Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/904,006

NOBLE METAL NANOPARTICLES FOR INTENSITY AND TIME-RESPONSE ENHANCEMENT OF LUMINESCENT DYES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 10, 2022
Examiner
HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA
Art Unit
1796
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
University Of Washington
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

70%
Career Allow Rate
582 granted / 834 resolved
Without
With
+25.6%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
37 pending
871
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
38.4%
-1.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103
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 claims 13-20 in the reply filed on October 9, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 21 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 1, 2023 and March 6, 2023 are being considered by the examiner. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the word “piasmonic” is misspelled. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 18, the limitation “oxygen permeable matrix” should be preceded by “the”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if 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 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkisov et al. (“Sarkisov”) (US 2008/0233008 A1) in view of Kennedy et al. (“Kennedy”) (US 2003/0082321 A1) and Van Duyne et al. (“Van Duyne”) (US 2009/0118605 A1). With respect to claim 13, Sarkisov discloses a chemical (e.g. gas, see [0027] and [0116]) sensor comprising (see Fig. 2 and [0055]): a nanostructure comprising a noble metal (e.g. gold, see [0050]) exhibiting surface plasmonic resonance (SPR) properties (see [0055] and [0097]), wherein the nanostructure exhibits resonance having a peak (546 nm) falling within the claimed range (see Fig. 8B); a chemical-sensitive dye (see [0055] and [0097]), wherein the plasmonic resonance of the nanostructure overlaps with the absorbance of the dye (see [0096]); and a permeable matrix (sol-gel, see [0097]) in which the nanostructure and the dye are dispersed (see [0055]). The sensor taught by Sarkisov differs from the claimed invention in that Sarkisov does not disclose: that the dye is sensitive to oxygen; or that the nanostructure comprises nanoparticles on its surface. Regarding the oxygen-sensitive dye, the disclosure of Sarkisov is not limited to the detection of any one gaseous analyte. That said, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the Sarkisov sensor to detect any gas of interest, including oxygen, as taught by Kennedy (see [0002] of Kennedy disclosing that oxygen sensing has practical use in the packaging industry). Naturally, the modification would involve using an oxygen-sensitive dye, such as metalloporphyrin or erythrosine B (see [0108] of Kennedy), which absorbs light at a wavelength (550 nm for erythrosine, see [0175] of Kennedy; the metalloporphyrin taught by Kennedy comprises the claimed optical properties according to Applicant’s specification) that falls within the claimed range and overlaps the resonance of the nanostructure taught by Sarkisov. With respect to a nanostructure comprising nanoparticles on its surface, Van Duyne discloses a plasmon resonance-based sensor that utilizes a nanostructure in the form of silica nanospheres coated with noble metal (see [0014]). According to Van Duyne, nanosphere lithography, which is used to produce the nanostructure, is inexpensive and the size and shape of the nanostructure can be precisely controlled (see [0079]). In light of the disclosure of Van Duyne, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the nanostructure taught by Van Duyne in the sensor taught by Sarkisov. With respect to claims 14 and 15, the nanostructure would comprise a silica nanosphere, as discussed above. With respect to claim 16, the noble metal nanoparticles are gold, as discussed above. With respect to claim 17, the oxygen sensitive dye would be a metalloporphyrin (e.g. platinum octaethylporphyrin, see [0108] of Kennedy) having absorbance that falls within the claimed range and overlaps the resonance of the nanostructure taught by Sarkisov, as discussed above. With respect to claim 18, the oxygen permeable matrix is a sol-gel matrix, as discussed above. With respect to claim 19, Sarkisov further discloses a substrate 211 having a surface on which the sensor is deposited (see Fig. 2). With respect to claim 20, the substrate, and hence the surface, is made from a polymer such as PMMA (see [0023] of Sarkisov). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. 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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at 571-272-7129. 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. /PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 10, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12590508
MANIPULATION OF FLUIDS, FLUID COMPONENTS AND REACTIONS IN MICROFLUIDIC SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12558684
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551888
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR EXTRACTION, SEPARATION AND THERMOCYCLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12551896
CAP HAVING A RIBBED INNER SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546783
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR PROTEIN DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+25.6%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 834 resolved cases by this examiner