surface of the molybdenum particles, gold nanoparticles, a sulfhydryl-containing DNA tetrahedron stably immobilized on the gold nanoparticles and a protein antibody bonded to the DNA tetrahedron. The claim appears to require the composite magnetic nanomaterial comprises each of the components of the wherein clause and the nanomaterial is not based on the DNA tetrahedron but that the DNA tetrahedron is part of the structure. The recitation of based on renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the composite requires the DNA tetrahedron, has some similarity to a DNA tetrahedron, derived from the DNA tetrahedron, or some other unstated relationship between the DNA tetrahedron and the nanomaterial. Because the phrase “based on” has not been clearly defined in the specification or the claims, one of skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and claim 1. Claim 5 requires the DNA tetrahedron to have a 3’ end or 5’ end of each DNA single strand and has a functional group and the functional group is sulfhydryl, carboxyl, an aldehyde group, an epoxy group or amino, and the functional sulfhydryl is used for a reaction of the DNA tetrahedron with the gold nanoparticles in the composite magnetic nanomaterial. This does not further limit claim 1 because claim 1 requires a sulfhydryl-containing DNA tetrahedron stably immobilized on the gold nanoparticles and therefore claim 1 requires a sulfhydryl group on the single stranded DNA that forms the DNA tetrahedron.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhai et al. (CN112924695B, cited on IDS, translation, pp. 1-7).
With regard to claim 1, Zhai teaches a composite magnetic nanomaterial comprising molybdenum disulfide particle, magnetic nanoparticle coated on surface of particle, Au nanoparticle comprising Au-S bonds and a DNA tetrahedron containing sulfhydryl and fixed on gold particles with antibodies on DNA tetrahedron vertexes (see pg. 2). Zhai teaches the magnetic nanoparticles are ferroferric oxide magnetic nanoparticles, particle size is 20-800nm (claim 2)(pg. 2). Zhai teaches the molybdenum disulfide inside is a lamellar structure with a thickness of .1-2nm (claim 3) (pg.2). Zhai teaches the DNA single strands comprise 16-160 deoxyribonucleotide monomers and teaches the DNA single strands are self-assembled into a DNA tetrahedron (see pg. 2) (claim 4). Zhai teaches the 3’end or 5’ end of the DNA single chain has a functional group and includes sulfhydryl, carboxyl, aldehyde, epoxy or amino group. Zhai teaches the carboxyl, aldehyde, epoxy, amino group is used for bonding between the DNA tetrahedron and the antibody (see pg. 2) (claim 5). Zhai teaches the protein antibody can be a monoclonal antibody, polyclonal antibody or low abundance protein in serum (see pg. 2) (claim 6).
It is noted this rejection is being applied because there are no certified English translations of the PCT/CN2022/072553 and foreign document, CN202110071495.7.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhai et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal, 428, 2022, 130938, pp1-8).
With regard to claim 1, Zhai teaches a composite magnetic nanomaterial comprising MoS2@Fe3O4@AuNPs@DNA Tet@Ab (see pg. 2). Zhai teaches Fe3O4 nanoparticles on the surface of MoS2 (pg. 2, 2nd column). Zhai teaches AuNP on magnetic MoS2 nanomaterials by Au-S bonds. Zhai teaches DNA tetrahedron modified with sulfhydryl groups immobilized by Au-S bonds and antibodies immobilized on vertex (see pg. 2, 2nd column).
With regard to claim 2, Zhai teaches Fe3O4 nanoparticles magnetic nanoparticles with a particle size of 80nm (see pg. 3, 1st column).
With regard to claim 4, Zhai teaches DNA single strands with 43, 49, 55, 61, and 67 bases were used to construct the DNA tetrahedron (see pg. 4, 2nd column).
With regard to claim 5-6, Zhai teaches a polyclonal antibody immobilized on the vertex of the DNA tetrahedron. Zhai teaches carboxyl groups on the DNA tetrahedron to immobilize the antibody (see pg. 5, 1st column).
It is noted this rejection is being applied because there are no certified English translations of the PCT/CN2022/072553 and foreign document, CN202110071495.7.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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.
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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei (Chem Comm, 2011, 47, 6254-6256) in view of Lu (CN106568936A, translated, pp. 1-9 printed 10/7/2026)
Pei teaches an electrochemical immunosensor with a novel 3D nanostructure. Pei teaches the tetrahedra-structured probe platform can be readily assembled at a gold surface with high reproducibility, resulting in a nanostructured surface with well controlled spacing and orientation of DNA probes and greatly improved accessibility for biomolecular recognition. Pei teaches a DNA conjugated antibody tetrahedron structure attached to gold surface (see figure 1). Pei teaches a tetrahedral DNA structure with single stranded strands comprising 55 nt (see pg. 6254, 2nd column) (claim 4). Pei teaches immobilizing the tetrahedra structured probes on Au surface by thiol groups. Pei teaches a carboxyl group at the vertex and conjugated antibody for TNF α (see pg. 6255, 1st column) (claim 5-6). Pei does not teach a composite magnetic nanomaterial comprising molybdenum disulfide or magnetic nanoparticles.
