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 .
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 1-20 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.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “the one or more copper structures” lacks antecedent basis. The claim previously refers to copper cystine biocomposites but it is unclear if these are the copper structures or if there is another component not yet described. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 1, the limitations “the light source irradiates the one or more copper structures” and “the detector detects a change in polarization when …” are indefinite since it is unclear if the apparatus is infringed upon when the structure of the light source and detector are present or only when the light source is irradiating and the detector detects a change in polarization. An apparatus claim can only be defined by structure and limitations drawn to the use or function of an element do not limit against prior art. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 4, the limitation “as aspect ratio” is unclear how it relates to the copper cystine biocomposites. Aspect ratio is generally a term used for physical comparisons. Arguendo it can be applied to chemistry as a ratio between components, it is still unclear what components are being compared to come up with the ratio. Correction is required.
With respect to claims 4, 5, and 6, the limitations use the phrase “about” which renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the range are not clear. Correction is required.
With respect to claims 9, and 19, the limitation “contacting one or more copper species, one or more cystines, one or more carrier fluids to make a one or more copper cystine biocomposites” is indefinite for lacking a connecting word such as “and” or “or”. There is a list of elements but it is unclear if they are all required or a selection of them. Correction is required. For the purposes of examination, from the examiner’s understanding of Figure 2 and P.0074-78, the limitation should read “contacting one or more copper species, one or more cystines, and one or more carrier fluids”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 3, 6, and 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Messina et al. “Synergistic Inhibition Effect of Chitosan and L-Cysteine for the Protection of Copper-Based Alloys against Atmospheric Chloride-Induced Indoor Corrosion” (herein after Messina).
With respect to claim 1, Messina discloses a copper based chemical sensor comprising:
A substrate (Page 3, “Cu-based alloy”)
A film, wherein the film comprises one or more copper cystine biocomposites, and wherein the film is at least partially disposed on one or more surfaces of the substrate (Page 3, “CH/Cy films deposited onto Cu-based alloys”, Page 8, “the protective coatings have been deposited by immersing first the Cu-based alloy substrates in an aqueous solution of Cy”)
A light source, wherein the light source irradiates the one or more copper structures (Page 8, optical microscope with bright-field, dark-field, polarized light)
And a detector, wherein the detector receives light reflected from the one or more copper cystine biocomposites and wherein the detector detects a change in light polarization when the one or more copper structures contact one or more chemical species (Page 8-9, detector = camera, polarization contrast, modification induced by accelerated degradation treatment, chemical species = HCl vapors)
With respect to claims 3, 6, and 7, Messina discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Messina discloses:
3- One or more copper cystine biocomposites comprise L-cystine (Page 8, 3.1, Reagent and materials “L-cysteine (analytical grade)”)
6- content of cystine from about 20 wt% to about 80wt% (Page 8, differing amounts of cystine from 25-50 wt%)
It should be noted that for claim 7, the chemical species are not limiting on the sensor measuring them. See MPEP 2115.
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(s) 2, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messina et al. “Synergistic Inhibition Effect of Chitosan and L-Cysteine for the Protection of Copper-Based Alloys against Atmospheric Chloride-Induced Indoor Corrosion” (herein after Messina).
With respect to claim 2, Messina discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Messina discloses L-cystine. However, Messina fails to disclose the one or more copper cystine biocomposites comprises D-cystine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use D-cystine as an art recognized equivalent to L-cystine. There are only a limited number of types of cystines available and one of ordinary skill would be able to select the appropriate one based on other chemical factors.
With respect to claim 4 and 5, Messina discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. However, Messina fails to mention the aspect ratio and average diameter of the biocomposites.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a size of the biocomposites since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The optimum size would be based upon the chemical species being sensed and the sensitivity required. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215
With respect to claim 8, Messina discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. However, Messina is silent with respect to the light source emitting white light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a white light since Messina takes images of the surface and white light is the most obvious light to use for imaging since it provides a realistic return. The examiner takes official notice that white light is an obvious choice for imaging as in Messina.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Marya et al. U.S. Publication 2025/0115772 discloses a copper film that causes polarization changes from chemical corrosion but fails to disclose using cystine.
Darder et al. “Cellulose-based biomaterials integrated with copper-cystine hybrid structures as catalysts for nitric oxide generation” discloses copper cystine structures for biomedical applications but fails to disclose the use for sensing chemical species.
Cui et al. “Synthesis of cysteine-functionalized water-soluble luminescent copper nanoclusters and their application to the determination of chromium(VI)” discloses a cystine copper biomaterial film used to sense change in fluorescence in the presence of Cr(VI) but fails to disclose using detecting polarization.
Pan et al. “In Situ Controllable Generation of Copper Nanoclusters Confined in a Poly-L-Cysteine Porous Film with Enhanced Electrochemiluminescence for Alkaline Phosphatase Detection” discloses copper nanoclusters confined with a cysteine film for electrochemiluminescence sensing of phosphatase but fails to disclose sensing polarization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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 C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights