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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 10 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1588064-A, hereinafter Yu in view of CN 112033932-A, hereinafter Wu, WO 2021/204479, hereinafter Qiu, United States Application Publication No. 2007/0109542, hereinafter Tracy and United States Application Publication No. 2020/0150028, hereinafter Unlu and CN 109211934, hereinafter Ma.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Yu teaches a localized surface plasmon resonance biosensing device (abstract), comprising: a laser source (item 45) configured for outputting a probe laser (page 4, paragraph 12); a first linear polarizer (item 49) arranged in front of the laser source (figure 5) and configured for linearly polarizing the probe laser (page 4, paragraph 12); a plasmonic microarray biochip (items 53 and 54) arranged in front of the first linear polarizer to receive the linearly polarized probe laser (figure 5), an optical interference assembly (item 56) arranged in front of the plasmonic microarray biochip (figure 5) and configured for converting laser transmitted by the plasmonic microarray biochip into double beams meeting an interference condition (page 5, paragraph 4); a lens (item 58) arranged on an output side of the optical interference assembly (figure 5) and configured for focusing the double beams (page 5, paragraph 4); and an imaging chip (item 59) arranged at a tail portion of the telecentric lens (figure 5) and configured for acquiring a laser speckle image formed by interference of the double beams (page 5, paragraph 4).
Yu fails to teach wherein the plasmonic microarray biochip comprises a transparent substrate, and an optical waveguide array made of a PMMA polymer and a microfluidic channel, which are arranged at a middle portion of the transparent substrate, and an optical waveguide side surface of the optical waveguide array is provided with titanium nitride nanocubes.
Wu teaches a plasmonic microarray biochip (Wu, page 2, paragraph 7) comprises a transparent substrate (Wu, page 2, paragraph 7), and an optical waveguide array (Wu, page 2, paragraph 7) made of a PMMA polymer (Wu, pages 2-3, paragraphs 8-3) and a microfluidic channel (Wu, page 2, paragraph 7), which are arranged at a middle portion of the transparent substrate (Wu, page 2, paragraph 7), and an optical waveguide side surface of the optical waveguide array is provided with titanium nitride nanocubes (Wu, page 2, paragraph 7) which reduces the manufacturing cost and improves the detection precision and satisfies the high-throughput fast detection requirement (Wu, page 2, paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the microarray biochip of Wu in the device of Yu because it would reduce the manufacturing cost and improves the detection precision and satisfy the high-throughput fast detection requirement (Wu, page 2, paragraph 5).
Yu and Wu fail to teach a photothermal excitation assembly configured for outputting an optical wave acted on the optical waveguide array of the plasmonic microarray biochip.
Qiu teaches a device for photothermal enhanced plasmonic biosensing which utilizes a photothermal excitation assembly (Qiu, items 101 and 102) with LED (Qiu, page 3, lines 18-20) configured for outputting an optical wave acted on the optical waveguide array of the plasmonic microarray biochip so that a plasmonic photothermal effect on the plasmonic sensing unit can be generated and to control, e.g. elevate or heat, the local temperature thereon (Qiu, page 2, lines 20-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a photothermal excitation assembly of Qiu to the device of Yu because it would create a plasmonic photothermal effect on the plasmonic sensing unit and to control, e.g. elevate or heat, the local temperature thereon (Qiu, page 2, lines 20-23).
Yu, Wu and Qiu fail to teach the lens is a telecentric lens.
Tracy teaches an optical resonance analysis unit which utilizes a telecentric lens because the lens aperture would map directly to angles of incidence in the same way everywhere within the object plane, and the full extent of the aperture stop of the lens can be used for accommodating angle scan range at all field points (Tracy, paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a telecentric lens for the lens of Yu because it would the lens aperture would map directly to angles of incidence in the same way everywhere within the object plane, and the full extent of the aperture stop of the lens can be used for accommodating angle scan range at all field points (Tracy, paragraph [0074]).
Yu, Wu, Qiu fail to teach wherein a second linear polarizer is arranged between the optical interference assembly and the telecentric lens, and the second linear polarizer has a polarization direction rotated by 90 degrees relative to a polarization direction of the first linear polarizer.
Unlu teaches a detection apparatus which has two linear polarizers with one in the illumination path and the other in the collection path which are arranged in an orthogonal configuration so that illumination light is blocked by the orthogonally oriented linear polarizer on the collection path (Unlu, paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a second linear polarizer between the optical interference assembly and the telecentric lens with the second linear polarizer rotated by 90 degrees relative to the first linear polarizer because illumination light would be blocked by the orthogonally oriented linear polarizer on the collection path (Unlu, paragraph [0058]). Regarding the limitations to compensate a phase retardation induced by the PMMA polymer, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Yu, Wu, Qiu, Tracy and Unlu and the apparatus of modified Yu is capable of compensating a phase retardation induced by the PMMA polymer. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Yu (see MPEP §2114).
Yu, Wu, Qiu, Tracy and Unlu fail to teach wherein the optical interference assembly further comprises a first reflector and a second reflector, a light incident surface of the light splitting prism faces the plasmonic microarray biochip, and the first reflector and the second reflector are respectively located at a first interference port and a second interference port of the light splitting prism and wherein the first reflector is arranged on a kinetic mount configured for manually and finely adjusting a distance, and the second reflector is arranged on a piezoelectric ceramic phase shifter.
Ma teaches an interference detection system which has a prism (Ma, item 4) with a first reflector (Ma, item 7) is mounted on a kinetic mount (Ma, item 8) and a second reflector (Ma, item 5) mounted on a piezoelectric ceramic phase shifter (Ma, item 6) located at ports of the prism so that the phase of the light can be shifted (Ma, page 6, paragraphs 2-3) and the light delay for the interference can be adjusted (Ma, page 5, second to last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a first reflector mounted on a kinetic mount and a second reflector mounted on a piezoelectric ceramic phase shifter located at ports of the prism because it would allow for the phase of the light can be shifted (Ma, page 6, paragraphs 2-3) and the light delay for the interference can be adjusted (Ma, page 5, second to last paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Yu teaches wherein a collimating unit (item 48) is arranged between the laser source and the first linear polarizer (figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yu teaches wherein the photothermal excitation assembly is a light emitting diode (see supra).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yu, as described above, teaches all limitations of claim 8; however, modified Yu, as described above, fails to teach a narrow-pass laser filter arranged between the telecentric lens and the second linear polarizer.
Tracy further teaches an interference filter (narrow-pass laser filter) with a width of 4 nm which blocks unwanted wavelengths and prevents coherence noise (Tracy, paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an interference filter with a width of 4 nm between the telecentric lens and the second linear polarizer because it would block unwanted wavelengths and would prevent coherence noise (Tracy, paragraph [0021]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Wu, Qiu, Tracy, Unlu and Ma as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2009/0117669, hereinafter Yamamichi.
Regarding claim 3, Yu, Wu, Qiu, Tracy, Unlu and Ma are silent with regards to specific material for the collimating unit and mode of transport for the light, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional collimating units and modes of transport of light. Yamamichi provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a planoconvex lens as a collimating lens and an optical fiber for the mode of transport of light (Yamamachi, paragraph [0157]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the collimating unit from a planoconvex lens and the mode of transport of light from an optical fiber motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Yamamichi.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Wu, Qiu, Tracy, Unlu and Ma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2002/0054290, hereinafter Vurens.
Regarding claim 4, Yu is silent with regards to specific type of laser source, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional types of laser sources. Qiu provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use laser diode (Qiu, page 3, lines 18-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the laser from a laser diode motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Qiu.
Modified Yu, as described above, fails to teach the wavelength of the laser.
Qiu further teaches that the designated wavelength matches the peak absorption of the material (Qiu, page 3, lines 21-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum wavelength of the laser to 640 nm which would allow for the peak absorption of the laser by the material (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Yu, Wu, Qiu, Tracy, Unlu and Ma fail to teach the laser diode is connected with a first temperature sensor and a first thermoelectric cooler, and the first temperature sensor and the first thermoelectric cooler are electrically connected with a first temperature controller respectively.
Vurens teaches a light source which is a laser which has a temperature sensor and Peltier effect cooler with a feedback loop which maintains the laser at aa fixed temperature which prevents the laser output from jumping between cavity modes as the laser operates (Vurens, paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a temperature sensor, a thermoelectric cooler and a temperature controller to the laser of Yu because it would maintain the laser at aa fixed temperature which prevents the laser output from jumping between cavity modes as the laser operates (Vurens, paragraph [0039]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Wu, Qiu, Tracy, Unlu and Ma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2016/201189, hereinafter Cappo.
Regarding claim 10, Yu, Wu, Qiu, Tracy, Unlu and Ma teach all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach wherein a shell of the imaging chip is connected with a second temperature sensor and a second thermoelectric cooler, and the second temperature sensor and the second thermoelectric cooler are electrically connected with a second temperature controller respectively.
Cappo teaches a plasmon resonance system with a temperature sensor which provides a feedback loop for the thermoelectric cooler to maintain a constant temperature (Cappo, page 10, lines 24-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a temperature sensor, thermoelectric cooler and temperature controller because it would allow for the device to maintain a constant temperature (Cappo, page 10, lines 24-26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Yu fails to teach a localized surface plasmon resonance effect, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the device does not require S- or P-polarization) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the interference assembly is placed in the transmitted light path and not the reflected light path) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner notes that the claims states that the optical interference assembly is arranged in “front” of the plasmonic microarray biochip and this recitation does not necessarily mean that the interference assembly is in the transmitted light path. Being in “front” of the plasmonic microarray could also be on the reflected side as the interference assembly would still be in “front” of the plasmonic microarray as the interference assembly would be in front of light coming from the plasmonic microarray.
In response to applicant's argument that the interference assembly does not produce “dual beams” and instead generates interference through polarization beam splitting, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding that the references of Wu, Qiu, Tracy, Unlu, Tamamichi, Vurens, Ma and Cappo doesn’t teach the localized surface plasmon resonance biosensing device is not persuasive as none of these references are being utilized for that teaching.
In response to applicant's argument that the second linear polarizer enhances the interference contrast and Unlu doesn’t teach any technical problems or effects related to the birefringence of PMMA polymer or phase retardation compensation, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that Ma is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Ma is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned because Ma is discussing how making the different components of the interference assembly adjustable so that the phase of the light can be shifted and the light delay can be adjusted. The fact the Ma is related to interferometric microscopy doesn’t prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from recognizing the technical solutions found in Ma and applying them to plasmonic resonance to achieve the desired optics required for the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796