Lu teaches an electrochemical immunosensor that comprises Fe3O4@Au nanoparticle that results in high sensitivity, strong specificity, high accuracy, simple operation and low experimental cost. Lu teaches an immunosensor that comprises a multifunctional molybdenum disulfide that comprises Fe3O4 @ Au magnetic nanoparticles. Lu teaches Fe3O4@Au has good biocompatibility and large specific surface area which is beneficial for a large amount of capture DNA immobilized on electrode surface (see pg. 3). Lu teaches multifunctional MoS2 functions as a luminol and can extend the OHP of the electrode to produce effective ECL signals (see pg. 4). Lu teaches MoS2 has a large surface leading to high sensitivity. It is noted that MoS2 of Lu teaches a molybdenum disulfide particle, there is no claim limitation or explicit definition within the specification to limit a particle to a bead, as such a sheet of MoS2 comprises a MoS2 particle.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to improve tetrahedron DNA immobilized on Au surface as taught by Pei and include a nanocomposite material comprising MoS2, Fe304 and Au nanoparticle as taught by Lu to improve the immunosensor of Pei to allow for a more sensitive sensor. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to improve the tetrahedral DNA immunosensor immobilized on Au as taught by Pei to include a sensor that comprises multifunctional molybdenum disulfide that comprises Fe3O4 @ Au magnetic nanoparticles because Lu teaches Fe3O4@Au has good biocompatibility and large specific surface area which is beneficial for a large amount of capture DNA immobilized on electrode surface. The ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success that a multifunctional molybdenum disulfide that comprises Fe3O4 @ Au magnetic nanoparticles could be used in the immunosensor of Pei because Pei teaches immobilizing a tetrahedron DNA on a gold surface and Lu teaches immobilizing DNA on gold nanoparticle and Lu teaches the surface allows for high sensitivity.
Because both Pei and Lu teach electrochemical immunosensors and teach nucleic acids immobilized on gold surface, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one component, the Au electrode of Pei with the multifunctional molybdenum disulfide that comprises Fe3O4 @ Au magnetic nanoparticles of Lu in order to achieve the predictable electrochemical immunosensor that comprises a DNA tetrahedral with an antibody and immobilized on a magnetic nanomaterial comprising molybdenum disulfide and gold particles with the expectation of increased sensitivity as taught by Lu.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei (Chem Comm, 2011, 47, 6254-6256) in view of Lu (CN106568936A, translated, pp. 1-9 printed 10/7/2026)
as applied to claims 1, 4-6 above, and further in view of Lai (Chemosphere, 2019, 223:465-473).
Pei in view of Lu is set forth in section 19 above. Pei in view of Lu does not teach particle size of Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles.
However, the particle size of Fe3O4 was known in the art. Lai teaches a particle size of 250nm for Fe3O4 nanoparticles (see 3.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use well-known Fe3O4 nanoparticles as taught by Lai with a particle size of 250nM for the expected benefit of a strong magnetic response.
Claim 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei (Chem Comm, 2011, 47, 6254-6256) in view of Lu (CN106568936A, translated, pp. 1-9 printed 10/7/2026) as applied to claims 1, 4-6 above, and further in view of Wang (RSC Adv, 2016, 6(28):23411-23419) and Wang (Sensors and Actuators B, 2018, 266, pp 561-569) as evidence by M. Wang (Electrochim, Acta 2016, 209:389-398).
Pei in view of Lu is set forth in section 19 above. Pei in view of Lu does not teach particle size of Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles or molybdenum disulfide particles having a spherical structure with a particle size of 1-20µm and lamellar thickness of .1-2nm.
Wang (2016) teaches MoS2 microspheres coated with Au nanoparticles. Wang (2016) teaches the nanospheres are 1-2 µm (pg. 23411, 2nd column). Wang teaches lamella structure of the MoS2 microspheres (see pg. 23414, 1st column). Wang (2016) teaches the microspheres have high electrocatalytic activity and increase ECL intensity and increase immobilization analysis (see pg. 23415, 2nd column). Wang teaches the system is well suited for high through put biomedical sensing and application in clinical and biodefense areas (see section 4).
Wang (2018) teaches a nanocomposite microsphere comprising MoS2, Fe3O4 and Ag particles conjugated to antibody for immunoassay. Wang teaches MoS2@ Fe3O4 microsphere with Ag nanoparticles (see figure 1). Wang teaches the Fe3O4 particles were 600nm is diameter (claim 2) and with layered MoS2 the particle size was 800nm (see section 3.1). Wang teaches the immunosensor is ultrasensitive with wide detection range and low detection limit. Wang teaches the sensor has excellent stability, selectivity and reproducibility and has many potential applications for detection of other tumor markers (see conclusion). Wang teaches MoS2 was prepared according to the method of M. Wang (Electrochim, Acta 2016, 209:389-398).
