DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 240-247, species (2) (the second surface is adjacent or proximal to the first surface, see, claim 246), a porous region for size-based separation in claim 241, and oligonucleotides in claim 242 in the reply filed on November 28, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 240-244 and 246 will be examined
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: (1) since this application claims a priority for PCT/US2021/041431, applicant may consider to put PCT/US2021/041431 to paragraph [0001] of the specification; and (2) Description Of The Drawings of the specification related to Figures 5A1 to 5C includes Figures 5B4 to 5B8. However, there is no Figures 5B1 to 5B3 in the Drawings or Description Of The Drawings of the specification related to Figures 5A1 to 5C does not describe Figures 5A1 to 5C.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 240-242 and 246 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al., (US 2016/0209407 A1, published on July 21, 2016).
Regarding claims 240-242 and 246, Yamamoto et al., teach a platform comprising: an inlet region for receiving a sample (ie., a filling channel 46 in Figure 4); a mixing region for mixing the sample (ie., a region having a sample in a main fluid channel 43 in Figure 4 or a region having a focused sample 15 in Figure 12); a capturing region comprising a first surface for capturing one or more components of the sample (ie., capture region 18 comprising a capturing gel or a sieving matrix for capturing intact probe in Figure 12), wherein the first surface is downstream the mixing region; and a plasmonic sensing region comprising a second surface (ie., the surface of the SPFS sensor) for detecting an analyte (ie., an target analyte such as a target DNA) from the sample, wherein the second surface comprises an analyte detecting agent (ie., degraded probe cleaved by DNAzyme after the period T23 in Figure 12) as recited in claim 240 wherein the first surface comprises a functionalized region and the functionalized region is functionalized with at least one functional group (ie., a capture probe) as recited in claim 241, the analyte detecting agent is oligonucleotides as recited in claim 242, and the second surface is adjacent or proximal to the first surface as recited in claim 246 (see paragraphs [0004], [0008], [0013], [0033] to [0035], [0048] to [0042], [0051], [0061] and [0062], and Figures 4, 5, 7, and 12).
Therefore, Yamamoto et al., teach all limitations recited in claims 240-242 and 246.
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.
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 243 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., as applied to claims 240-242 and 246 above, and further in view of Zhao et al., (Scientific Reporters, 8, 3605, 2018) and Yue et al., (Sci. Adv., 2, e1501536, 2016).
The teachings of Yamamoto et al., have been summarized previously, supra.
Yamamoto et al., do not disclose that the second surface comprises plasmonic nanostructures associated with a dielectric surface wherein the plasmonic nanostructures are coupled to the analyte detecting agent as recited in claim 243.
Zhao et al., teach that “[I]n the surface-enhanced fluorescence (SEF) process, it is well known that the plasmonic nanostructure can enhance the light emission of fluorescent emitters” (see abstract).
Yue et al., teach that intrinsically core-shell plasmonic dielectric nanostructures display an ultrahigh refractive index of up to 5.5 in the near-infrared frequency range and enhance light absorption in the ultraviolet and visible ranges when they are applied in advanced optical and plasmonic devices (see abstract and page 6, right column).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the platform recited in claims 243 wherein the second surface comprises plasmonic nanostructures associated with a dielectric surface such that the plasmonic nanostructures are coupled to the analyte detecting agent in view of the prior arts of Yamamoto et al., Zhao et al., and Yue et al.. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Zhao et al., have shown that “[I]n the surface-enhanced fluorescence (SEF) process, it is well known that the plasmonic nanostructure can enhance the light emission of fluorescent emitters” (see abstract) and Yue et al., have shown that intrinsically core-shell plasmonic dielectric nanostructures display an ultrahigh refractive index of up to 5.5 in the near-infrared frequency range and enhance light absorption in the ultraviolet and visible ranges when they are applied in advanced optical and plasmonic devices (see abstract and page 6, right column). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success to make the platform recited in claims 243 wherein the second surface comprises plasmonic nanostructures associated with a dielectric surface by coupling the intrinsically core-shell plasmonic dielectric nanostructures taught by Yue et al., to the surface of SPFS taught by Yamamoto et al., (ie., the second surface recited in claim 240) such that the plasmonic nanostructures would be coupled to the analyte detecting agent after the period T23 in view of the prior arts of Yamamoto et al., Zhao et al., and Yue et al., in order to enhance light emission of the fluorophore of the degraded probe taught by Yamamoto et al., and enhance light absorption of the surface of SPFS taught by Yamamoto et al., in the ultraviolet and visible ranges.
Claim 244 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., as applied to claims 240-242 and 246 above, and further in view of Bailey et al., (US 2013/0261010 A1, published on October 3, 2013).
The teachings of Yamamoto et al., have been summarized previously, supra.
Yamamoto et al., do not disclose that the second surface is in a form of an array wherein the array comprises a plurality of different analyte detecting agents that are specific for detecting different analytes as recited in claim 244.
Bailey et al., teach that a surface of an optical sensor has a plurality of the same or different capture probes attached thereto wherein a plurality of the different capture probes attached to the surface of the optical sensor permits multiplex detection of several different analytes of interest (see paragraph [0162]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the platform recited in claims 244 wherein the second surface is in a form of an array and the array comprises a plurality of different analyte detecting agents that are specific for detecting different analytes in view of the prior arts of Yamamoto et al., and Bailey et al.. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Bailey et al., teach that a surface of an optical sensor has a plurality of the same or different capture probes attached thereto wherein a plurality of the different
capture probes attached to the surface of the optical sensor permits multiplex detection of several different analytes of interest (see paragraph [0162]). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success to make the second surface of the platform in a form of an array comprising a plurality of different analyte detecting agents that are specific for detecting different analytes in view of the prior arts of Yamamoto et al., and Bailey et al., such that the platform recited in claim 244 has an ability to detect different analytes.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Lu, Ph. D., whose telephone number is (571)272-0746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 AM to 5 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, Anne Gussow, Ph.D., can be reached at 571-272-6047. 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.
/FRANK W LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683
February 6, 2026