DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ arguments filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-26 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 17, and 19-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 15-16 and 21-26 are under examination.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 15-16 and 21-26 are drawn to a composition of matter described as a near infrared emitting Pdot. The applicant defined in paragraph 60 of the instant specification that “a Pdot is a nanoparticle having a diameter from about 10 nm to 100 nm and they comprise semiconducting polymer and at least one additional additive.” MPEP §211.01 states “where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will control the interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim.” Thus, the claims reciting the Pdot limitation are interpreted to require a nanoparticle having a diameter from about 10 nm to 100 nm comprising a semiconducting polymer and at least one additional additive.
Claims 15-16 and 21-26 recite that the Pdot is NIR-emitting. It is understood in the art of fluorescent Pdots that NIR emissions are those that are between the wavelengths of 700 nm and 1700 nm. Therefore, it is interpreted that this limitation to the claims requires the Pdot to emit a non-zero intensity of light between the wavelengths of 700 nm and 1700 nm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 15, 16, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (Chen, D.; et al., Chem. Sci., 2017 – provided by applicant in IDS filed January 23, 2024) in view of Yu (Yu, Z.; et al., J. Org. Chem., 2014 – provided by applicant in IDS filed January 23, 2024) and Zhang (Chen, H.; Zhang, J.; et al., Biomaterials, 2017).
Chen teaches a near-infrared emitting semiconducting polymer dot (pg. 3392, Section 2.2). The NIR-emitting Pdot comprises PS-PEG-COOH, PFDHTBT semiconductive polymer, and a copolymer covalently incorporating the porphyrin fluorophore NIR775 (NIR800 polymer) and is conjugated to an antibody (pg. 3393, Scheme 2). Chen also specifies that the blended Pdots are spherical and have an average diameter of 18 nm determined by TEM (pg. 3394, Fig. 2; and Section 2.4).
Chen does not teach a NIR-emitting Pdot doped with either a hydroporphyrin doping dye or a benzo-bis-thiadiazole doping dye. Chen also does not teach a NIR-emitting Pdot with an average diameter of about 30 to about 65 nm.
Yu teaches various hydroporphyrin monomer and dyad fluorescent molecules (pg. 7910, Abstract; and pg. 7911, Chart 2). Among the fluorescent molecules taught by Yu is BC1a (pg. 7911, Chart 2), which is a bacteriochlorin-bacteriochlorin dyad identical to P820 in the instant application (Fig. 1). Yu teaches that the dyad possesses an intense, narrow fluorescence emission (pg. 7910, Abstract) and that strong emission above 800 nm is beneficial for in vivo bioimaging (pg. 7919, Conclusion and Outlook). Yu also teaches monomer bacteriochlorins such as B1a, B1b, B1c, and B2 (pg. 7912, Chart 3), which exhibit near-infrared emission (pg. 7918, Table 2).
Zhang teaches a method of preparing semiconducting Pdots of different sizes (pg. 50, Section 4.4). Zhang teaches that increasing the concentration of the semiconducting polymer in the solution prior to nanoprecipitation increased the diameter of the Pdots. Zhang teaches that this size tuning enabled modulation of the light absorption properties of the Pdot (pg. 44, Fig. 2).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the Pdot taught by Chen comprises a NIR-emitting dye and that the NIR775 dye is just one of many fluorescent dyes that could similarly be doped in the Pdot. It would also be recognized that many of the dyes of Yu, such as BC1a and B1a, are near-IR emitting fluorophores useful for in vivo bioimaging. It would also be recognized that Chen and Zhang both teach precipitation-based methods of preparing Pdots comprising a semiconducting polymer. It would also be recognized that the concentration of the semiconducting polymer of Chen could be varied in the solution prior to precipitation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NIR-emitting Pdot of Chen by substituting the NIR775 doped dye with a NIR dye of Yu and changing Pdot size by adjusting semiconducting polymer concentration. This would yield the predictable result of a NIR-emitting fluorophore with an intense fluorescence emission in the near-infrared range with an average diameter of about 30 nm to about 65 nm.
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches a NIR-emitting Pdot comprising the PFDHTBT semiconducting polymer, an additional component (PS-PEG-COOH), and a doping dye (NIR775) (pg. 3393, Scheme 2). Yu teaches the BC1a molecule (pg. 7911, Chart 2), which is identical to P820 in the instant application (Fig. 1). The BC1a molecule is a hydroporphyrin dye that is more specifically described as a bacteriochlorin-bacteriochlorin dyad (Chart 1 and Chart 2). Additionally, Yu teaches a B1a bacteriochlorin monomer dye that is a hydroporphyrin (Chart 3) that is also NIR-emitting (Table 2). Chen teaches that the PFDHTBT/NIR800 Pdots are spherical and have a diameter of 18 nm as measured by TEM (pg. 3394, Section 2.4, paragraph 3) and that the streptavidin-modified Pdots have a diameter of 26 nm (pg. 3393, Section 2.3, paragraph 1). Furthermore, Zhang teaches that increasing the concentration of semiconducting polymer in the solution prior to nanoprecipitation increases the diameter of Pdots (pg. 50, Section 4.4). While the exact amount to change the semiconducting polymer concentration to shift the average diameter of the Pdot from 18 nm to about 30 to about 65 nm is not specified, Zhang teaches the resulting Pdots vary from about 10 to about 300 nm in diameter when varying the semiconducting polymer concentration between 0.01 to 2.0 mg/mL (pg. 44, Fig. 2; and pg. 50, Section 4.4). Determination of the specific semiconducting polymer concentration to use to achieve the desired product would amount to routine optimization (MPEP § 2144.05(II). Therefore, the combined teachings of Chen, Yu, and Zhang render claim 15 obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches a NIR-emitting Pdot conjugated to an antibody (pg. 3933, Section 2.3 and Scheme 2). Therefore, the combined teachings of Chen, Yu, and Zhang render claim 16 obvious.
Regarding claim 22, Chen teaches a NIR-emitting Pdot comprising PS-PEG-COOH (pg. 3393, Scheme 2). Therefore, the combined teachings of Chen, Yu, and Zhang render claim 22 obvious.
Regarding claim 23, Chen teaches that the NIR-emitting Pdots made by the taught method exhibit a spherical morphology (pg. 3394, right column, paragraph 2). Therefore, the combined teachings of Chen, Yu, and Zhang render claim 23 obvious.
Regarding claim 24, Chen teaches a NIR-emitting Pdot in which the doped NIR775 dye is incorporated into the Pdot by being linked to a semiconducting polymer (pg. 3393, Scheme 2). Chen also teaches that during the reprecipitation synthesis method, the NIR800 polymer collapses because of hydrophobic interactions (pg. 3392, Section 2.2). Similar to the rest of the polymer, the NIR775 component is also hydrophobic and would thus be incorporated in the collapsed core of the Pdot during reprecipitation. Therefore, the doped dye is embedded in the polymer matrix of the Pdot. Thus, the combined teachings of Chen, Yu, and Zhang render claim 24 obvious.
Regarding claim 25, Yu teaches the B1a molecule (pg. 7912, Chart 3). The B1a molecule is a bacteriochlorin monomer hydroporphyrin and Yu teaches that it is near-IR-emitting (Table 2). Therefore, the combined teachings of Chen, Yu, and Zhang render claim 25 obvious.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Yu, and Zhang, as applied to claims 15, 16, and 22-25 above, and further in view of Jin (Jin, Y.; et al., ACS Nano, 2011 – provided by applicant in IDS filed January 23, 2024).
As described above, Chen, Yu, and Zhang combine to teach a NIR-emitting Pdot comprising a hydroporphyrin dye. More specifically, Chen teaches a NIR-emitting Pdot comprising a semiconducting polymer (PFDHTBT), PS-PEG-COOH, and a doped NIR fluorophore (pg. 3393, Scheme 2) and Yu teaches a bacteriochlorin-bacteriochlorin dyad and bacteriochlorin monomer hydroporphyrin dyes, such as BC1a and B1a (Chart 2 and Chart 3).
These combined teachings do not teach a Pdot comprising the semiconducting polymer of PFBT, PFO, or CNPPP.
Jin teaches a NIR-emitting Pdot comprising the semiconducting polymer PFBT and PS-PEG-COOH doped with NIR775 fluorescent dye (pg. 1469, Scheme 1). Jin also teaches that the PFBT semiconducting polymer enhanced fluorophore brightness due to excellent light-harvesting ability and efficient energy transfer (pg. 1468, Abstract).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Chen and Jin both teach NIR-emitting Pdots comprising a semiconducting polymer (PFDHTBT or PFBT), PS-PEG-COOH, and the doped NIR775 dye. It would also be recognized that both PFDHTBT and PFBT are semiconducting polymers and that PFBT is highly effective at harvesting light and transferring energy to NIR fluorophores.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NIR-emitting Pdot taught by Chen and Yu by substituting the PFDHTBT semiconducting polymer taught by Chen with the PFBT semiconducting polymer taught by Jin. This would have the predictable result of yielding a bright NIR-emitting Pdot comprising a NIR-emitting hydroporphyrin dye, a semiconducting polymer, and an additional component wherein the Pdot is spherical and has an average diameter between about 30 nm to about 65 nm. Therefore, the combined teachings of Chen, Yu, Zhang, and Jin render claim 21 obvious.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen further in view of Fang (Zhang, Z.; Fang, X.; et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2019) and Zhang (Chen, H.; Zhang, J.; et al., Biomaterials, 2017).
