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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 18 August 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 9-13, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of Li et al. (“Shell-isolated nanoparticle-enhanced Raman spectroscopy”) as kindly provided by applicant with the Information Disclosure Sheet filed 22 August 2025.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimer et al (W.O. Publication No. 2006076040 A2) in view of Li et al. (“Shell-isolated nanoparticle-enhanced Raman spectroscopy”).
Regarding Claim 1, Weimer discloses A method to identify particle in a sample (Reference “single spore” or “single molecule”, see Specification paragraph 0004 where a single molecule or spore can be detected and identified), comprising: obtaining a sample from a source (Reference “sample”, see Specification paragraph 0044 where samples such as urine and blood are placed and dried as samples); mixing the sample with a solution (Reference “sample” and “mixture”, see Specification paragraph 0044 where the sample is mixed and cast into substrates) wherein the solution comprises plasmonic [particles] (Reference “silver colloid”, see Specification paragraph 0007 where a silver colloid solution is disclosed which is a solution containing metallic particles. It is noted a plasmonic particle or nanoparticle would be regularly defined as a particles which might introduce a metallic dielectric effect, of which a metallic particle in a solution would cause in particular silver colloid or similar precious metals would cause a particularly strong effect.); printing the mixed sample solution into microdroplets onto a substrate with a printer (Reference “drop” and “printer”, see Specification paragraph 0080 where the printer dispenses the sample with 15micrometer drops which read as microdroplets and see Specification paragraph 0082 where this is in fact a substrate being printed onto); imaging the substrate with an optical spectroscopy (Reference “SERS” and “substrates”, see Specification paragraph 0019 where the SERS or Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy is used to image these substrates. Also Reference “nano-optical”, “optical properties”, “optical scattering”, “surface plasmon” and “SERS substrates”, where the optical scattering of the metal nanoparticles is used in application such as spectroscopy which thus teaches imaging a substrate an optical spectroscopy); analyzing an optical spectrum and identifying particle specific features from the optical spectrum (Reference “spectrum”, see Specification paragraph 0042 where the shape and features of the spectrum is used to identify bacteria or individual species).
However, Weimer fails to teach mixing the sample with a solution, wherein the solution comprises non-binding plasmonic nanoparticles. In light of no particular specification definition of a non-binding plasmonic nanoparticle, it is assumed a non-binding plasmonic particle would be any particle which introduces some metallic-dielectric effect at nanometer scale which does not chemically bond to the sample but might surround, coat, or even exist near it without necessarily reacting with the sample itself. Further, it is noted that the nature of Weimer appears to use or would necessitate use of plasmonic particles on a nanometer scale which in general would read on such a limitation, but it is pointed here that Weimer might not strictly disclose mixing such a particle within a solution despite teaching the existence of such metallic nanoparticles (Reference “nm”, “metal nanoparticles”, see Specification paragraph 0010). In the interest of thoroughly disclosing any such practices to expedite prosecution, secondary reference Li explicitly teaches mixing the sample with a solution, wherein the solution comprises non-binding plasmonic nanoparticles (Reference “aqueous solution”, see paragraph 6 where an aqueous solution is used as a first example or test of their plasmonic nanoparticles referred to as SHINERS or “Shell-isolated nanoparticle-enhanced Raman spectroscopy”. Further note the behavior of the SHINERS which uses a chemically inert shell as described in paragraph 3 and therefore would be nonbinding. An overall description of the nanoparticle and its effect is provided in paragraph 4 “The physical property (strong electromagnetic field) of the Au nanoparticles is thus transferred to enhance the chemical signal, for example, Raman vibrational bands, of the molecules on the material surfaces we are examining”). Li also discloses the motivation to modify Weimer to use these varieties of nanoparticle shapes as well specifically in regards to improving detection (See paragraph 3 where the Au nanoparticle is described as having a higher detection sensitivity). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weimer to use potentially a nanoshell type shape nanoparticles as disclosed by Li.
Regarding Claim 2, Weimer discloses The method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the sample is an environmental sample and the source is a water source, waste water, food or soil. Instead, Li discloses wherein the sample is an environmental sample and the source is a water source, waste water, food or soil. (Reference “food and fruit”, See paragraph 11 where the approach can be used to test for pesticides on food and fruit and shows testing of a fresh orange contaminated, see Figure 4). Li also discloses the motivation to modify Weimer to use these varieties of nanoparticle shapes as well specifically in regards to improving detection (See paragraph 3 where the Au nanoparticle is described as having a higher detection sensitivity). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weimer to use potentially a nanoshell type shape nanoparticles as disclosed by Li.
Regarding Claim 3, Weimer discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the sample is a biological sample extracted from an individual and the biological sample is blood, plasma, lymph, saliva, mucus, sweat, urine, stool or cellular solution (Reference “sample”, see Specification paragraph 0044 where samples such as urine and blood are placed and dried as samples. Also see specification paragraph 0026 and Figure 3 showing SERS spectra of urine and blood samples).
