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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sládková, Lucia, et al. "Improvement of the laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy method sensitivity by the usage of combination of Ag-nanoparticles and vacuum conditions." Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy 127 (2017): 48-55 (hereinafter Sladkova), in view of Wang, X. H., et al. "A pilot study on the vacuum degree online detection of vacuum interrupter using laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy." Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 49.44 (2016): 44LT01 (hereinafter Wang), and further in view of Wang, Manping, et al. "Detection of copper in solution by laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy based on nanoparticle chip." Optical Engineering 61.6 (2022): 061408-061408 (hereinafter Manping).
Regarding claim 1, Sladkova teaches a method for improving sensitivity of vacuum testing of a vacuum switch, comprising: S 100: obtaining a target material (p. 2 section 2.1 para 2, “sample surface” is the target material), dropping a metal nanoparticle reagent having a concentration of ranging from 0.01 mg/ml to 0.1 mg/ml on the target material (p. 2 section 2.1 para 2, “20 ng/mL” is equal to 0.02 mg/mL, within the range of the claim); smearing the metal nanoparticle reagent evenly and metal nanoparticles are evenly distributed on the surface of the target material (p. 2 section 2.1 para 2 lines 4-9); performing standing and forming a metal nanoparticle coating on the surface of the target material (this is shown in fig. 1); “S200: bombarding, by using laser pulse, the surface of the target material where the metal nanoparticle coating is formed, so as to generate plasma on the surface of the target material” (p. 2 section 2.2 para 1 col 1 last line to col 2 para 2 line 12); “S300: obtaining a plasma image by collecting the plasma, and obtaining a plasma spectrum by performing spectroscopic analysis on the plasma image” (p. 2 section 2.2 para 1 col 1 last line to col 2 para 2 line 12); and “S400: obtaining a vacuum degree of sample based on the plasma spectrum” (table 1; the spectra are shown in fig. 2 and fig. 3); wherein the metal nanoparticle coating functions as a signal enhancement layer during generation of the plasma spectrum (Abstract lines 7-8); wherein the vacuum degree is determined based on spectral information generated from the target material (this is shown in fig. 3); wherein the metal nanoparticle coating increases a signal-to-noise ratio of the plasma spectrum used for determining the vacuum degree of sample (Abstract last sentence); wherein the metal nanoparticle coating improves sensitivity of vacuum-degree testing without causing interference to the plasma spectrum used for determining the vacuum degree of the sample (Abstract last sentence; fig. 2 shows a clear distinct spike signal without interference); wherein the metal nanoparticle coating improves repeatability of the plasma spectrum used for determining the vacuum degree of the sample (this is shown in fig. 3 and Table 2); and wherein the metal nanoparticle coating reduces noise interference such that spectral lines used for determining the vacuum degree are distinguishable from noise (this is shown in fig. 2 “the red line”).
Sladkova does not teach a to-be-tested vacuum switch, by a glass rod on a surface of the target material into an even rectangle, “wherein the laser pulse is first in contact with and coupled to the metal nanoparticles when bombarding the target material; under an action of a first laser electromagnetic field, electron coherence oscillation in the metal nanoparticles generates dipoles and excites a second- electromagnetic field, so that a localized surface plasmon (LSP) is formed on the surface of the target material; LSPs of adjacent metal nanoparticles are coupled to each other and generate a third electromagnetic field in a particle gap stronger than the second electromagnetic field, thus forming a "hot spot" for field electron emission; localized surface plasmons of adjacent nanoparticles are coupled to each other; electromagnetic fields between adjacent nanoparticles overlap each other; and an oscillation electromagnetic field is generated in a gap between the nanoparticles; under an action of the oscillation electromagnetic field, an ionization generating mechanism is switched from multiphoton ionization to field electron emission; electron emission is completed in a moment under an action of the oscillation electromagnetic field electric field, and before the nanoparticles are fully melted, ionization is caused and the plasma is generated”.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Sladkova, teaches a to-be-tested vacuum switch (fig. 1, the vacuum interrupter is the vacuum switch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to Sladkova to have a to-be-tested vacuum switch in order to determine the online detection method for the vacuum degree of vacuum interrupters (p. 3 col 2 para 1 lines 16-18) in real time and with minimal sample damage (p. 3 col 2 para 1 lines 1-3).
Sladkova, when modified by Wang, does not teach by a glass rod on a surface of the target material into an even rectangle, “wherein the laser pulse is first in contact with and coupled to the metal nanoparticles when bombarding the target material; under an action of a first laser electromagnetic field, electron coherence oscillation in the metal nanoparticles generates dipoles and excites a second- electromagnetic field, so that a localized surface plasmon (LSP) is formed on the surface of the target material; LSPs of adjacent metal nanoparticles are coupled to each other and generate a third electromagnetic field in a particle gap stronger than the second electromagnetic field, thus forming a "hot spot" for field electron emission; localized surface plasmons of adjacent nanoparticles are coupled to each other; electromagnetic fields between adjacent nanoparticles overlap each other; and an oscillation electromagnetic field is generated in a gap between the nanoparticles; under an action of the oscillation electromagnetic field, an ionization generating mechanism is switched from multiphoton ionization to field electron emission; electron emission is completed in a moment under an action of the oscillation electromagnetic field electric field, and before the nanoparticles are fully melted, ionization is caused and the plasma is generated”.
MPEP 2144.05 II states “In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."), this means the limitation “by a glass rod on a surface of the target material into an even rectangle” is simply a routine optimization.
The inclusion of the limitation “by a glass rod on a surface of the target material into an even rectangle” is to allow more adhesion to the sample or more even excitation.
Sladkova, when modified by Wang, does not teach “wherein the laser pulse is first in contact with and coupled to the metal nanoparticles when bombarding the target material; under an action of a first laser electromagnetic field, electron coherence oscillation in the metal nanoparticles generates dipoles and excites a second- electromagnetic field, so that a localized surface plasmon (LSP) is formed on the surface of the target material; LSPs of adjacent metal nanoparticles are coupled to each other and generate a third electromagnetic field in a particle gap stronger than the second electromagnetic field, thus forming a "hot spot" for field electron emission; localized surface plasmons of adjacent nanoparticles are coupled to each other; electromagnetic fields between adjacent nanoparticles overlap each other; and an oscillation electromagnetic field is generated in a gap between the nanoparticles; under an action of the oscillation electromagnetic field, an ionization generating mechanism is switched from multiphoton ionization to field electron emission; electron emission is completed in a moment under an action of the oscillation electromagnetic field electric field, and before the nanoparticles are fully melted, ionization is caused and the plasma is generated”.
Manping, from the same field of endeavor as Sladkova, teaches “wherein the laser pulse is first in contact with and coupled to the metal nanoparticles when bombarding the target material; under an action of a first laser electromagnetic field, electron coherence oscillation in the metal nanoparticles generates dipoles and excites a second- electromagnetic field, so that a localized surface plasmon (LSP) is formed on the surface of the target material; LSPs of adjacent metal nanoparticles are coupled to each other and generate a third electromagnetic field in a particle gap stronger than the second electromagnetic field, thus forming a "hot spot" for field electron emission; localized surface plasmons of adjacent nanoparticles are coupled to each other; electromagnetic fields between adjacent nanoparticles overlap each other; and an oscillation electromagnetic field is generated in a gap between the nanoparticles; under an action of the oscillation electromagnetic field, an ionization generating mechanism is switched from multiphoton ionization to field electron emission; electron emission is completed in a moment under an action of the oscillation electromagnetic field electric field, and before the nanoparticles are fully melted, ionization is caused and the plasma is generated” (this entire limitation is disclosed in p. 6 para 2; note that the LSP and hot stop corresponds to p. 6 para 2 lines 4-7; see evidentiary reference : Dell'Aglio, Marcella, Rim Alrifai, and Alessandro De Giacomo. "Nanoparticle enhanced laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (NELIBS), a first review." Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy 148 (2018): 105-112, p. 2 col 1 para 6 to col 2 last para).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Manping to Sladkova, when modified by Wang, to have “wherein the laser pulse is first in contact with and coupled to the metal nanoparticles when bombarding the target material; under an action of a first laser electromagnetic field, electron coherence oscillation in the metal nanoparticles generates dipoles and excites a second- electromagnetic field, so that a localized surface plasmon (LSP) is formed on the surface of the target material; LSPs of adjacent metal nanoparticles are coupled to each other and generate a third electromagnetic field in a particle gap stronger than the second electromagnetic field, thus forming a "hot spot" for field electron emission; localized surface plasmons of adjacent nanoparticles are coupled to each other; electromagnetic fields between adjacent nanoparticles overlap each other; and an oscillation electromagnetic field is generated in a gap between the nanoparticles; under an action of the oscillation electromagnetic field, an ionization generating mechanism is switched from multiphoton ionization to field electron emission; electron emission is completed in a moment under an action of the oscillation electromagnetic field electric field, and before the nanoparticles are fully melted, ionization is caused and the plasma is generated” in order to significantly enhance the signal (p. 6 para 2 lines 10-11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights