DETAILED ACTION
In application filed on 11/16/2023, Claims 1-13 are pending. The claim set submitted on 11/16/2023 is considered because this is the most recent claim set with some preliminary amendments. Claims 1-13 are considered in the current office action.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2023 and 05/11/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of in the reply filed on Group I, claims 1-9, 11 and 13 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that because Applicant submits that it should be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application. Reconsideration and withdrawal of this Restriction. Requirement are respectfully requested.
After further consideration and for the purpose of expedited prosecution, Examiner will examine all instant claims of the application.
Group I, Claims 1-13 are considered on the merits below.
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 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 1-4 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US20160018305A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lin teaches a method for rapidly extracting primary test liquid from agricultural products (See Abstract… The present invention provides a quick extraction kit adapted to a procedure of detecting pesticide residues in agricultural products and a method of obtaining a primary test liquid from an agricultural sample by the quick extraction kit.), comprising:
homogenizing the agricultural sample to obtain a homogenized sample (See Para 0026… homogenizing the agricultural sample to get fragments of the agricultural sample);
mixing a residual pesticide extraction combination liquid (See Para 0026…an extraction solvent) with the homogenized sample to form a sample solution (See Para 0026… shaking the homogenized fragments of the agricultural sample with an extraction solvent to obtain a sample solution), wherein the residual pesticide extraction combination liquid (See Para 0026…an extraction solvent) comprises an acidic solution (See Para 0039… The extraction solvent is preferably selected from acetonitrile solution containing 1% acetic acid) and acetone solution (See Para 0044… Alternatively, the primary test liquid S1 may firstly be treated by a step of air-drying the primary test liquid S1 and then the primary test liquid S1 only remains a little water, a step of adding methanol, acetone or hexane, a step of adding formic acid; Under BRI, Examiner submits that the residual pesticide extraction combination liquid comprises an acidic solution and acetone ) , and the content of the acidic solution is in the range of 0.5 to 3 vol% (See Para 0039… The extraction solvent is preferably selected from acetonitrile solution containing 1% acetic acid); and
removing water and impurities from the sample solution (See Para 0025… first powder mixture layer is capable of absorbing the most water of the sample solution;…the second powder mixture layer is capable of absorbing the rest water of the sample solution and absorbing impurities interfering with detection of the sample solution) by an pipe filled with mixed powder (See Para 0025…The first powder mixture layer is in a form of powder and filled in the pipe…The second powder mixture layer is in a form of powder, filled in the pipe and between the first powder mixture layer and the output port), obtaining a primary test liquid of agricultural products (See Para 0026…The method for obtaining a primary test liquid from an agricultural sample comprise the following steps… to export the primary test liquid from the output port of the pipe).
Regarding Claim 2, Lin teaches wherein the acidic solution has a content of 1 vol% (See Para 0039… The extraction solvent is preferably selected from acetonitrile solution containing 1% acetic acid).
Regarding Claim 3, Lin teaches wherein the acidic solution consists of formic acid, acetic acid, or a combination thereof (See Para 0039… The extraction solvent is preferably selected from acetonitrile solution containing 1% acetic acid).
Regarding Claim 4, Lin teaches wherein the agricultural sample is vegetables or fruits, the homogenized sample is 1 gram, and the residual pesticide extraction combination liquid is 5 ml (See Para 0026… wherein each 1±0.03 g fragments of the agricultural sample are need to be added into 1 to 10 mL extraction solution).
Regarding Claim 9, the method of Claim 1 is obvious over Lin.
Lin teaches a pesticide residue detection method (See Abstract… a quick extraction kit adapted to a procedure of detecting pesticide residues in agricultural products), comprising:
obtaining an agricultural product primary test liquid using the rapid extraction method (See Abstract… a method of obtaining a primary test liquid from an agricultural sample by the quick extraction kit) recited in claim 1 (See Claim 1 rejection); and
directly inputting the agricultural product primary test liquid into a Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometer or Gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometer for pesticide residue extraction (See Para 0005… Next, the primary test liquid is processed to form a test liquid suitable for being detected in instruments. The test liquid is detected by liquid chromatograph/tandem mass spectrometer or gas chromatograph/tandem mass spectrometer, and finally, data of the detected result of said instruments is processed to obtain a result of pesticide residues detection; See Para 0055… detection result of the primary test liquid obtained by the QuEChERS method when the primary test liquid is detected by instruments.).
Regarding Claim 10, Lin teaches a residual pesticide extraction combination liquid for agricultural products (See Abstract… an extraction solvent into the fragments of the agricultural sample to obtain a sample solution), comprising an acidic solution (See Para 0039… The extraction solvent is preferably selected from acetonitrile solution containing 1% acetic acid) and acetone solution (See Para 0044… Alternatively, the primary test liquid S1 may firstly be treated by a step of air-drying the primary test liquid S1 and then the primary test liquid S1 only remains a little water, a step of adding methanol, acetone or hexane, a step of adding formic acid; Under BRI, Examiner submits that the residual pesticide extraction combination liquid comprises an acidic solution and acetone ), wherein the content of the acidic solution is in the range of 0.5 to 3 vol% (See Para 0039… The extraction solvent is preferably selected from acetonitrile solution containing 1% acetic acid).
Regarding Claim 11, Lin teaches the residual pesticide extraction combination liquid (See Para 0026…an extraction solvent) as recited in claim 1 (See Claim 1 rejection), wherein the content of the acid solution is 1 vol% (See Para 0039… The extraction solvent is preferably selected from acetonitrile solution containing 1% acetic acid).
Regarding Claim 12, Lin teaches the residual pesticide extraction combination liquid (See Para 0026…an extraction solvent) as recited in claim 10 (See Claim 10 rejection), wherein the acidic solution comprises formic acid, acetic acid, or a combination thereof (See Para 0039… The extraction solvent is preferably selected from acetonitrile solution containing 1% acetic acid).
Regarding Claim 13, Lin teaches the residual pesticide extraction combination liquid (See Para 0026…an extraction solvent) as recited in claim 10 (See Claim 10 rejection), wherein the acidic solution comprises formic acid, acetic acid, or a combination thereof (See Para 0039… The extraction solvent is preferably selected from acetonitrile solution containing 1% acetic acid).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US20160018305A1) as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 5, Lin teaches wherein the residual pesticide extraction combination liquid (‘an extraction solvent’) is shaken together with the homogenized sample (‘homogenized fragments’) for a period of time (See Para 0011… Strongly shaking the extraction liquid added the mixture buffer agent for a period of time by a homogenizer; See Para 0009… Adding an extraction solvent, such as acetonitrile solution, into the homogenized sample, then strongly shaking the homogenized sample with the extraction solvent for a period of time to form an extraction liquid) to mix the two and form the sample solution (See Para 0024…the sample solution is a mixture solution obtained by treatment of shaking homogenized fragments of an agricultural sample with an extraction solvent).
Lin does not explicitly teaches that the shaking takes 30 secs.
However, MPEP § 2144.05, Part II, Subpart B holds that a particular parameter that is recognized as a result effective variable (“a variable that achieves a recognized result”) would be one, but not the only motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. In the processing of agricultural products, the selection of optimal experimental conditions including homogenization time affect the degree of texture and uniformity of the processed product. Thus, the shaking time is a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lin to use a shaking time for of 30 seconds, for the benefit of obtaining a primary test liquid from an agricultural sample (Lin, Para 0026), which allows for the provision of a primary test liquid from an agricultural sample by the quick extraction kit, which are able to significantly enhance the speed of the procedure of detecting pesticide residues (Lin, Para 0023).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US20160018305A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Tsen et al. (US20200158646A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the method of Claim 4 is obvious over Lin.
Lin further teaches wherein the agricultural sample is grains or dried agricultural products (See Para 0037…the agricultural sample is taken from vegetables, fruits, crops, dried beans).
Lin does not teach adding deionized water to the homogenized sample.
In the analogous art of a method of detecting pesticide residues, and more particularly to a method for detecting pesticide using surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy with a special substance concentration technique, Tsen teaches adding deionized water (See Para 0009… the sample is extracted with organic solvent; See Para 0010… Preferably, in step (c), the volatile organic solvent is a diluted solution including a diluting agent ;See Para 0011… Preferably, the diluting agent is selected from the group consisting of de-ionized water, methanol and acetonitrile) to the homogenized sample (See Para 0030… the original sample may be homogenized in a blender).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Lin to include the step of adding deionized water to the homogenized sample, as taught by Tsen for the benefit of obtaining a sample extract from extracting and cleaning a sample (Tsen, Para 0007), allowing for the provision of a method to enhance the Raman signal while detecting pesticide or chemical substance measurement, the method combines the conventional surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy and an original concentration technique to quickly detect the active ingredients of pesticide and pesticide residues of agricultural products. This special concentration technology can effectively enhance the Raman signal intensity, and thereby greatly improve the detection sensitivity and reliability (Tsen, Para 0006).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US20160018305A1) and Tsen at al. (US20200158646A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kubota et al. (US20060008791A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the method of Claim 6 is obvious over modified Lin and Tsen.
Lin further teaches wherein the homogenized sample is 0.5 grams, the residual pesticide extraction combination liquid is 5 ml (See Para 0039… Each 1±0.03 gram fragments of the agricultural sample needs to add 1 to 10 mL extraction solvent; Under BRI, Lin teaches a concentration of 1g/mL to 0.1g/mL, which reads on the concentration recited by the claim which converts to 0.1 mg/mL).
Lin does not teach that the deionized water is 1 milliliter.
In the analogous art of In the analogous art of a method for dehydrating hydrous matters through a step of incorporating, contacting or coexisting the cyclotetrasaccharide into, with, or in the hydrous matters; and dehydrated products obtainable thereby, wherein the dehydrating agent of the present invention is applied to to food products, their materials and intermediates and agricultural products such as a fresh fruit, juice, vegetable extract, Kubota teaches that the deionized water is 1 milliliter (See Para 0166… the resulting sediment was admixed with one milliliter of 75% (v/v) ethanol solution and stirred for washing. The resulting each solution was centrifuged to remove supernatant, dried in vacuo, and then admixed and sufficiently stirred with one milliliter of deionized water).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Lin and Tsen to include that the deionized water is 1 milliliter, as taught by Kubota for the benefit of admixing the resulting sediment resulting from the formation of dextran (Kubota, Para 0166), allowing for the finding that such a cyclotetrasaccharide can be extensively used in hydrous matters including acid hydrous matters and confirmed that the cyclotetrasaccharide facilitates the production of dehydrated products such as high-quality dehydrated food products with satisfactory flavor, and dehydrated pharmaceuticals with satisfactory activity and stability (Kubota, Para 0007).
Regarding Claim 8, the method of Claim 7 is obvious over modified Lin, Tsen and Kubota.
Lin teaches wherein the residual pesticide extraction combination liquid (‘an extraction solvent’) is shaken together with the homogenized sample (‘homogenized fragments’) for a period of time (See Para 0011… Strongly shaking the extraction liquid added the mixture buffer agent for a period of time by a homogenizer; See Para 0009… Adding an extraction solvent, such as acetonitrile solution, into the homogenized sample, then strongly shaking the homogenized sample with the extraction solvent for a period of time to form an extraction liquid) to mix the two and form the sample solution (See Para 0024…the sample solution is a mixture solution obtained by treatment of shaking homogenized fragments of an agricultural sample with an extraction solvent).
The combination Lin, Tsen and Kubota does not explicitly teaches that the shaking takes 30 secs.
However, MPEP § 2144.05, Part II, Subpart B holds that a particular parameter that is recognized as a result effective variable (“a variable that achieves a recognized result”) would be one, but not the only motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. In the processing of agricultural products, the selection of optimal experimental conditions including homogenization time affect the degree of texture and uniformity of the processed product. Thus, the shaking time is a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lin, Tsen and Kubota to use a shaking time for of 30 seconds, for the benefit of obtaining a primary test liquid from an agricultural sample (Lin, Para 0026), which allows for the provision of a primary test liquid from an agricultural sample by the quick extraction kit, which are able to significantly enhance the speed of the procedure of detecting pesticide residues (Lin, Para 0023).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-1678. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander can be reached on (571) 272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights