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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks filed on July 30th, 2026. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on July 30th, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-5 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.
The recitation in claim 1 to “…at the other side…” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Does Applicant intend to recite “another side”? Clarification is required as to the particular sides of the piezoelectric substrate sought herein.
With regard to claim 3, the recitation “…is present in a teat target material…” is not clearly understood. This terminology is not standard in the art and the specification does not provide particular, further guidance thereto. Does this speak to an intended use with regard to a prospective sample source coming from a teat as in a mammary gland? Clarification is required.
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 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being unpatentable over WO2010/073484 (seen through attached ESPACENET English Translation and the concordant discussion found in the filed “communication of office action of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2022-0185693, issued on June 27, 2024, which corresponds to this application”), hereafter “WO210”, in view of Baer et al. (USPN 5,283,037), hereafter Baer.
With regard to claim 1, WO2010 discloses a low mass antigen detecting device for detecting a low mass antigen through a sensor, wherein the sensor comprises a piezoelectric substrate (12y; pars.[0001,0015-0017,0032,0039], fig. 8, for example), a sensing layer coupled to one surface of the piezoelectric substrate and comprising at least one antibody-BSA (pars.[0001,0015-0017,0032,0039], fig. 8, for example). WO2010 further discloses an input IDT electrode disposed at one side of the piezoelectric substrate to apply an input frequency provided as a sweep frequency, and an output IDT electrode disposed at the other side of the piezo-electric substrate to output an output frequency (transmitting IDT 14a as ‘inpu’ and receiving IDT 14b as ‘output’; pars.[0001,0015-0017,0032,0039], fig. 8, for example). With regard to claim 3, the recitation is drawn to a process recitation not afforded patentable weight in a device claim; the provision of such reagent’s applying is drawn to a prospective process application not afforded patentable weight to the present device claims (this is also seen through the applied prior art of WO2010/Baer as it pertains to the sample provided to the sensor whose antibody is to be assessed for binding therewith the antigen-BSA). With regard to claim 4, the recitation is drawn to a process recitation not afforded patentable weight in a device claim; further, as the prior art of WO2010 provides a likewise structured and arranged output IDT it is said to be fully capable of such functionality in as much as recited and required herein. With regard to claim 5, the recitation is drawn to a conditional process recitation not afforded patentable weight in the present device claims; and given commensurate device as recited in claim 1 (as modified below), such device is said to be fully capable of a functionality thereto in as much as claimed and required herein.
With regard to claim 1, WO2010 discloses utilizing an antibody-BSA so as to detect for a target antigen, but does not specifically disclose an antigen-BSA.
Baer discloses a chemical sensor utilizing a surface transverse wave device (abstract). Baer discloses a piezoelectric substrate 11 with an input IDT 12 and output IDT 13, and discloses that conversely, the antigen can be bound to the surface so that the sensor is chemically specific for the corresponding antibodies (lines 46-51, col. 8; cols. 9&10, figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WO2010 so as to provide at least one antigen-BSA to the sensing layer such as suggested by the analogous prior art of Baer to a chemical sensor utilizing a surface transverse wave device in which it is provided that utilizing antigen-BSA provides an obvious and analogous approach in which it is desired to detect corresponding antibodies, and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2010 in view of Baer as applied to claims 1 and 3-5 above, and further in view of Thaysen et al. (US 2003/0089182), hereafter Thaysen.
WO2010 and Baer does not specifically disclose the sensing layer comprises a plurality of antigen-BSA different from each other.
Thaysen discloses a flexible structure with an integrated sensor/actuator in which detection of multiple disease-associated genes is accomplished. Thaysen discloses that screening for specific genes can be expanded to the detection of different antibodies in which the micro-cantilevers are coated with different antigens which allow for screening of different antibodies in a blood sample (abstract; par.[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WO2010/Baer to utilize a plurality of antigen-BSA different from each other such as suggested by the analogous art of Thaysen to a micro-cantilever sensor for screening for different antibodies in a biological sample provided by way a plurality of antigen-BSA different from each other that affords more dynamic sensing capabilities in assessing in a multiplexed fashion, and detecting multiple antibodies in a singular assay.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL N TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-8914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights