DETAILED 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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/ EP2022/068190, filed 6/30/2022. This application claims benefit to foreign application EP 21 382 585.4, filed 7/01/2021. Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 3/5/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
37 CFR 1.84 (u)(1) states "View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG."" In the instant application, the view numbers for Figures 1-15 are preceded by the word "Figure" instead of the abbreviation "FIG.".
37 CFR 1.84 (u)(1) states "Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter." In the instant application, the view numbers for the partial views of Figures 2-4, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15 comprise lower case letters, which should be amended to capital letters. Additionally, the term “(cont.)” on sheets 5/21, 10/21, 14/21, 16/21, 17/21 and 21/21 must be removed. The view labels for Fig. 14 should be “A”, “B” and “C” rather than “Fig 14a”, “Fig 14b” and “Fig 14c”. In Fig. 4B, there is an errant “)” at the bottom of the figure which must be removed.
37 CFR 1.84(i) states "Words must appear in a horizontal, left-to-right fashion when the page is either upright or turned so that the top becomes the right side, except for graphs utilizing standard scientific convention to denote the axis of abscissas (of X) and the axis of ordinates (of Y)." In the instant application, the labels of Fig. 3 (sheet 3/21), 6 (sheet 7/21), 8 (sheets 9/21 and 10/21), 9 (sheet 11/21) and 13 (sheet 18/21) do not match the text of the figures which appear in a left-to-right hand fashion when the page is turned so that the top becomes the right side. In other words, the text of the figures is oriented to be read when the page is turned so that the top becomes the right side, but the figure labels are not consonant with that view. The figure labels should match the orientation of the text.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8-9 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “poly(maleic anhydride-alt-1-octadecene (PMAO)” which is missing the closing parenthesis of the chemical formula. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “the divalent metal ions is selected from” which should be “the divalent metal ions are selected from” to match number.
Claim 9 recites “Sucrose phosphorylase” which should be “sucrose phosphorylase” because sucrose should not be capitalized; and recites “Bacillus stearothermophilus” which should be “Bacillus stearothermophilus” because taxonomic names are italicized. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites an internal period at the end of line 21. Claims should only comprise periods at the end of the claim; hence, the period should be removed.
Claim 11 also recites “or” at the end of line 20, i.e., between item v) and item vi). The conjunction (which should be “and” as discussed below) should be before the last item of the list, i.e., item vii) rather than between items v) and item vi). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “A system comprising” which should be “A system comprising” because “system” should not be bolded. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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 term “substantially” in claim 1, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Hence, because the metes and bounds of the term are undefined, the limitation is indefinite.
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 and do not remedy the indefiniteness; hence, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 11, line 2; claim 12, line 1; and claim 13, line 1, also recite the indefinite limitation “substantially”; hence, claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for the reasons detailed above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface" in lines 7, 11 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not recite a surface; hence, the limitation lacks antecedent basis; therefore, claim 1, and dependent claims 2-11, are rejected as indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the enzymatic reactions" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not recite enzymatic reactions; hence, the limitation is without antecedent basis; therefore, claim 1, and dependent claims 2-11, are rejected as indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reaction media" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not recite a reaction media; hence, the limitation is without antecedent basis; therefore, claim 1, and dependent claims 2-11, are rejected as indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lowest optimum temperature" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not recite a lowest optimum temperature; hence, the limitation is without antecedent basis; therefore, claim 1, and dependent claims 2-11, are rejected as indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the ranges" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and neither claim 1 nor claim 4 recites ranges; hence, the limitation is without antecedent basis; therefore, claim 4 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the coating" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and neither claim 1 nor claim 6 recites a coating; hence, the limitation is without antecedent basis; therefore, claim 6 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the chelating agent" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and neither claim 1 nor claim 8 recites a chelating agent; hence, the limitation is without antecedent basis; therefore, claim 8 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the divalent metal ions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and neither claim 1 nor claim 8 recites divalent metal ions; hence, the limitation is without antecedent basis; therefore, claim 8 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the enzymes functionalized in the surface of the MNPs" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 depends from claim 1; however, neither claim 1 nor claim 9 recites enzymes functionalized in the surface of the MNPs, i.e., claim 1 recites “enzymes functionalized on the surface of each of the populations of MNPs”; hence, the limitation is without antecedent basis; therefore, claim 9 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and neither claim 1 nor claim 10 recites a range; hence, the limitation is without antecedent basis; therefore, claim 10 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the ratio" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and neither claim 1 nor claim 10 recites a ratio; hence, the limitation is without antecedent basis; therefore, claim 10 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not recite a surface; hence, the limitation is without antecedent basis; therefore, claim 12 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the system of a)" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and neither claim 12 nor 13 recite a system of a); hence, the limitation is without antecedent basis; therefore, claim 13 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 9 recites a jumbled list of enzymes which is so disorderly as to be indefinite. Claim 9 recites “L-aspartate oxidase from Sulfolobus tokodaii, Bacillus megaterium or Chromobacterium violaceum transaminases,...” and “horseradish peroxidase, Thermus thermophilus, Saccharolobus shibatae uracil phosphoryl transferase,...” wherein it is completely unclear which enzyme is derived from which microorganism. Applicant is required to amend the list of enzymes to be clearly interpretable.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “an average particle diameter of less than 200 nm”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 5 and 50 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “34 mT ± 50%”, and the claim also recites “preferably 34 mT ± 25%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “the magnetic anisotropy of each of the populations of MNPs is within the range of 34 mT ± 50%, and the external AMF is characterized by a frequency range between 50 and 800 kHz and a magnetic flux density of between 5 and 70 mT”, and the claim also recites “preferably, the ratio between the magnetic flux density and the magnetic anisotropy is greater than 0.4,” and “preferably greater than 0.5” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3 is indefinite because line 3 appears to be a Markush group, i.e., “selected from the group consisting of A, B and C”; however, the group is listed as a group of alternatives, i.e., “A, B or C”. A Markush group does not consist of A, B or C; rather, the group consists of A, B and C. Hence, claim 3 is indefinite because the Markush group is incorrectly defined. Appropriate correction, such as amending “or” in line 3 to “and”, is required.
Claim 8 is also indefinite for an ill-defined Markush group, as described above for claim 3. Line 3 of claim 8 recites “selected from the group consisting of Cu2+, Co2+, Ni2+” which should be “selected from the group consisting of Cu2+, Co2+ and Ni2+” to overcome this rejection.
Claim 11 is also indefinite for two ill-defined Markush groups, as described above for claim 3.
For the first ill-defined Markush group, lines 3-13 of claim 11 recites “selected from the group consisting of:
i) MNPs characterized in that each of the MNPs further have an average particle diameter of between 8-15 nm, are coated with DMSA, functionalized with NTA and Cu2+, and have a magnetic anisotropy of 27 mT;
ii) MNPs characterized in that each of the MNPs further have an average particle diameter of between 18-25 nm, are coated with PMAO, functionalized with NTA and Cu2+, and have a magnetic anisotropy of 34 mT; or
iii) MNPs characterized in that each of the MNPs further have an average particle diameter of between 25-35 nm, are coated with PAA, functionalized with NTA and Cu2+, and have a magnetic anisotropy of 41 mT;” which should be “selected from the group consisting of:
i) MNPs characterized in that each of the MNPs further have an average particle diameter of between 8-15 nm, are coated with DMSA, functionalized with NTA and Cu2+, and have a magnetic anisotropy of 27 mT;
ii) MNPs characterized in that each of the MNPs further have an average particle diameter of between 18-25 nm, are coated with PMAO, functionalized with NTA and Cu2+, and have a magnetic anisotropy of 34 mT; and
iii) MNPs characterized in that each of the MNPs further have an average particle diameter of between 25-35 nm, are coated with PAA, functionalized with NTA and Cu2+, and have a magnetic anisotropy of 41 mT;” to overcome this rejection.
For the second ill-defined Markush group, lines 14-22 of claim 11 recites “selected from the group consisting of:
i) magnetic flux density range of 40-50 mT and frequency range of 80-120 kHz,
ii) magnetic flux density range of 5-20 mT, and frequency range of 300-400 kHz,
iii) magnetic flux density range of 10-20 mT, and frequency range of 400-500 kHz,
iv) magnetic flux density range of 50-60 mT, and frequency range of 50-100 kHz,
v) magnetic flux density range of 50-60 mT, and frequency range of 50-100 kHz, or
vi) magnetic flux density range of 20-30 mT, and frequency range of 600-800 kHz.
