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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/21/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 8, 10-13, and 18-20 are pending. Claim 8 is amended. Accordingly, claims 8, 10-13, and 18-20 are examined herein.
Priority
The present application, filed 07/21/2026, is an RCE of U.S. Patent Application 17/825,935, filed 05/26/2022, which claims foreign priority of KR10-2021-0067850, filed 05/26/2021. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 13, the phrase the diagnostic kit of one of claim 10 is grammatically improper because only a single claim, claim 10, is referenced. It is suggested that the diagnostic kit of one of claim 10 be amended to the diagnostic kit of claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 8, 10, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wi et al. (Facile Three-Dimensional Nanoarchitecturing of Double-Bent Gold Strips on Roll-to-Roll Nanoimprinted Transparent Nanogratings for Flexible and Scalable Plasmonic Sensors. Nanoscale. Vol. 9, No. 4, January 2017) in view of Zhang et al. (Plasmonic Metal Nanostructure Array by Glancing Angle Deposition for Biosensing Application. Sensors and Actuators. B, Chemical. Vol. 183, 2013).
Regarding claim 8, Wi develops a facile, high-throughput, and potentially more scalable methodology to create transparent and flexible 3D localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) nanoarchitectures integrated within the roll-to-roll (R2R) nanoimprint lithography (NIL) polymer nanograting framework (p. 1398). Wi teaches a plasmonic sensing structure fabricated on a flexible substrate that functions as a transparent biomolecular sensor (p. 1399) and evaluates a β-amyloid peptide, one of pathological biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease using LSPR sensing (p. 1401; Fig. 4).
Regarding a substrate printed with a resin nano pattern of a roll-to-roll nanoimprint lithography, the resin nano pattern comprising a nanostripe structure that provides controlled spacing between adjacent nanoparticles, Wi teaches that in roll-to-roll (R2R) nanoimprint lithography (NIL), a flexible imprinting mold (stamp) is first wrapped around a cylindrical roll which then continuously stamps the desired pattern on the target substrate typically coated with a UV-curable polymer resin, as the rolling proceeds under a conformal contact and with UV curing at the outlet (p. 1398). Figure 1a depicts the schematic and conceptual drawing of the overall fabrication procedure based on continuous R2R NIL, beginning from airbrushing-based resin coating to metal evaporation (p. 1399; Fig. 1a). Wi further teaches that the transparent nanograting structure is created on a flexible substrate via R2R NIL, followed by angled Au deposition, and more specifically that R2R NIL was performed onto the polyurethane acrylate (PUA)-coated polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate, using a mold carrying a 200 nm-period (1:1 duty) and 100 nm-high nanograting pattern (pp. 1399-1401; Figs. 1-3). Wi additionally teaches that the periodic Au strips (periodicity = 200 nm) were modeled based on the SEM image in Fig. 2(b) (p. 1400; Fig. 3). Here, Wi does not merely disclose an arbitrary surface; it expressly provides a 200 nm-period (1:1 duty) nanograting and corresponding periodic Au strips (periodicity = 200 nm). Accordingly, the predetermined periodic nanostripe structure necessarily establishes controlled periodic spacing between adjacent Au nanostructures.
Regarding a first nanoparticle disposed on the nanostripe at an inclined angle to form a polymorphism structure, Wi teaches that after R2R NIL, Au strips were thermally evaporated (30 nm nominal thickness) at three different oblique angles (5°, 35°, and 50°) on the PUA nanogratings (p. 1399-1400; Figs. 1 and 2a–c). Wi further demonstrates that changing the oblique angle changes the resulting Au morphology. Specifically, at 5°, the Au strips were deposited on both the top and bottom surfaces of the gratings. Although the top surfaces of the gratings were fully covered by Au, the tilted deposition and the consequent shadowing effect resulted in narrow slits on the bottom surfaces where the Au flux could not reach. These slits at the bottom surfaces appeared as a dark contrast (pp. 1399-1400; Fig. 2a). At 35°, the Au strips on the top and bottom surfaces of the gratings were connected by the Au films deposited on the sidewall surfaces (pp. 1399-1400; Fig. 2b). At 50°, the Au flux could not reach the bottom surfaces, and the Au films were deposited at the top and a part of the sidewall surfaces (pp. 1399-1400; Fig. 2c). Wi expressly explains that it explores the correlation between the bent shape of Au strips depending on deposition angle and the plasmonic sensing performance (p. 1399). Thus, Wi teaches nanoscale Au structures disposed on the nanograting using inclined-angle deposition to produce different angle-dependent structural morphologies, including the double-bent morphology, thereby satisfying the claimed polymorphism structure under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Wi further provides an express reason for adapting its plasmonic platform for target-specific molecular recognition. Specifically, Wi expressly identifies the next step in its sensor development by explaining that although active targeting of β-amyloid was not applied in this experiment, the present results clearly demonstrate that the double-bent Au strips (DAS) can be utilized as a molecular sensor with a femtogram-level sensitivity by accompanying suitable antibodies for target molecules and can be conjugated with various antibodies on universal substrates, towards highly-sensitive, reliable, and inexpensive molecular detection platforms (p. 1402). This disclosure provides an express reason for a skilled artisan to seek a known target-specific binding and signal-amplification arrangement for Wi’s LSPR platform.
However, Wi does not expressly teach or specify a first compound bonded to the first nanoparticle; a second nanoparticle to be coupled to the first nanoparticle; and a second compound bonded to the second nanoparticle, wherein the target material bonds the first compound to the second compound, in the specific target-mediated configuration recited by claim 8.
Zhang teaches the missing target-mediated nanoparticle coupling arrangement. Specifically, Zhang teaches that the gold nanostructure array was first functionalized with a binary thiol mixture containing 10 mol% of the biotin-terminated thiol (p. 313; Fig. 1(c)), thereby providing a first compound bonded on the Au sensing nanostructure. Zhang further teaches 5 nm gold colloids (p. 311) and preparing a biotinylated Au colloid through surface-capping of gold nanoparticles with a self-assembled monolayer containing H-CVVVTGGGK(Biotin)-NH2 (p. 311), thereby providing a second Au nanoparticle carrying a second binding compound.
Zhang further teaches that streptavidin has four biotin binding sites and expressly employs a biotin-streptavidin-binding and biotin-streptavidin-biotin conjugated metal nanoparticles reaction (p. 315), thereby teaching the target material bonding the first surface-bound compound to the second nanoparticle-bound compound. Zhang experimentally confirms the resulting coupling through the bridge binding of biotin-streptavidin-biotin-Au colloid and reports that the initial LSPR response was increased by an additional red shift of 6 nm after a subsequent exposure to biotinylated Au colloids (p. 316, Fig. 7). Zhang expressly explains that the LSPR of the Au colloid may couple with the surface plasmons of the glancing angle deposition (GLAD) Au film, producing an additional extinction-peak shift adding to the refractive index-induced shift (p. 316). Zhang additionally supplies the express technical advantage supporting the combination: SPR and LSPR sensitivity to an analyte can be enhanced by using Au colloid label (p. 316).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wi’s R2R-nanoimprinted PUA nanograting having obliquely deposited Au nanostructures by functionalizing the Au sensing nanostructure with a first binding compound and providing Zhang’s functionalized second Au nanoparticle such that a target material binds the first compound to the second compound and thereby couples the second Au nanoparticle to Wi’s first Au nanostructure, because Wi expressly identifies that active targeting was not employed in its demonstrated molecular-sensing experiment and directs the skilled artisan to employ target-specific binding compounds, while Zhang provides a compatible target-mediated Au-nanoparticle amplification technique expressly demonstrated to increase the LSPR response. The skilled artisan therefore would have had an express technical reason to employ Zhang’s target-recognition and Au-colloid amplification technique in Wi’s LSPR platform to provide the target-specific molecular detection contemplated by Wi while enhancing the measurable plasmonic response. A reasonable expectation of success would have existed because Wi already demonstrates an operative Au LSPR molecular-sensing surface suitable for conjugation with recognition compounds, while Zhang experimentally demonstrates successful functionalization of an Au plasmonic surface, target-mediated binding of a functionalized second Au nanoparticle thereto, and enhancement of the resulting LSPR signal; accordingly, applying Zhang’s demonstrated binding and amplification technique to Wi’s Au LSPR sensing surface would have been predictably expected to retain Wi’s underlying plasmonic sensing function while providing target-specific amplified detection.
Regarding claim 10, the Wi-Zhang combination teaches this limitation because Zhang’s bridge binding of biotin-streptavidin-biotin-Au colloid binds the second Au colloid to the biotin-functionalized first Au sensing structure through streptavidin (p. 316), thereby positioning the second nanoparticle adjacent to, while molecularly spaced from, the first Au structure. Zhang explains that the LSPR of the Au colloid may couple with the surface plasmons of the GLAD Au film (p. 316), confirming sufficiently close spatial association of the two plasmonic structures. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wi as set forth for claim 8 by arranging Zhang’s functionalized second Au nanoparticle adjacent to and molecularly spaced from the first Au sensing structure through target-mediated binding because Zhang expressly teaches that this proximity permits coupling of the Au-colloid LSPR with the surface plasmons of the sensing structure and thereby increases the measurable LSPR shift. A reasonable expectation of success would have existed because Zhang experimentally demonstrates the target-mediated adjacent arrangement and resulting additional LSPR red shift.
Regarding claim 12, Wi expressly teaches nanoscale Au strips exhibiting localized surface plasmon resonance (pp. 1398-1401, Figs. 1–3), while Zhang teaches 5 nm gold colloids as the second nanoparticles (p. 311) and explains that the LSPR of the Au colloid may couple with the surface plasmons of the GLAD Au film (p. 316). Thus, both the first and second nanoparticles comprise Au, a metal expressly demonstrated by the references to cause the claimed plasmon phenomenon. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Zhang’s Au colloidal nanoparticle as the second nanoparticle with Wi’s Au LSPR sensing structure because Zhang expressly teaches that coupling the Au colloid with the Au plasmonic sensing surface provides an additional plasmonic extinction-peak shift. A reasonable expectation of success would have existed because both references experimentally employ Au structures for LSPR sensing and Zhang directly demonstrates plasmonic coupling between a gold sensing structure and a gold colloidal nanoparticle.
Regarding claim 18, Wi expressly teaches R2R NIL onto a polyurethane acrylate (PUA)-coated polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate (p. 1399, Fig. 1), describes its structure as a transparent biomolecular sensor (p. 1399), and teaches that the optical properties of the prepared Au strips on the gratings were investigated by measuring their absorbance curves with a spectrophotometer wherein the intensity of transmitted light was recorded at the back of the samples (pp. 1399-1400, Figs. 2d–2f). Wi further describes Figure 4(a) as a flexible and semi-transparent DAS sensor (p. 1401).
Regarding claim 19, Wi teaches the first plasmonic nanostructure as Au strips deposited on the PUA nanograting (p. 1399-1400; Figs. 1-2), while Zhang expressly teaches 5 nm gold colloids (p. 311) and subsequently biotinylated Au colloids as the second nanoparticles (pp. 310, 313, and 316-317). Accordingly, the first and second nanoparticles each comprise the expressly claimed alternative gold (Au). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Zhang’s Au colloid as the second nanoparticle with Wi’s Au plasmonic sensing structure because Zhang expressly demonstrates that an Au colloidal label coupled to an Au plasmonic sensing structure enhances the LSPR response through increased local refractive index and plasmonic coupling. A reasonable expectation of success would have existed because Zhang experimentally demonstrates the Au/Au arrangement and the resulting additional LSPR red shift.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wi et al. and Zhang et al., as applied to claims 8 and 10 above, and further in view of Groves et al. (WO 2018169885 A1 – Final dated 04/01/2026).
Regarding claim 11, with respect to the teachings of Wi and Zhang, see the discussion above, which applies equally here. The Wi-Zhang combination teaches the second Au nanoparticle discussed above, including Zhang’s 5 nm gold colloids, but Zhang does not expressly teach or specify the shape of that second Au colloid as one of the shapes recited in claim 11.
Groves remedies this deficiency by expressly teaching spherical gold nanoparticles (e.g. between 10 nm and 100 nm in diameter), and further teaches using the secondary metal nanoparticle as a signal enhancer in a plasmonic sandwich assay. Groves indicated that this involves the binding of another nanoparticle (gold) through a second antibody resulting in a plasmonic coupling between the two nanoparticles leading to marked to spectral shifts. Groves additionally explains that the enhanced optical response depends on the second nanoparticle’s size and its effective distance from the first nanoparticle. ([0249]–[0250], pp. 44-45).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the second Au nanoparticle of the Wi-Zhang combination to have Groves’ spherical configuration because Groves expressly teaches spherical Au nanoparticles as secondary plasmonic signal-enhancing particles and identifies particle size and interparticle distance as parameters affecting the enhanced optical response. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success because Groves uses such spherical Au nanoparticles for the same plasmonic coupling and signal-enhancement purpose for which Zhang employs its Au-colloid label, such that selecting Groves’ expressly taught spherical configuration would preserve the second nanoparticle’s target-mediated plasmonic amplification function.
Regarding claim 13, with respect to the teachings of Wi and Zhang, see the discussion above, which applies equally here. The Wi-Zhang combination does not expressly teach or specify that the adjacent distance is in a range of 30 nm to 200 nm.
Groves teaches that the enhanced color change due to the second nanoparticle depends on the size of the second nanoparticle as well as the effective distance between the nanoparticles, and expressly teaches that the interparticle separation (antibody I-analyte-antibody II) expected in the assay will be 20-30 nm and is within the limits of the effective plasmonic coupling ([0250], p. 45). The expressly disclosed 30 nm interparticle separation therefore overlaps the claimed 30 nm to 200 nm range at its lower endpoint. Groves further ties that distance directly to effective plasmonic coupling, providing a technical reason for selecting the disclosed separation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the target-mediated adjacent nanoparticles of the Wi-Zhang combination according to Groves such that the interparticle distance is 30 nm, because Groves expressly teaches that the optical enhancement produced by the second nanoparticle depends upon the effective interparticle distance and identifies a 20–30 nm separation as being within the limits of effective plasmonic coupling. A skilled artisan seeking the signal enhancement already taught by Zhang therefore would have had an express reason to employ Groves’ 30-nm separation to maintain effective coupling between the first and second plasmonic particles, with a reasonable expectation of success because Groves expressly identifies that separation as effective for the same target-mediated plasmonic nanoparticle coupling arrangement.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wi et al. and Zhang et al., as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (One-Step Rapid Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Particles via Low-Cost Nanoplasmonic Sensors in Generic Microplate Reader and Point-of-Care Device. Biosensors & Bioelectronics. Vol. 171, No. 112685, January 2021).
With respect to the teachings of Wi and Zhang, see the discussion above, which applies equally here. The Wi-Zhang combination does not expressly teach or specify that the diagnostic kit is configured to be mounted on a microwell plate having a well structure for analysis using a microplate reader.
Huang teaches precisely this integration. Huang teaches a nanoplasmonic sensor fabricated on a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) sheet, after which the sheet were cut into small pieces of 1 cm × 1 cm, and glued to an open-bottom 96-well plate (p. 3). Huang further teaches that measurements were performed using the generic microplate reader with their homemade chip-in-microwell plate and that the dynamic absorption spectrum curves were measured using a simple small volume microplate reader (p. 3). Figure 2(a) expressly depicts integration of the nanoplasmonic sensor chip with a standard 96-well plate (Fig. 2(a), p. 4). Huang also supplies a concrete technical advantage for the modification: its chip-in-microwell sensor was developed for the direct multichannel detection of different concentrations of whole virus particles, with different samples simultaneously placed in the wells of the 96-well chip plate (p. 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Wi-Zhang plasmonic diagnostic sensor by mounting the sensor on a microwell plate having a well structure and analyzing the sensor with a microplate reader as taught by Huang, because Huang expressly teaches integrating a nanoplasmonic sensor with a standard 96-well plate to provide direct multichannel analyte detection using a generic microplate reader. A skilled artisan would therefore have had an express reason to adopt Huang’s plate integration to permit parallel, convenient optical analysis of multiple samples using standard microplate-reader instrumentation. A reasonable expectation of success would have existed because Wi already employs transmitted-light absorbance measurements of a flexible plasmonic sensor, while Huang experimentally demonstrates that a PET-supported nanoplasmonic sensor can be physically mounted in an open-bottom 96-well plate and its optical response successfully measured using a generic microplate reader.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed, 07/21/2026, have been fully considered. The response is set forth below.
Applicant argues, inter alia, that the previously applied combination of Tang et al., Groves et al., Chen et al., Ahn et al., and Lopatynskyi et al. fails to teach or suggest the amended limitation of claim 8 requiring a first nanoparticle disposed on the nanostripe at an inclined angle to form a polymorphism structure; that the proposed modification of Tang would be incompatible with Tang’s dynamic deformation-based plasmon-tuning mechanism and that the references teach away from the proposed combination; that the prior combination lacks adequate motivation and relies upon impermissible hindsight and the picking and choosing of features from multiple references; and that the previously applied combination fails to establish the claimed roll-to-roll nanoimprinted nanostripe structure providing controlled spacing between adjacent nanoparticles. Applicant further argues that the asserted deficiencies with respect to claim 8 extend to the dependent claims and specifically argues, with respect to claim 13, that Groves et al.’s disclosed interparticle separation of 20–30 nm does not render obvious the claimed range of 30 nm to 200 nm.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 8 and dependent claims 10–12 and 18–20 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely upon the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged by Applicant with respect to those claims. Accordingly, the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon Tang et al. in view of Groves et al., Chen et al., Ahn et al., and Lopatynskyi et al., including the further reliance upon Liu et al. and Duffy et al., are withdrawn. Thus, Applicant’s arguments concerning Tang’s deformation-based tuning mechanism, alleged incompatibility and teaching away with respect to fixed nanoimprinted structures, the absence of the presently claimed inclined-angle polymorphism structure from the prior combination, lack of motivation to combine the prior combination, hindsight reconstruction, the number of references previously combined, and the alleged failure of Liu et al. and Duffy et al. to cure the asserted deficiencies are moot.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 13 and Groves et al., however, has been considered and is not persuasive. Applicant argues that Groves et al.’s disclosed interparticle separation of 20–30 nm does not render obvious the claimed range of 30 nm to 200 nm. However, the expressly disclosed 30 nm endpoint of Groves et al.’s 20–30 nm interparticle separation falls within the presently claimed range of 30 nm to 200 nm. Moreover, Groves et al. teaches the disclosed interparticle separation in the context of effective plasmonic coupling between nanoparticles and teaches that the optical response depends upon the effective distance between the nanoparticles. Accordingly, Groves et al. remains applicable to the limitation of claim 13 in the new ground of rejection.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are set forth above based principally upon newly applied prior art and the claims presently before the Office. Although Groves et al. remains applied to certain dependent-claim limitations, the prior § 103 grounds as previously formulated are withdrawn and are not maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH OGUNTADE whose telephone number is (571)272-6802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00 AM - 3 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, Bao-Thuy 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.
/E.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1677
/BAO-THUY L NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1677 October 8, 2026
