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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 and species in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. No prior art was found for the elected species, wherein n is 3 and X is -COOH. The examination has been expended to all species.
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.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because “antennae” means more than one antenna. Therefore, in the phrase “an LSPR antennae comprising a light inducible isomerizable compound”, it is unclear if the LSPR comprises one antenna or a plurality of antennae. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the Au TNP" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is vague and indefinite because it recites "wherein the light inducible isomerizable compound forms a zwitterion upon exposure to UV light and said light inducible isomerizable compounds". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said light inducible isomerizable compounds". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 13 are vague and indefinite because it is unclear what the term (SP-UT) stands for.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sardar et al. WO 2020/086531 in view of Ginger et al. US 2013/0143331 A1 (hereinafter Ginger).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Sardar et al teaches biosensors and methods for localized surface plasmon resonance biosensing. The biosensor can include a substrate having a substrate surface to which a plurality of localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) antennae are affixed. The LSPR antennae can be affixed via an affixation surface of the LSPR antenna. The LSPR antennae can have a functional surface opposite the affixation surface. Each functional surface can be functionalized by a plurality of single-stranded DNA. (see abstract, [0014] and claims)
Sardar et al teaches “In certain aspects, the plurality of LSPR antennae can comprise gold, silver, copper, palladium, aluminum, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the LSPR antenna may be triangular nanoprisms, nanorods, or spherical particles. The plurality of LSPR antennae can be a plurality of nanoprisms. As used herein, “nanoprism” refers to a nanostructure having two faces that are substantially parallel to one another. The functional surface can be substantially triangular, substantially circular, substantially ovular, substantially quadrilateral, substantially star-shaped, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the functional surface comprises a sharp point. Each of the plurality of LSPR antennae can have an average edge-length of between 10 nm and 150 nm, between 20 nm and 75 nm, between 25 nm and 50 nm, between 30 nm and 45 nm, or between 33 nm and 40 nm. In certain aspects, each of the plurality of LSPR antennae can have an average edge-length of 34 nm, 35 nm, 42 nm, or 47 nm” [0099].
Sardar et al teaches “FIG. 15 shows structural parameters of nanoplasmonic sensors modulating the plasmoelectronic effects at the nanoprism and -S-ssDNA/miR interface. (A) Schematic representation of characterizing the delocalization of conduction electron wavefunctions of TNPs into -ssDNA/miR duplex. (Left panel): the nanoprisms are chemically attached onto a silanized glass substrate and then their surface are functionalized with mixed HS-PEG:HS(CH2)n-ssDNA-X to prepare LSPR-based nanoplasmon” [0200] (see also [0231]: amine-terminal long chain alkylthiols).
Sardar et al teaches wherein the Au TNP has an average edge-length of between 30 and 50 nm (see claim 15).
Sardar et al teaches “In certain aspects, the substrate can be substantially transparent to electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength between 350 nm and 1200 nm or between 700 nm and 900 nm. In certain aspects, the substrate can comprise glass, quartz, indium tin oxide, optical fiber, flexible plastic, gold-coated glass, sapphire, or a combination thereof. In certain aspects, the substrate can be silanized glass” [0100] and claim 17.
However, Sardar et al does not teach a light inducible isomerizable compound.
Ginger discloses an adaptable nanoplasmonic (para [0052]: nano-scale gold particle that exhibits surface plasmon resonance) (nanoplasmonic is considered to be a nanoscale device utilizing plasmon detection) biosensor (para [0072]: sensing platform) for specific detection of target nucleic acids (para [0071]: detection of base-pair mismatches; para [0072]), said biosensor comprising a localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) (para [0052]: nano-scale gold particle that exhibits surface plasmon resonance) chip (para [0066]: chip) a functionalized solid support (para [0104]: AuNP aggregates. glass slide that had been silanized with 3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane); and the LSPR antennae (para [0008]: a first nucleic acid sequence attached to the surface); comprising a light inducible isomerizable compound (para [0009]: a photoswitchable molecule incorporated into the first nucleic acid sequence; para [0016]: Photoisomerization of an example photoswitch, azobenzene), and further discloses wherein the surface is a planar surface, such as an assay chip (para [0051]), and further discloses potential detection of proteins (para [0072]); wherein said affixation surface of the LSPR chip is covalently linked to said solid support, and said LSPR antennae are linked to said functional surface of the LSPR chip or detection of target proteins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the photoswitchable molecule of Ginger for the biosensor of Sardar et al. The motivation is that Ginger teaches that “When photoswitchable nucleic acids are combined with plasmon-resonant metal nanoparticles, photoswitchable optical properties are created. The photoswitchable optical properties arise from the changes in the plasmon coupling of nanoparticles due to photocontrolled hybridization and dehybridization of the nucleic acids.”[0053]… “Furthermore, it is contemplated that the photoswitchable optical properties can be detected by many methods, such as a UV-Vis spectrophotometer, visually as a color change by naked eye in bulk solution, monitored at the single nanostructure level using dark-field microscope coupled with a fiber optic spectrometer, or detected by silver amplification on a chip.” [0059]…”The photoswitchability can be used for the detection of base-pair mismatches. The melting temperature of mismatched DNA, for example, is lower than complementary DNA. This difference is further amplified using the disclosed photoswitchable systems by the cooperative melting of DNA the destabilization from the photoswitchable molecule.” [0071]… “The photoswitchable plasmonic property is reversible and can be cycled many times to yield light modulated scattering and absorption signals. Because designed DNA can be used to detect various types of analytes, such as proteins, ions and small molecules, the modulation in optical signal upon binding of the analyte presents a unique sensing platform with broad applications especially in standoff detection.” [0072]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the primary references in the manner of the claims to achieve the expected benefits, optimizations and/or expanded applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEZIA RILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0786. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-6:00pm.
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, Gary Benzion can be reached at 571-272-0782. 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.
/JEZIA RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681 6 August 2026
Prosecution Insights