DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in view of the claim amendments filed 04/28/2025 have been fully considered but are not successful in placing the claims in condition for allowance.
Some of the claim amendments were successful in overcoming rejections under 35 USC 112. Those rejections have been withdrawn.
Primarily, the applicant repeats previous arguments with no new information. The examiner’s response to those arguments are repeated here. A plasmonic optical metamaterial requires more than just wavelength. With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112, 1st and 2nd, the applicant argues that P.0065-0073 disclose specifics regarding the structure, however these paragraphs only emphasis the importance of a correctly selected wavelength, spacing, size, material, etch time, etc. in order for the invention to work correctly. Specifically, P.0071 that says the material used has an effect on the dimensions and the dimensions in turn have an effect on the wavelength required. But the specification does not in fact actually disclose the dimensions or a relationship between all the above properties and the wavelength required, or even a range of some of the properties, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not need to perform undue experimentation in order to result in a working invention, i.e. induce the optical metamaterial. There is no evidence that applicant has figured out how to make any and all nanostructures react as a plasmonic optical metamaterial for any optical wavelength between 500 and 900 nm with no particular dimensions, etch time, spacing, etc. The interrogating wavelength, size, and distances between structures, must all be precisely aligned in order to result in the adjacent structures electromagnetically coupling and acting as a plasmonic optical metamaterial. Limiting it broadly to a wide range of wavelengths is not sufficient. Additionally, the prior art, Tittl, does in fact mention using optical wavelengths in the same broad sense (Page 4366, 1st column, 1st paragraph, Figure 2, Figure 3, with a specific benefit of minimizations in the absorber and peak difference in the range of 650-700 nm).
Additionally, the applicant argues against the prior art. However, as described in the rejection below, the prior art matches up with all of the structural limitations claimed. The applicant argues that Tittl fails to disclose an “electromagnetic interaction between” the adjacent nanostructures, a result of certain structural limitations. These results are under rejection with respect to 35 USC 112, 1st and 2nd, since it is unclear exactly how and why they perform the way claimed. In view of this, until there is further clarification that structurally differentiates the claimed invention from the prior art, such that it is clear as to why the prior art doesn’t perform the same way despite satisfying the structure, there can be no differentiation between them.
Additionally, with respect to the applicant’s argument that Tittl lacks “a plasmonic material and a separate hydrogen sensitive material that is different from the plasmonic material” the examiner disagrees. Tittl relies on the Pd and gold layers to act as the plasmonic material, however only the Pd is the hydrogen sensing component, so even though Pd overlaps between the two, the plasmonic material and the hydrogen sensitive material are different groupings. Alternatively, just the gold layer of Tittl could be considered the plasmonic material, since there is a plasmonic reaction in the gold layer and gold is well known as one of the most popular types of plasmonic materials.
For these reasons, the arguments and amendments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12, 16, 17, 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a particular wavelength and angle of radiation, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The specification in various locations, specifically P.0011, P.0014, P.0071 disclose that in order for a material to acts as a plasmonic metamaterial, it must be coupled with the correct wavelength with respect to its dimensions, size, spacing, etc. The specification fails to disclose any equations, tables, or otherwise means of determining proper spacing and type of nanostructure elements in order to act as a plasmonic metamaterial, without specific wavelengths being used. The broad range of “about 500 to 900 nm” is not clear enough without being tied to a particular dimensions, spacing, size, etc. of the nanostructures.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12, 16, 17, 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The limitation “the plurality of nanostructure elements being configured on the support such that adjacent nanostructure elements are electromagnetically coupled such that, on interrogation by incident radiation in the optical region, the electromagnetic field of one nanostructure element, of the plurality of nanostructure elements, spatially overlaps that of the adjacent nanostructure elements, to allow the structure to act as a plasmonic optical metamaterial” is a functional limitation that claims unlimited means or methods of resolving a problem that is not adequately supported by the written description and not commensurate in scope with an enabling disclosure. Any and all means of nanostructure elements, size, material, and spacing, and any and all optical interrogation in the range of 500-900 nm is covered by the limitation but not supported in the specification.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12, 16, 17, 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant(s) regard as their invention.
With respect to claim 1 and 23, the limitation “such that the structure acts as a plasmonic optical metamaterial” is not fully supported. The specification discloses that the nanostructure only acts as a metamaterial with specific matched wavelengths, etch times, materials, dimensions, and more (P.0011, P.0071). Although the claim attempt to limit a source in the optical wavelength the entire broad range of about 500 to about 900 nm is not specific enough. Other than the wavelength requirement, it is not clear what structural requirements are encompassed by “such that the structure acts as a plasmonic metamaterial”.
The balance of claims are likewise rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies noted in the claims upon which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tittl et al. "Palladium-Based Plasmonic Perfect Absorber in the Visible Wavelength Range and its Application to Hydrogen Sensing".
With respect to claim 1 and 23, Tittl discloses a palladium based plasmonic detector comprising:
A structure including a support and a plurality of nanostructure elements including a plasmonic material and a separate hydrogen sensitive material that is different from the plasmonic material (Figure 1, nanostructure elements = nanowires, plasmonic material = gold layer, hydrogen sensitive material = Pd, Page 4366, 2nd column “utilize hydrogen-induced frequency shift of the plasmon oscillations excited in palladium nanostructures” and “…leads to the antiphase oscillation of a mirror plasmon in the thick gold film below”)
The plurality of nanostructure elements being configured on said support such that adjacent nanostructure elements are electromagnetically coupled such that, on interrogation by incident radiation in the optical region, generated by a source of the incident radiation in the wavelength range, the wavelength range being 500 nm to 900 nm, the electromagnetic field of one nanostructure element spatially overlaps that of adjacent nanostructure elements, such that the structure acts as a plasmonic metamaterial (Figure 1, p.4366, 2nd col., last paragraph, p.4367, 1st col., wherein wire width is determined for universal measurements across substrate, Figure 2a, Figure 3)
Wherein the plasmonic metamaterial is configure to produce surface plasmon polaritons (inherent, when surface plasmons are able to be produced, surface plasmon polaritons are also able to be produced provided certain wavelengths and directions of radiation are used, there is no difference in the structure since SPPs results from SPR)
Wherein said hydrogen sensitive material is configured to cause a change in permittivity of the plasmonic metamaterial in the presence of hydrogen (p.4367, 1st col. last paragraph)
A sensor operable to detect said change in permittivity of said plasmonic material in the presence of hydrogen (p.4366, 1st col. 4th paragraph, p. 4367, 1st col. last paragraph, permittivity and impedance are inversely related such that when one changes the other also changes, so a change in impedance is also a change in permittivity)
With respect to claims 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 27, Tittl discloses all of the limitations with respect to claim 1 above. In addition, Tittl discloses:
5, 26- Wherein said plurality of nanostructures elements are configured as an array on said support (Figure1)
7 - Adjacent nanostructures have spacing in the region of a few tens of nanometers to several microns, with such spacing selected smaller than an effective wavelength of an intended interrogating electromagnetic radiation inside the metamaterial (Figure 1, Figure 2c, page 4367, 1st col. 4th paragraph)
8- Wherein said plurality of nanostructure elements are configured to provide a sub set of nanostructure elements formed from hydrogen sensitive material interspersed amongst said plurality of nanostructure elements comprising a plasmonic material (Figure 1, Pd is both plasmonic and hydrogen sensitive, can be divided into subsets as a matter of labeling, not a matter of structure)
9- Each of said nanostructure elements comprises a plasmonic material and a hydrogen sensitive material (Figure 1, Pd is both plasmonic and hydrogen sensitive)
10- Nanostructure elements comprise a plasmonic material core (Figure 1, nanowires comprised of Pd, so core and outside of same plasmonic material)
12- Said nanostructure elements comprise elongate elements extending from said support (Figure 1, Pd wires are elongate and extend from support)
16- Plasmonic material comprises gold (p.4366, 2nd col. 3rd paragraph, plasmonic response of palladium nanowires stacked above a 200 nm thick gold film)
17- Hydrogen sensitive material comprises a hydrogen absorptive material (p.4366, 1st col. 4th paragraph, "We choose palladium because of the strong change of its optical properties upon hydrogen absorption")
19- Plasmonic metamaterial is configured to act as a waveguide (p.4366, 2nd col. 4th paragraph, coupling of incident light into the structure)
22- Said detector is operable to monitor intensity of reflected or transmitted radiation incident upon sensor (Figure 2c)
24, 25- A source of electromagnetic radiation to be incident upon said plasmonic hydrogen detector (Figure 1)
24, 25- An electromagnetic radiation monitor operable to monitor the effect of said plasmonic hydrogen detector upon said incident electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1)
27- the wavelength range being 700 nm to 900 nm (Page 4367, 1st column, Figure 3C, 700-850 nm)
The wavelength range being determined at least in part by spacing between the adjacent nanostructure elements (Page 4366, 2nd col., last paragraph through Page 4367, 1st col. First paragraph, “By carefully choosing the geometric parameters of the structure,….for a given wavelength λ0.”)
With respect to claim 24, Tittl discloses a method for detecting a change in hydrogen concentration as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Tittl discloses:
Arranging a source of electromagnetic radiation to be incident upon said plasmonic hydrogen detector and monitoring the effect of said plasmonic hydrogen detector upon said incident electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1, p.4366, 2nd col. 4th paragraph, p.4368, 2nd col. 7th paragraph)
With respect to claim 21, Tittl discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 20 above. In addition, Tittl discloses:
The detector is a spectrometer (Figure 1)
However, Tittl does not specifically disclose the spectrometer is a photo diode, ccd, or camera. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that a spectrometer would traditionally include one of the above sensing elements. It has been held that selecting one specific option from a finite list of known options for a generic component in a device is within ordinary skill in the art. Selecting a photodiode offers the advantage of price while a CCD provides more accurate information. Each option comes with its own benefits that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 on 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 5712723995. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877