M. Wang teaches MoS2 has uniform structure and size distribution with average diameter of 80-100nm. M. Wang teaches MoS2 is composed of nanosheets and layered MoS2 (lamellar structure). M. Wang teaches the MoS2 nanosheets are composed of 10 -15 layers with a thickness of 6-9nm (.6-.9nm thickness) and d spacing of .61nm (lamellar thickness) (See pg. 391, 2nd column).
Because Wang (2016) and Wang (2018) teach MoS2 nanosheets that form microspheres and Wang (2018) teaches a Fe3O4@MoS2 microsphere for immunoassay, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to improve using MoS2 nanosheets as taught by Pei in view of Lu to include well-known MoS2 microspheres with Fe3O4. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to replace the MoS2 nanosheet of Pei in view of Lu with MoS2 microspheres because Wang (2016) teaches the microspheres are well suited for high throughput assays and Wang (2018) teaches the microspheres allows for ultrasensitive detection with wide detection range and low detection limit and has excellent stability, selectivity and reproducibility.
Additionally because the microspheres of Wang (2018) include a spherical structure with particle size of 600-800nm and a lamellar thickness of .6nm, as evidence by M. Wang and Wang (2016) teaches nanospheres of 1-2µM, the ordinary artisan would have been motived to include MoS2 particles with spherical size of 1 µM and lamellar thickness of .6nm in the method of Pei in view of Lu for the expected benefit of stability, selectivity and reproducibility of the nanoparticles are sensors.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal, 428, 2022, 130938, pp1-8) in view of Wang (Sensors and Actuators B, 2018, 266, pp 561-569) as evidence by M. Wang (Electrochim, Acta 2016, 209:389-398)
Zhai teaches a composite magnetic nanomaterial comprising MoS2@Fe3O4@AuNPs@DNA Tet@Ab (see pg. 2). Zhai teaches Fe3O4 nanoparticles on the surface of MoS2 (pg. 2, 2nd column). Zhai teaches AuNP on magnetic MoS2 nanomaterials by Au-S bonds. Zhai teaches DNA tetrahedron modified with sulfhydryl groups immobilized by Au-S bonds and antibodies immobilized on vertex (see pg. 2, 2nd column). Zhai does not teach a composite magnetic nanomaterial that has a spherical structure for MoS2 with a particle size of 1uM and lamellar thickness.
Wang (2018) teaches a nanocomposite microsphere comprising MoS2, Fe3O4 and Ag particles conjugated to antibody for immunoassay. Wang teaches MoS2@ Fe3O4 microsphere with Ag nanoparticles (see figure 1). Wang teaches the Fe3O4 particles were 600nm is diameter (claim 2) and with layered MoS2 the particle size was 800nm (see section 3.1). Wang teaches the immunosensor is ultrasensitive with wide detection range and low detection limit. Wang teaches the sensor has excellent stability, selectivity and reproducibility and has many potential applications for detection of other tumor markers (see conclusion). Wang teaches MoS2 was prepared according to the method of M. Wang (Electrochim, Acta 2016, 209:389-398).
M. Wang teaches MoS2 has uniform structure and size distribution with average diameter of 80-100nm. M. Wang teaches MoS2 is composed of nanosheets and layered MoS2 (lamellar structure). M. Wang teaches the MoS2 nanosheets are composed of 10 -15 layers with a thickness of 6-9nm (.6-.9nm thickness) and d spacing of .61nm (lamellar thickness) (See pg. 391, 2nd column).
Because Wang (2018) teach MoS2 nanosheets that form microspheres and Wang (2018) teaches a Fe3O4@ MoS2 microsphere for immunoassay, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to improve using MoS2 nanosheets as taught by Zhai to include well-known MoS2 microspheres with Fe3O4. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to replace the MoS2 nanosheet of Zhai with microspheres because Wang (2018) teaches the microspheres allows for ultrasensitive detection with wide detection range and low detection limit and has excellent stability, selectivity and reproducibility.
Additionally because the microspheres of Wang (2018) include a spherical structure with particle size of 600-800nm and a lamellar thickness of .6nm, as evidence by M. Wang, the ordinary artisan would have been motived to include MoS2 particles with spherical size of 1 µM and lamellar thickness of .6nm in the method of Zhai for the expected benefit of stability, selectivity and reproducibility of the nanoparticles are sensors.
It is noted this rejection is being applied because there are no certified English translations of the PCT/CN2022/072553 and foreign document, CN202110071495.7.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAE L BAUSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-4p.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/SARAE L BAUSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699 cata
Prosecution Insights