As described above, Chen teaches a near-infrared emitting semiconducting polymer dot (pg. 3392, Section 2.2). The NIR-emitting Pdot comprises PS-PEG-COOH, PFDHTBT semiconductive polymer, and a copolymer covalently incorporating the porphyrin fluorophore NIR775 (NIR800 polymer) and is conjugated to an antibody (pg. 3393, Scheme 2). Chen also specifies that the blended Pdots are spherical and have an average diameter of 18 nm determined by TEM (pg. 3394, Fig. 2; and Section 2.4) and that the blended Pdots conjugated with streptavidin have a diameter of 26 nm (pg. 3393, Section 2.3).
Chen does not teach a NIR-emitting Pdot doped with a doping dye comprising BBTD-Br2. Chen also does not teach a NIR-emitting Pdot with an average diameter of about 30 to about 65 nm.
Fang teaches NIR-emitting fluorescent polymer dots (pg. 3691, Title and Abstract). More specifically, Fang teaches the synthesis of several semiconducting fluorescent polymers and teaches the use of BBTD-Br2 as a building block in the preparation of P3a, P3b, and P3c (pg. 3692, Figure 1). Fang also teaches the preparation of Pdots using P3a, P3b, and P3c separately in combination with PS-PEG (pg. 3694, Figure 2; and pg. 3696, Figure 3). Fang teaches that the P3c Pdots are NIR-emitting and even include emission in the NIR-IIa region (Figure 3). Fang teaches the use of P3c Pdots for in vivo NIR-II fluorescence imaging, demonstrating that the NIR-II emission can be detected through the Skull of mice (pg. 3697, Figure 4). Fang teaches that NIR-II fluorescence (1000-1700 nm emission wavelength) imaging has advantages over NIR-I (700-900 nm emission wavelength) imaging due to larger penetration depth and higher signal to noise ratios (pg. 3691, Introduction, paragraph 1). Fang further teaches that the NIR-IIa window is further advantageous due to reduced scattering and avoidance of water absorption (pg. 3691, Introduction, paragraph 1).
As described above, Zhang teaches a method of preparing semiconducting Pdots of different sizes (pg. 50, Section 4.4). Zhang teaches that increasing the concentration of the semiconducting polymer in the solution prior to nanoprecipitation increased the diameter of the Pdots. Zhang teaches that this size tuning enabled modulation of the light absorption properties of the Pdot (pg. 44, Fig. 2).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the Pdot taught by Chen comprises a NIR-emitting dye and that the NIR775 dye is just one of many fluorescent dyes that could similarly be doped in the Pdot. It would also be recognized that the semiconducting polymer dyes of Fang, such as P3c, are also near-IR emitting fluorophores that can be incorporated into Pdots useful for in vivo bioimaging. It would further be recognized that Fang teaches that NIR-II emission is advantageous over NIR-I emission for biological imaging applications. It would also be recognized that Chen and Zhang both teach precipitation-based methods of preparing Pdots comprising a semiconducting polymer. It would also be recognized that the concentration of the semiconducting polymer of Chen could be varied in the solution prior to precipitation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NIR-emitting Pdot of Chen by substituting the NIR800 doped polymer dye with a NIR polymer dyes of Fang, particularly P3c because this polymer dye serves the same purpose of emitting NIR light for biological imaging applications (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)) and because Fang teaches the NIR-II emission is advantageous over the NIR-I emission such as that demonstrated by NIR800 (MPEP § 2143(I)(G)). It would have also been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Pdot size by adjusting semiconducting polymer concentration, as taught by Zhang, because this would be expected to improve a similar product (Pdot) in the same way (MPEP § 2143(I)(C)). This would yield the predictable result of a NIR-emitting fluorophore doped with a BBTD dye with an fluorescence emission in the near-infrared II range with an average diameter of about 30 nm to about 65 nm.
Regarding claim 26, Chen teaches a NIR-emitting Pdot comprising the PFDHTBT semiconducting polymer, an additional component (PS-PEG-COOH), and a doping polymer dye (NIR800) (pg. 3393, Scheme 2). Fang teaches the polymer dye P3c (Figure 1) and its incorporation into Pdots (Figure 2). Fang further teaches that P3c Pdots have NIR emission, including emission in the NIR-IIa range (Figure 3), which can be used for biological imaging (Figure 4). Fang teaches using BBTD-Br2 as a building block for P3c (Figure 1); therefore, the examiner interprets P3c to be a BBTD dye comprising BBTD-Br2. The above described modification of the Pdot of Chen with the fluorophore of Fang would result in a Pdot comprising PS-PEG-COOH, PFDHTBT, and P3c. The emission of PFDHTBT taught by Chen (Figure 2a) overlaps with the absorbance of P3c in Pdot form as taught by Fang (Figure 3a), so the skilled artisan would predict that this pair of polymers would be suitable for energy transfer via Forster mechanism similar to the PFDHTBT/NIR800 system of Chen.
Furthermore, Zhang teaches that increasing the concentration of semiconducting polymer in the solution prior to nanoprecipitation increases the diameter of Pdots (pg. 50, Section 4.4). While the exact amount to change the semiconducting polymer concentration to shift the average diameter of the Pdot from 18 nm to about 30 to about 65 nm is not specified, Zhang teaches the resulting Pdots vary from about 10 to about 300 nm in diameter when varying the semiconducting polymer concentration between 0.01 to 2.0 mg/mL (pg. 44, Fig. 2; and pg. 50, Section 4.4). Determination of the specific semiconducting polymer concentration to use to achieve the desired product would amount to routine optimization (MPEP § 2144.05(II). Chen teaches that blended Pdots comprising a polymer dye and the PFDHTBT semiconducting polymer can be prepared at varying ratios of the two polymers (pg. 3394, Section 2.4, paragraph 2).
As the above described modifications would result in a NIR-emitting Pdot comprising a semiconducting polymer (PFDHTBT), a BBTD doping dye comprising BBTD-Br2 (P3c), and an additional component (PS-PEG-COOH) wherein the Pdot has an average diameter of about 30 nm to about 65 nm as determined by TEM, the resulting product would read on claim 15.
For the above reasons, the combined teachings of Chen, Zhang, and Fang render claim 26 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 15, 16, 22, and 24-25 should be withdrawn as the amendment to include the size limitation of previously pending claim 23 results in the claim not being obvious over the combination of Chen and Yu.
Second, Applicant asserts that there is no reasonable expectation that the hypothetical blended polymer of the combination of Chen and Yu will yield satisfactory results. Applicant states that Chen relates to NIR-emitting Pdots at the center wavelength (~800 nm) of the first optical window of biological tissues (between 650 nm and 950 nm) and that according to Chen, Pdots with both absorption and emission far away from the center wavelength of 800 nm are far from ideal. Applicant asserts that there is no reasonable expectation that the hypothetical blended polymer will satisfy the requirements of Chen and thus is an unsatisfactory modification due to falling into the “far from ideal” category.
Third, Applicant asserts that the proposed modification from the teaching of Zhang in which the Pdot size is changed by modifying the concentration of semiconducting polymer in the Pdot would render Chen unsatisfactory for its purpose. Applicant asserts that Zhang teaches that increasing the Pdot size is accompanied by an increase in peak absorption wavelength. Applicant notes that Zhang provides no indication as to what happens to the optical emission of the larger nanoparticles. Applicant suggests it can be assumed that the emission wavelength of the polymer must also increase with nanoparticle size. Given this assumption, Applicant asserts that there will absolutely be a shift in the spectral overlap. Applicant asserts that a change in spectral overlap is implied to result in spectral bleed-through, which is undesirable. Applicant further asserts that the possibility of unsatisfactory results is high. Applicant states that if a proposed modification would render Chen unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification.
Fourth, Applicant asserts that claim 15 is not obvious over the combination of Chen, Yu, and Zhang; and therefore claim 21, which depends from claim 15, is not obvious over Chen, Yu, and Zhang further modified by Jin.
Fifth, Applicant asserts that claim 15 is not obvious over the combination of Chen, Yu, and Zhang; and therefore claim 26, which depends from claim 15, is not obvious over Chen, Yu, and Zhang further modified by Nie.
First, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Per the rejection above, these claims are rendered obvious over the combination of Chen, Yu, and Zhang. This rejection was necessitated by amendment and is thus proper.
