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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12, 16-26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 are pending. Claims 1-12 and 34 and 36 have been withdrawn as drawn to non-elected inventions and species. Claims 16-26, 28, 30 and 32 have been examined.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 16-26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 and the species of claim 32, in the reply filed on 09/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
This application, Serial No. 18/578,674 (PGPub: US2024/0319101) was filed 01/11/2024. This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/033156 filed 06/11/2022 and claims benefit of US Provisional Application 63/220,594 filed 07/12/2021.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 01/11/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim 22 is indefinite because it recites “the changes in the property” and there is no antecedent basis for plural changes detected as the claims from which claim 22 depend have only recited a single “change in a property” being detected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-24, 26, 28, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu et al. (J. Mater. Chem. B, 2017, pages 7133-7139, IDS).
Regarding claim 16, Fu teaches throughout the publication a method of sensing one or more analytes from a sample (abstract), said method comprising: associating the sample with a composition, wherein the composition comprises: silica nanofibers, and one or more detection particles associated with the silica nanofibers; detecting a change in a property of the detection particles; and correlating the change in the property of the detection particles to a presence or absence of one or more analytes (see page 7134, last paragraph of left column continued to first paragraph of right column, calcium fluoride nanoparticles incorporated into silica nanofibers and modified gold nanoparticles were exposed to miRNA-195 for capture that triggered the FRET effect and measuring the change in fluorescence properties, a quantitative measurement of the target miRNA was obtained).
Regarding claim 17, Fu teaches the method wherein the change in the property is a change in emission wavelength peak or fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) (see page 7136, section 2.5).
Regarding claim 18, Fu teaches the method wherein the detection particles are fluorophores and plasmonic nanoparticles (page 7134, right column, first paragraph, calcium fluoride rare-earth doped nanoparticles and gold nanoparticles).
Regarding claim 19, Fu teaches the method wherein the detection particles further comprise one or more analyte binding agents (page 7134, right column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Fu teaches the method wherein the detection particles comprise a first particle and a second particle (page 7134, right column, first paragraph, calcium fluoride rare-earth doped nanoparticles and gold nanoparticles).
Regarding claim 21, Fu teaches the method wherein the first particle and the second particle exhibit different changes in a property upon interaction with the one or more analytes (see page 7136, section 2.5, altered properties of fluoride particles vs gold nanoparticles).
Regarding claim 22, Fu teaches the method wherein the changes in the property comprise changes in emission wavelength peaks of the first particle and the second particle, and wherein the ratio of the change in the emission wavelength peak of the first particle relative to the change in the emission wavelength peak of the second particle is utilized to correlate the change in the property of the detection particles to the presence or absence of the one or more analytes (page 7134, right column first paragraph; page 7136, section 2.5).
Regarding claim 23, Fu teaches the method wherein the first particle and the second particle are associated with the silica nanofibers in such a manner that the first particle is able to transfer energy to the second particle when the first particle is in an electronic excited state, and wherein the transfer of energy from the first particle to the second particle is utilized to correlate the change in the property of the detection particles to the presence or absence of the one or more analytes (page 7136, section 2.5).
Regarding claim 24, Fu teaches the method wherein the first particle is on an outer surface of the silica nanofibers, and wherein the second particle is within a hollow cavity of the silica nanofibers (page 7135, section 2.2, calcium fluoride particles were embedded within the nanofibers, which reads on the broadly claimed “hollow cavity” as any open space holding the particle could be interpreted as a hollow cavity; page 7136, section 2.5, gold nanoparticles brought in close proximity and conjugate with nanofibers, interpreted as broadly claimed “outer surface of the nanofibers”).
Regarding claim 26, Fu teaches the method wherein the detecting occurs by spectroscopy (page 7138, section 4.8).
Regarding claim 28, Fu teaches the method wherein the detecting comprises: exposing the composition to a light source, wherein the exposing transmits light to the detection particles associated with the silica nanofibers, and utilizing a measuring device to measure light emitted from the detection particles associated with the silica nanofibers, wherein the measured light emitted comprises a measured emission wavelength peak (page 7136, section 2.5 and page 7138, section 4.8).
Regarding claim 30, Fu teaches the method wherein the correlating comprises: correlating the change in the property of the detection particles to the presence of a concentration of the one or more analytes (page 7134, right column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 32, Fu teaches the method wherein the method is utilized to sense one or more analytes from the sample, wherein the one or more analytes is microRNA (page 7136, section 2.5).
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu, as applied to claims 16, 20 and 24 above, and further in view of Chinnayelka et al. (US 2012/0258467, IDS) and Ogawa et al. (J.Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, pages 8554-8556, IDS).
Regarding claim 25, Fu teaches the method as described above comprising a first particle on the outer surface of the nanofibers (gold nanoparticles) and a second particle within a hollow cavity of the silica nanofibers (calcium fluoride rare-earth doped nanoparticles) (see page 7134, right column, first paragraph). However, the reference fails to teach that the first particle comprises FITC and the second particle comprises Ru(2,2'-bipyridine)3 (Ru(bpy)3.
Chinnayelka teaches throughout the publication test systems for use with optical systems of fluorescent spectroscopy (abstract), wherein dyes that can be used include FITC (paragraph 0073).
Ogawa teaches throughout the publication a luminescent probe comprising Ru(2,2'-bipyridine)3 (Ru(bpy)3 being adsorbed into mesoporous silica for use as an immobilizing media for organic guest species (abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate as the first and second particle in the invention of Fu, FITC and Ru(2,2'-bipyridine)3 (Ru(bpy)3, respectively, as taught by Chinnayelka and Ogawa, respectively, because it would have been no more than the simple substitution of one known luminescing particle for another. One skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the FITC of Chinnayelka as the first particle in the method of Fu since fluorescent accuracy would be increased (Chinnayelka, paragraph 0009). Additionally, one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the Ru(2,2'-bipyridine)3 (Ru(bpy)3 of Ogawa as the second particle in the method of Fu because Ogawa teaches that the particle can be adsorbed into silica fiber to intensify the luminescence produced (Ogawa, abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M GIERE whose telephone number is (571)272-5084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Bao-Thuy L Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-0824. 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.
/REBECCA M GIERE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1677