vii) magnetic flux density range of 5-20 mT, and frequency range of 600-800 kHz” which should be “selected from the group consisting of:
i) magnetic flux density range of 40-50 mT and frequency range of 80-120 kHz,
ii) magnetic flux density range of 5-20 mT, and frequency range of 300-400 kHz,
iii) magnetic flux density range of 10-20 mT, and frequency range of 400-500 kHz,
iv) magnetic flux density range of 50-60 mT, and frequency range of 50-100 kHz,
v) magnetic flux density range of 50-60 mT, and frequency range of 50-100 kHz,
vi) magnetic flux density range of 20-30 mT, and frequency range of 600-800 kHz[[.]] and
vii) magnetic flux density range of 5-20 mT, and frequency range of 600-800 kHz” to overcome this rejection.
Claim 13 is also indefinite for an ill-defined Markush group, as described above for claim 3. Lines 3-12 of claim 13 recites “selected from the group consisting of:
i) MNPs characterized in that each of the MNPs further have an average particle diameter of between 8-15 nm, are coated with DMSA, functionalized with NTA and Cu2+, and have a magnetic anisotropy of 27 mT;
ii) MNPs characterized in that each of the MNPs further have an average particle diameter of between 18-25 nm, are coated with PMAO, functionalized with NTA and Cu2+, and have a magnetic anisotropy of 34 mT; or
iii) MNPs characterized in that each of the MNPs further have an average particle diameter of between 25-35 nm, are coated with PAA, functionalized with NTA and Cu2+, and have a magnetic anisotropy of 41 mT” which should be “selected from the group consisting of:
i) MNPs characterized in that each of the MNPs further have an average particle diameter of between 8-15 nm, are coated with DMSA, functionalized with NTA and Cu2+, and have a magnetic anisotropy of 27 mT;
ii) MNPs characterized in that each of the MNPs further have an average particle diameter of between 18-25 nm, are coated with PMAO, functionalized with NTA and Cu2+, and have a magnetic anisotropy of 34 mT; and
iii) MNPs characterized in that each of the MNPs further have an average particle diameter of between 25-35 nm, are coated with PAA, functionalized with NTA and Cu2+, and have a magnetic anisotropy of 41 mT” to overcome this rejection.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamad-Schifferli et al., US 2007/0164250 (cite A, attached PTO-892; herein “Hamad-Schifferli”) in view of Knecht et al., 2012 (cite U, attached PTO-892; herein “Knecht”).
Hamad-Schifferli teaches magnetic nanoparticles which because of their size and composition are selectively heated at a specific magnetic field frequency, i.e., alternating magnetic field of a specific frequency which selectively heats MNPs of a characteristic size and composition (Abst.; [0002]). Hamad-Schifferli teaches performing the selective heating on a composition of MNPs wherein MNPs with the characteristic size and composition are selectively heated while MNPs of a different characteristic size and composition are not heated [0004]. Hamad-Schifferli teaches that by exploiting the size and material dependence of nanoparticle heating, a method for independently heating different nanoparticle types can be achieved, since power loss (P) is a function of the material property, magnetic field frequency and particle size [0154], i.e., the composition can comprise multiple, i.e., at least two, homogeneous and colloidal populations of MNPs characterized in that each of the populations of MNPs have a different magnetic anisotropy capable of dissipating local thermal energy on the surface of each of the populations of MNPs upon application of an external alternating magnetic field (AMF).
Hamad-Schifferli teaches using the selective heating drawn only to MNPs of a characteristic size and composition to remotely alter protein structure (Abst.) of a protein linked to the MNP [0008-10] wherein the alteration of protein structure converts an inactive form into an active form of the protein [0130-134]. Hamad-Schifferli teaches that the proteins can be enzymes which can be transferases, proteases, amylases, lipases, phosphatases, etc. [0087].
Hamad-Schifferli does not specifically teach that the composition, comprising multiple homogeneous and colloidal populations of MNPs characterized in that each of the populations of MNPs have a different magnetic anisotropy capable of dissipating local thermal energy on the surface of each of the populations of MNPs upon application of an external alternating magnetic field (AMF) which are linked to proteins, is a reaction media at a significantly lower temperature than the lowest optimum temperature of the enzymes functionalized on the surface of each of the populations of MNPs wherein the AMF is tuned to specifically heat the different populations of MNPs to the linked enzyme’s optimal temperature; however, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to a) have the reaction media at a significantly lower temperature than the lowest optimum temperature of the enzymes functionalized on the surface of each of the populations of MNPs and to sequentially or simultaneously activate the enzymes functionalized on the surface of each of the populations of MNPs by irradiating with the appropriate AMF to raise the temperature of the MNP conjugated enzyme closer to its optimal temperature so that the enzyme is activated; however, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to practice such a method in view of Knecht.
Knecht teaches irradiating magnetic nanoparticles linked to a dehalogenase with a selective AMF which raises the local temperature of the magnetic nanoparticles and linked dehalogenase thereby stimulating activity of the enzyme (Abst.; Figs. 1-2, 4).
Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to practice the method made obvious by Hamad-Schifferli in view of Knecht comprising a) providing a system comprising multiple homogeneous and colloidal populations of MNPs, characterized in that each of the populations of MNPs are functionalized with at least one different enzyme, characterized in that each of the populations of MNPs have a different magnetic anisotropy capable of dissipating local thermal energy on the surface of each of the populations of MNPs upon application of an external alternating magnetic field (AMF) sufficient to activate each of the enzymes functionalized on said MNPs, and b) applying one or more external AMFs to the system of a) to produce a simultaneous or sequential activation of the enzymes functionalized on the surface of each of the populations of MNPs so that the enzymatic reactions are carried out, wherein during step b) the reaction media is kept at a significantly lower temperature than the lowest optimum temperature of the enzymes functionalized on the surface of each of the populations of MNPs; therefore, claim 1 is prima facie obvious.
Hamad-Schifferli teaches the MNPs can be 4-25 nm [0033]; therefore, claim 2 is prima facie obvious.
Hamad-Schifferli teaches that the magnetic material of the MNPs can comprise Fe3O4 or Fe2O3 [0035]; therefore, claim 3 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the magnetic anisotropy, AMF frequency and magnetic flux are result effective variables for the process. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to vary these parameters to optimize the method; therefore, claims 4 and 10 are prima facie obvious. See also MPEP 2144.05 II.A. “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%)".
Claims 1-8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamad-Schifferli in view of Knecht and Mahour et al., US 2022/0389469 (cite B, attached PTO-892; herein “Mahour”).
The discussion of Hamad-Schifferli and Knecht regarding claims 1-4, 10 and 12 set forth in the rejection above is incorporated herein.
Hamad-Schifferli teaches that the MNPs can comprise a coating [0035] but does not disclose that the coating can comprise polyacrylic acid nor disclose that the MNPs are functionalized with a nitriloacetic acid derivatives (NTA) and divalent metal ions; however, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the MNPs to comprise a coating comprising polyacrylic acid and to be functionalized with Ni-NTA in view of the disclosure of Mahour.
Mahour teaches that solid supports for immobilizing enzymes can comprise magnetic particles, particles comprising polyacrylic acid and particles comprising a Ni-NTA functional group ( [0449], [0476]); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to practice the method made obvious by Hamad-Schifferli in view of Knecht wherein the MNPs comprise a coating of polyacrylic acid and are functionalized with Ni-NTA; therefore, claims 5-8 are prima facie obvious.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamad-Schifferli in view of Knecht, Mahour and Corgie et al., US 2019/0309282 (cite C, attached PTO-892; herein “Corgie”).
The discussion of Hamad-Schifferli, Knecht and Mahour regarding claims 1-8, 10 and 12 set forth in the rejection above is incorporated herein.
None of Hamad-Schifferli, Knecht and Mahour teach that the enzymes functionalized on the surface of the MNPs are the enzymes listed in claim 9; however, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the enzyme to be horseradish peroxidase in view of the disclosure of Corgie.
Corgie teaches magnetic nanoparticles assembled with horseradish peroxidase [0005]; hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to practice the method made obvious by Hamad-Schifferli in view of Knecht and Mahour wherein the enzymes functionalized on the surface of the MNPs of each of the populations of MNPs of step a) comprise horseradish peroxidase because Corgie teaches that horseradish peroxidase is an enzyme suitable for assembly with magnetic nanoparticles; therefore, claim 9 is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Trent R Clarke whose telephone number is (571)272-2904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 MST.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/TRENT R CLARKE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1651
/DAVID W BERKE-SCHLESSEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651