Regarding Claim 4, Weimer discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the particle in a sample is a bacteria pesticide, antibiotic or microplastic (Reference “single bacteria”, see Specification paragraph 0038 where Weimer is able to detect single bacteria as well as other individual molecules and spores).
Regarding Claim 5, Weimer discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the particle in a sample is a pathogen and the pathogen is a bacterium, virus, fungus, microorganism, yeast, circulating tumor cell, exosome, extracellular vesicle or biomarker (Reference “pathogen”, see Specification paragraph 0078 where a positive identification of a pathogen is made. Also note Specification paragraph 0036 and Figure 13 showing SERS spectra of toxins and spores).
Regarding Claim 7, Weimer discloses The method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the solution comprises gold plasmonic nanoparticle.
Instead, Li discloses wherein the solution comprises gold plasmonic nanoparticle. (Reference “Au nanoparticles” see paragraph 4 where the previously noted nanoparticles are referenced both as gold and Au nanoparticles which induce a plasmonic effect as described by the author: “The physical property (strong electromagnetic field) of the Au nanoparticles is thus transferred to enhance the chemical signal, for example, Raman vibrational bands, of the molecules on the material surfaces we are examining”). Li also discloses the motivation to modify Weimer to use these varieties of nanoparticle shapes as well specifically in regards to improving detection (See paragraph 3 where the Au nanoparticle is described as having a higher detection sensitivity). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weimer to use a gold nanoparticle substrate to illicit the effect as described by Li.
Regarding Claim 8, Weimer discloses The method of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein the plasmonic nanoparticle has a shape selected from the group consisting of nanoshell, nanoflower, nanorod and nanostar.
Instead, Li discloses wherein the plasmonic nanoparticle has a shape selected from the group consisting of nanoshell, nanoflower, nanorod and nanostar. (Reference “nanoshell”, see paragraph 3 summarizing the structure of the nanoparticle as being within a shell which as further described in Paragraph 4 generates a large surface enhancement. Also see Figure 1 (d) showing the silica shell encasing the Au core of the nanoparticle). Li also discloses the motivation to modify Weimer to use these varieties of nanoparticle shapes as well specifically in regards to improving detection (See paragraph 3 where the Au nanoparticle is described as having a higher detection sensitivity). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weimer to use a gold nanoparticle substrate to illicit the effect as described by Li.
Regarding Claim 9, Weimer discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the microdroplets are between 15 microns and 300 microns in diameter (Reference “droplets”, see Specification paragraph 0074 where the droplets are 50 micrometers or microns in diameter).
Regarding Claim 10, Weimer discloses The method of claim 9, wherein the microdroplets are between 25 microns and 280 microns in diameter (Reference “droplets”, see Specification paragraph 0074 where the droplets are 50 micrometers or microns in diameter).
Regarding Claim 11, Weimer discloses The method of claim 9, wherein the microdroplets are between 15 microns and 50 microns in diameter (Reference “droplets”, see Specification paragraph 0074 where the droplets are 50 micrometers or microns in diameter).
Regarding Claim 12, Weimer discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the microdroplet comprises at least one cell (Reference “pollen single spore” or “single enteric coronavirus” see Specification paragraph0041 describing spectra with single pollen spores or singular virus).
Regarding Claim 13, Weimer discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the printer is an inkjet printer or an acoustic inkjet printer (Reference “inkjet” see Specification paragraph0019 where embodiments utilizing inkjet droplet dispenser are described).
Regarding Claim 17, Weimer discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the optical spectroscopy is a Raman spectroscopy (Reference “SERS” and “substrates”, see Specification paragraph 0019 where the SERS or Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy is used to image these substrates).
Regarding Claim 18, Weimer discloses The method of claim 17, wherein the Raman spectroscopy is a surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (Reference “SERS” and “substrates”, see Specification paragraph 0019 where the SERS or Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy is used to image these substrates).
Regarding Claim 20, Weimer discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the features from an optical spectrum identifies a cell type, a bacterium strain, or a biomolecule (Reference “identify” and “bacteria” see Specification paragraph 0042 bacteria can be identified from the SERS spectra).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Weimer (W.O. Publication No. 2006076040 A2) in view of Li et al. (“Shell-isolated nanoparticle-enhanced Raman spectroscopy”) and further in view of NPL publication by Hadimioglu et al. (“Acoustic ink printing”).
Regarding Claim 14, Weimer discloses The method of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the acoustic inkjet printer is a micro-electro-mechanical acoustic inkjet printer.
Instead, Hadimioglu teaches wherein the acoustic inkjet printer is a micro-electro-mechanical acoustic inkjet printer (Reference “electromechanical” and “acoustic transducer”, see Specification Section “ZnO piezoelectric transducers” paragraphs 1-2, where the acoustic transducers use thin film transducers for high electromechanical coupling. Also note in Section “Liquid Level Control Plate” the droplets formed are 10 micrometers. These read as a micro electromechanical acoustic inkjet printer and are utilized in similar regard in light of applicant’s specification). Additionally, Hadimioglu teaches several motivations to modify Weimer to specifically use an acoustic inkjet printer (See Conclusion: “We have described a novel printing technology called Acoustic Ink Printing. Acoustic Ink Printing has many advantages including: 1) the absence of a droplet defining nozzle; 2) the absence of a requirement to boil the ink to achieve ejection (which implies a wider latitude of admissible ink properties); 3) the precision with which uniform small droplets of ink can be ejected; and 4) the potential for a high degree of integration in the print head structure, including the use of multiple colors in a single print head. Given these advantages, Acoustic Ink Printing has a potential for high quality, high resolution printing.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weimer to specifically use an acoustic inkjet printer as taught by Hadimioglu.
Regarding Claim 15, Weimer discloses The method of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the acoustic inkjet printer has a transducer and the transducer has frequency between100MHz and 200 MHz.
Instead, Hadimioglu teaches wherein the acoustic inkjet printer has a transducer and the transducer has frequency between 100MHz and 200MHz (Reference “electromechanical” and “acoustic transducer”, ”, see Specification Section “ZnO piezoelectric transducers” paragraphs 1-2, where the acoustic transducers use thin film transducers which operate at frequencies at 100Mhz and above). The same motivation to implement Hadimioglu’s modifications onto Weimer’s teachings apply as noted in rejection of Claim 14 (See Conclusion: “We have described a novel printing technology called Acoustic Ink Printing. Acoustic Ink Printing has many advantages including: 1) the absence of a droplet defining nozzle; 2) the absence of a requirement to boil the ink to achieve ejection (which implies a wider latitude of admissible ink properties); 3) the precision with which uniform small droplets of ink can be ejected; and 4) the potential for a high degree of integration in the print head structure, including the use of multiple colors in a single print head. Given these advantages, Acoustic Ink Printing has a potential for high quality, high resolution printing.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weimer to use an acoustic inkjet printer as taught by Hadimioglu with this frequency range chosen.
Regarding Claim 16, Weimer discloses The method of claim 15, but fails to wherein the transducer frequency is around 5MHz, around 15MHz or around 45MHz.
Instead, Hadimioglu teaches wherein the transducer frequency is around5MHz, around15 MHz or around 45MHz (Reference “frequency”, see Section “ULTRASONIC DROPLET EJECTION WITH FOCUSED SOUND BEAMS” paragraph 3 where the droplets are formed based on frequency f which operates from 5 to 300MHZ). The same motivation to implement Hadimioglu’s modifications onto Weimer’s teachings apply as noted in rejection of Claim14 (See Conclusion: “We have described a novel printing technology called Acoustic Ink Printing. Acoustic Ink Printing has many advantages including: 1) the absence of a droplet defining nozzle; 2) the absence of a requirement to boil the ink to achieve ejection (which implies a wider latitude of admissible ink properties); 3) the precision with which uniform small droplets of ink can be ejected; and 4) the potential for a high degree of integration in the print head structure, including the use of multiple colors in a single print head. Given these advantages, Acoustic Ink Printing has a potential for high quality, high resolution printing.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weimer to use an acoustic inkjet printer as taught by Hadimioglu with this frequency range chosen.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Weimer (W.O. Publication No. 2006076040 A2) in view of Li et al. (“Shell-isolated nanoparticle-enhanced Raman spectroscopy”) and further in view of Yoo (U.S. Publication No. 20070076208 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Weimer discloses The method of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein the Raman spectroscopy comprises Bragg tunable filters. Instead, Yoo teaches wherein the Raman spectroscopy comprises Bragg tunable filters (Reference “tunable filter” and “Bragg filter”, see Figure 4 and Specification paragraph110 describing the tunable filter. Also see 131 further describing the embodiment of this tunable filter as a notch or Bragg filter. The teaching further describes these Bragg filters can also be cascaded to further filter spectra.) The motivation to modify Weimer with a Bragg filter is also given by Yoo. (Reference “tunable filter” and “Bragg filter”, see Figure 4 and Specification paragraph110 describing the tunable filter. Also see 161 further describing the embodiment of this tunable filter as a notch or Bragg filter. Note these filters are able to optimize the signal-to-noise-of the entire system. This signal to noise is commonly quoted as “SNR” which is a measure showing the level the desired signal is captured as a ratio to the background noise or undesired signal/interference and is a common parameter in electronics whose optimization is crucial particularly in spectroscopy instrument store move noise). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weimer in view of Yoo to optimize signal to noise ratio of the observed spectra with a tunable Bragg or notch filter.
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 ALEXANDER JOHN RODGERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1993. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30AM to 2:30PM ET.
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, John Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/ALEXANDER JOHN RODGERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661