Second, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Chen states that absorbance and emission wavelengths far away from 800 nm is far from ideal in the context of ranges between 650 nm and 950 nm (pg. 3391, left column, first paragraph). The examiner notes that Chen particularly states that an emission “far away from” ~800 nm is not ideal. Chen further states that the conjugation of NIR775 to the blended polymer (producing NIR800) shifts the emission peak from ~775 nm to ~800 nm (pg. 3391, right column, paragraphs 1 and 2). Notably, the blended Pdot of Chen does not exhibit a peak emission at exactly 800 nm, but at a value below 800 nm (Figure 2). Therefore, the shift caused by the Pdot incorporation is less than 25 nm. The skilled artisan in view of Chen would interpret Chen to teach that the physical conjugation of the dye to the polymer causes the change in emission wavelength (pg. 3391, right column, paragraph 2). In view of this, the skilled artisan would expect a shift of a similar magnitude in other dyes used in the same way. Yu teaches that the maximum emission peak for BC1a is 802 nm (Table 2), which is in a similar range to that of the NIR775 dye of Chen, at least in the context of 650-950 nm. If an analogous emission shift were to occur upon incorporation of BC1a into the semiconducting polymer blend, the resulting emission peak would be in the range of ~800-825 nm. In the context of the range of 650 nm to 950 nm recited by Chen, which spans 300 nm, a difference of <25 nm is less than 10% of the range width. As Chen specifically uses the phrase “far away from the center wavelength” in the context of the range of 650 nm to 950 nm, the skilled artisan would not interpret the phrase to mean a wavelength <25 nm away from the center is “far from ideal.” Thus, as Chen teaches values merely near 800 nm are desirable (as Chen does not teach an exactly 800 nm emission), the skilled artisan would not predict the substitution of BC1a in place of NIR775 to produce a far from ideal or unsatisfactory peak emission nanoparticle.
Additionally, Yu teaches that “for Near-IR fluorescence in vivo imaging there is an urgent need for brightly fluorescent probes with emission wavelength longer than 800 nm” (pg. 7911, right column, paragraph 2). In view of this teaching, the skilled artisan would not consider a NIR-emitting Pdot with a peak emission wavelength of above 800 nm to be an unsatisfactory product.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that a high quantum yield, narrow emission bandwidth, and large Stokes shift are not claimed features in the pending claims. Chen does not criticize, discredit, or discourage alternative Pdots with respect to these features. However, purely en arguendo, Yu teaches that the bacteriochlorin dyads have good quantum yields (pg. 7916, right column, paragraph 1) and exhibit a narrow emission band (Abstract). Additionally, if using BC1a for the modification, which has a slightly higher emission wavelength than NIR775 prior to polymer incorporation, a skilled artisan would not expect the Stokes shift to be narrower as a result of the proposed modification. For these reasons, the Examiner asserts that the skilled artisan in view of Chen and Yu would not view the aforementioned BC1a incorporation modification to result in a “far from ideal” product. Thus, this is not an unsatisfactory modification.
Third, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Applicant specifically notes that Zhang provides no indication as to what happens to the optical emission of larger semiconducting polymer nanoparticles. Applicant subsequently provides an assumption that the emission wavelengths of the polymer nanoparticle must increase as well. This assumption is based on the statement that “emission wavelengths are generally greater than absorption wavelengths.” The Examiner notes that Applicant states that this is “generally” true. Indeed, in cases of upconversion luminescence, the emission wavelength is shorter than the excitation wavelength. While the instant claims do not require a fluorescence luminescence mechanism, but merely NIR-emission, the disclosure as a whole relates to fluorescence imaging. Furthermore, the Chen reference relates to fluorescent Pdots. In the context of fluorescence, the assumption of emission wavelength being greater than excitation wavelength is more likely to be true (compared to other forms of luminescence in general). However, the distance between these values (Stokes shift) is not required to be constant. As a theoretical example, if a fluorescent material has a Stokes shift of 10 nm, a modification that increases the peak absorbance wavelength by 5 nm is not guaranteed to shift the peak emission wavelength by an equivalent 5 nm. Indeed, it is possible that the Stokes shift narrows and the emission spectrum does not change. As Applicant admits, Zhang does not provide an indication that increasing the semiconducting polymer concentration will change the emission wavelength of the polymer. Therefore, an assumption that the emission wavelength of the PFDHTBT semiconducting polymer component of the blended Pdot increasing concomitantly with a shift increasing the peak absorbance wavelength (as taught by Zhang) is not properly supported by evidence. Thus, the subsequent assertions regarding spectral bleed-through rendering the Pdot unsatisfactory for its intended purpose are similarly not supported by evidence and is based on an assumption that may not be true.
Even if the assumption of an increase in polymer emission wavelength is true, which the Examiner is not in any way acquiescing to, it is not evident that such a shift would result in a meaningful change in spectral overlap that would be problematic to the Chen teaching as asserted by Applicant. Chen specifically teaches that the NIR800/PFDHTBT Pdots have an average diameter of 18 nm (pg. 3394, right column, paragraph 2) and that the streptavidin-conjugated form of these Pdots used for antibody conjugation have an average diameter of 26 nm (pg. 3393, left column, paragraph 2). The claimed size range in claim 15 is an average diameter of about 30 to about 65 nm. While Zhang describes size changes from 13 nm to 255 nm resulting in an absorbance peak shifting from 691 nm to 811 nm, Zhang also describes this to be a concentration-dependent function with several incremental alternatives in between these ends of the range (Figure 2). For example, Zhang teaches that the shift from a 13 nm diameter Pdot to 28 nm diameter shifts the absorption peak from 691 nm to 704 nm (Figure 2); a 15 nm diameter increase shifting the wavelength by 13 nm. These sizes are most similar to the nanoparticles of Chen. Applying an analogous 15 nm diameter increase to the 18 nm Pdots of Chen would produce a 33 nm Pdot. In view of Zhang, if a similar change in peak absorption wavelength occurred, the skilled artisan would only expect the shift to be ~13 nm. Even under the assumption that the polymer emission wavelength shifts the same amount, which Applicant admits Zhang does not indicate would occur, it is not evident from the teachings of either Zhang or Chen that this degree of shift would negatively impact the Pdot of Chen to the degree that would render the product unsatisfactory. In view of Chen Figure 2a, the PFDHTBT polymer exhibits non-zero but limited emission intensity at 800 nm. While a theoretical rightward shift of the full spectrum, as implied by Applicant, would increase the emission at 800 nm, the PFDHTBT emission at 800 nm would still be significantly lower than that of the NIR fluorescent group of the combination of Chen and Yu (and would be even lower relatively if the BC1a-substituted group has a slightly higher emission peak, per above arguments). It is not evident that this size modification would render the product unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, as the NIR fluorescent group would still produce the predominant emission. As Chen teaches the Pdot to be suitable for its use while there is non-zero overlap of PFDHTBT and NIR800 emission spectra at 800 nm, this indicates some degree of tolerance for such an overlap in this system. Additionally, the streptavidin-modified Pdot of Chen is very close to the claimed range of about 30 to about 65 nm. Therefore, an even smaller change in size (as Zhang teaches this can be done incrementally, Figure 2) would read on this limitation and the skilled artisan in view of Zhang would predict an even smaller increase in absorbance, which (if the assumption regarding a corresponding increase in emission is true) would lead to a smaller change in an increase in emission wavelength, resulting in negligible change in spectral overlap.
Furthermore, Chen teaches that the Pdots of Chen can be prepared with different ratios of PFDHTBT to NIR800 (pg. 3394, left column, paragraph 2). This indicates that the Pdot of Chen is compatible with changes in concentration of semiconducting polymer. Therefore, even if considering true the assumption of the Applicant, the skilled artisan would not expect the variation in semiconducting polymer concentration to render Chen unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. It would still be expected that the Pdot would exhibit NIR emission along with high quantum yield, narrow emission bandwidth, and large Stokes shift (see above response to second argument). There is no teaching in Zhang or Chen that would indicate high probability of unsatisfactory results or suggest to the skilled artisan that unsatisfactory results are likely. Given the evidence provided above, the skilled artisan would find the proposed result of the modification to be predictable.
Fourth, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Per the rejection above, claim 15 is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Chen, Yu, and Zhang. Furthermore, per the rejection of claim 21 above, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the NIR Pdot of the combination of Chen, Yu, and Zhang with the PFBT polymer of Jin and the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, claim 21 is rendered obvious by the combination of these references.
Fifth, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Per the rejection above, claim 15 is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Chen, Yu, and Zhang. Additionally, Nie is not referenced in the corresponding rejection of claim 26. Instead, the rejection is in view of Chen, Zhang, and Fang. This rejection was necessitated by the change in the claimed scope of the doping dye of claim 26 and is therefore proper.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric P Mosher whose telephone number is (571)272-3258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at (571) 272-6897. 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.
/E.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights