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 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite a quality analysis sensor comprising a metasurface structure having a meta pattern wherein the meta pattern includes an electric-field coupled inductor capacitor resonator, and argued that reference to Hajimiri et al., cited in the previous Office Action does not teach the limitations of amended claim 1. After reviewing the cited prior art, the Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments, thus the claims are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Hajimiri et al. However, after performing an updated search, the Examiner contends that the limitations of the instant claims are taught by the combination of Kaplan et al., (US 2013/0240251) in view of Hajimiri et al. Because reference to Kaplan et al., is newly cited, the Examiner will not argue the merits of its teachings here, but will instead rely on the rejection detailed below. As such, the Examiner contends that the claims are not in condition for allowance.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
For claim 1, the Examiner notes that the “hotspot area” is not claimed as a structural element of the sensor as the hotspot area is not positively recited in the claim. Also, the Examiner notes that the hotspot area appears to result from the electric-field coupled inductor-capacitor, and therefore is not a structural element of the claimed device. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider any structure comprising an electric-field coupled inductor-capacitor as producing a hotspot area.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al., (US 2013/0240251) in view of Hajimiri et al., (US 2010/0267169).
Regarding claim 1, Kaplan et al., teach silk electronic components comprising a metasurface structure (paragraph 0106) having a meta pattern (paragraph 0038, figure 15b) configured to resonate with a predetermined frequency of electromagnetic waves to generate an electric field (paragraph 0121) wherein the metamaterial includes an electric-field coupled inductor-capacitor resonator (paragraph 0185). Kaplan et al., teach that the silk electronic components can be utilized as chemical and/or biological sensors (paragraphs 0103, 0155) wherein an antibody can be utilized as a dopant in the sensor (receptor, paragraphs 0155, 0165, 0182, 0264). Kaplan et al., do not teach a fixed binding body and a movable binding body.
Hajimiri et al., teach an electromagnetic molecular sensor comprising a magnet (fixed binding body, paragraph 0063) and a magnetic particle coupled to the magnet by an attractive force (movable binding body, paragraphs 0070, 0071). Hajimiri et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide a magnet as a means of maintaining binding moieties an extended conformation in the absence of a target molecule (paragraph 0063). Hajimiri et al., also teach that it is advantageous to provide a magnetic particle as a means of providing a second probe that is complementary to a target molecule (paragraph 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kaplan et al., to include a magnet and a magnetic particle in order to maintaining binding moieties an extended conformation in the absence of a target molecule, and to provide a magnetic particle as a means of providing a second probe that is complementary to a target molecule as taught by Hajimiri et al.
Regarding claims 4-6, Kaplan et al., do not teach a fixed binding body having a chemical linker comprising sulfur, nitrogen, or oxygen, and a movable binding body comprising polyethylene glycol.
Hajimiri et al., teach an electromagnetic sensor comprising a magnet having DNA probes as chemical linkers (paragraph 0071), and magnetic particles comprising polyethylene glycol (paragraph 0137). With respect to claim 5, the Examiner notes that the hotspot area is not a structural element of the claim, thus any chemical linker can be considered as being disposed at a hotspot area. Hajimiri et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide DNA as a chemical linker as a means of forming an energetically favorable molecular complex between a probe and a target molecule (paragraph 0071). Hajimiri et al., also teach that it is advantageous to provide magnetic particles comprising polyethylene glycol as a means of enabling attachment of a linker group to a binding moiety (paragraph 0137).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kaplan et al., to include DNA as a chemical linker and magnetic particles comprising polyethylene glycol a s amens of providing an energetically favorable molecular complex between a probe and a target molecule, and a means of enabling attachment of a linker group to a binding moiety as taught by Hajimiri et al.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al., (US 2013/0240251) in view of Hajimiri et al., (US 2010/0267169) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arai et al., (JP 2019/158770).
Regarding claim 3, Kaplan et al., in view of Hajimiri et al., do not teach a magnet comprising ferromagnetic metals and rare earth compounds.
Arai et al., teach a detection device comprising a magnetic force generating unit (paragraph 0013) wherein the magnets of the magnetic force generating unit are formed from ferrite (paragraph 0047) and neodymium (rare earth compound, paragraph 0047). Arai et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide a magnet comprising ferrite and neodymium as a means of generating a magnetic force that decreases from the center of the magnet to the periphery of the magnet (paragraph 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kaplan et al., in view of Hajimiri et al., wherein the magnet comprises ferrite and neodymium in order to generate a magnetic force that decreases from the center of the magnet to the periphery as taught by Arai et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights