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 Group III (claims 19-29) in the reply filed on February 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 should be amended as follows; “…an electrochromic polymer coating disposed over the conductive shell; and an image sensor configured to receive backscattered light from the plurality of nanoparticle probes illuminated by the near infrared light;….”
Claim 28 should be amended as follows: “wherein the electrochromic polymer coating has a thickness from about 10 nm to about 30 nm.” This is based on the disclosure (e.g., [0011], [0012], and [0030]) and claims 9, 10, and 27.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” that is recited in claims 19, 23, 24, and 27-29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. (See MPEP 2173.05: “If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). For example, in Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), the phrases “relatively shallow,” “of the order of,” “the order of about 5mm,” and “substantial portion” were held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended.” (emphasis added)).
Examiner will be interpreting the relevant claim recitations as if the term “about” were not recited. For example, claim 19 will be interpreted: “…with a near infrared light having a wavelength from about 1000 nm to about 1700 nm….”
Claims 20-29 depend directly or indirectly from claim 19 and, as such, are also indefinite based upon their dependency.
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.
Claims 19-22 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habib, Ahsan, et al. “Electro-plasmonic nanoantenna: A nonfluorescent optical probe for ultrasensitive label-free detection of electrophysiological signals.” Science advances 5.10 (2019) (hereinafter HABIB) and Zhang, Xuemin, et al. “Optical properties of SiO 2@ M (M= Au, Pd, Pt) core–shell nanoparticles: Material dependence and damping mechanisms.” Journal of Materials Chemistry C 3.10 (2015): 2282-2290 (hereinafter ZHANG) and Hong, Guosong, et al. “Through-skull fluorescence imaging of the brain in a new near-infrared window.” Nature photonics 8.9 (2014): 723-730 (hereinafter HONG).
With respect to claim 19, HABIB teaches using plasmonic nanoparticles with an electrochromic polymer for deep brain imaging. (p.8, right column). While HABIB specifically describes the electrochromic polymer, HABIB notes the electrochromic polymer can be used for detecting electrophysiological activity in cells. “Electrophysiological activity of cells is of fundamental importance to neuroscience, cardiology, and cellular biology.” (p.1, top of left column). More specifically, HABIB teaches:
A system for monitoring neural activity. HABIB is generally concerned with the detection of electrophysiological activity. (p.1, top of left column). Moreover, HABIB specifically teaches using plasmonic nanoparticles with an electrochromic polymer for deep tissue brain imaging. (p.8, right column, top paragraph). The nanoparticles can be “functionalized with cell-specific biomolecules….” (p.8, right column, top paragraph; see also p.5, right column, first sentence in new section in which electrogenic cell is defined as including a neuron: “During a cellular firing event, the membrane potential of an electrogenic cell (e.g.,
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
neurons or cardiomyocytes) experiences large fluctuations as a result of Na+ influx into the cell (spike phase) and K+ efflux from the cell (repolarization phase).”
a light source configured to illuminate a target site in a brain [having a NIR wavelength]. The setup in HABIB includes a light source that illuminates nanoantennas having the electrochromic polymer. HABIB then teaches that the nanoantennas can be used for “deep brain imaging” (p.8, right column) and suggests that it is possible to use NIR wavelengths. “Using spherically symmetric core-shell plasmonic structures loaded with electrochromic polymers, it is possible to operate electro-plasmonic probes at near-infrared wavelengths, which is particularly amenable for in vivo applications owing to reduced photon scattering and absorption in deep tissue as shown in a recent study.” (p.8, right column, top paragraph). Notably, the reference that HABIB cites to here is HONG, which is entitled: “Through-skull fluorescence imaging of the brain in a new near-infrared window.” (see Reference 43).
a plurality of nanoparticle probes disposed at the target site. “[C]olloidal versions of [the nanoparticles] can be synthesized and functionalized with cell-specific biomolecules for deep tissue brain imaging.” (p.8, right column, top paragraph).
each of the nanoparticle probes includes: a core having a substantially spherical shape and a shell disposed over the core. “Using spherically symmetric core-shell plasmonic structures loaded with electrochromic polymers, it is possible to operate electro-plasmonic probes at near-infrared wavelengths, which is particularly amenable for in vivo applications owing to reduced photon scattering and absorption in deep tissue as shown in a recent study.” (p.8, right column, top paragraph).
an electrochromic polymer coating that is disposed over the nanoparticle. HABIB introduces “a new class of extremely bright label-free optical field probes overcoming the photon count and field sensitivity limitations of state-of-the-art electro-optic field reporters.” HABIB specifically teaches a “biocompatible electrochromic polymer poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS) as an electric field–controlled load enabling active and reversible tuning of the plasmonic resonances.” (p.1, right column, second paragraph). Notably, the PEDOT:PSS can be deposited onto gold nanoantenna (See Figure 3).
an image sensor configured to receive backscattered light from the plurality of nanoparticles illuminated by the near infrared light. Figure 4(A) shows a detection setup, including an image sensor (camera photodiode). “We obtained the far-field scattering signal of the electro-plasmonic nanoantenna using a dark-field transmission setup illustrated in Fig. 4A.” (p.6, bottom right column; see also p.2, right column: “Far-field response of our electro-plasmonic nanoantenna, a reporter of the local electric field dynamics, can be measured using spectroscopic or intensity-based techniques”).
wherein the plurality of nanoparticle probes is configured to shift their backscattering spectrum in response to a change in an electrical field at the target site. “Our circuit model shows that switching from the doped (red curve) to dedoped (blue curve) state of the electrochromic load causes red shifting of the far-field plasmonic response in agreement with our FDTD simulations (Fig. 1E). Strong agreement in between FDTD simulation and optical circuit models is also observed for the spectral features and quality factors. Far-field response of our electro-plasmonic nanoantenna, a reporter of the local electric field dynamics, can be measured using spectroscopic or intensity-based techniques.” (p.2, right column, middle; see also explanation at p.5, bottom right column, to p.6, top left column).
However, HABIB does not explicitly teach that the NIR wavelength is from about 1000 nm to about 1700 nm. Nonetheless, HABIB does explicitly cite to a reference as evidence that NIR wavelengths can be used, and HABIB also discusses the advantages of using those wavelengths. “Using spherically symmetric core-shell plasmonic structures loaded with electrochromic polymers, it is possible to operate electro-plasmonic probes at near-infrared wavelengths, which is particularly amenable for in vivo applications owing to reduced photon scattering and absorption in deep tissue as shown in a recent study.” (p.8, right column). The reference that HABIB cites to here is HONG.
HONG teaches through-skull fluorescence imaging of the brain in a new near-infrared window. (Title). More specifically, HONG teaches that the NIR-II window can be used to detect light signals from within the brain. The NIR-II window corresponds to the range between 1000 nm and 1700 nm. (p.723, right column, section entitled “Phantom imaging in NIR-I, NIR-II and NIR-IIa regions”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an incident near-infrared light having a wavelength from about 1000 nm to about 1700 nm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the NIR-II region, as suggested by ZHANG and taught in HONG, because the NIR-II region can penetrate tissue deeper, including penetration through the skull. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as HONG teaches that the NIR-II range can be used successfully.
HABIB does not explicitly teach that nanoparticles include a core with a conductive shell. However, HABIB does suggest a core-shell structure. “Using spherically symmetric core-shell plasmonic structures loaded with electrochromic polymers, it is possible to operate electro-plasmonic probes at near-infrared wavelengths, which is particularly amenable for in vivo applications owing to reduced photon scattering and absorption in deep tissue as shown in a recent study.” (p.8, right column). Moreover, HABIB specifically teaches depositing the electrochromic polymer onto gold (Au). “Selective deposition of PEDOT:PSS on the Au surface was achieved using the same aqueous solvent solution under potentiostatic conditions (740 mV versus Ag/AgCl) for 6.5 s.” (p.9, left column).
In the same field of endeavor, ZHANG investigates and compares the optical properties of different noble metal shelled nanoparticles having a Si02 core and is particularly concerned with localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR). (Abstract). ZHANG teaches that “[c]ore–shell NPs, consisting of metallic shells on dielectric cores, exhibit properties conspicuously different from their homogeneous counterparts. For instance, the plasmon resonance spectrum of metallic nanoshells can be tuned in a wide optical region by judiciously varying the shell thickness and/or core size. This unique optical property promotes a vibrant interest in metallic nanoshell
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
science, promising for numerous technological applications including biosensing, photonic materials and surface-enhanced spectroscopes.12” (p.2283, top left column).
The nanoparticles in ZHANG have a SiO2 core and a metallic nanoshell (e.g., gold (Au), palladium (Pd), or platinum (Pt)). (see, e.g., Figure 1 of ZHANG). “Compared with previous, chemically synthesized Pt and Pd NPs that always present SPR only in the UV and visible regions, clear and tunable plasmon bands in the near-infrared (NIR) region are made visible for SiO2@Pd and SiO2@Pt NPs by judiciously varying the shell thickness.” ZHANG made nanoparticles with different shell thicknesses. (see, e.g., Figure 3). Si02@Au nanoparticles provide the most scattered light with lower thicknesses providing peaks within NIR range. (see, Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the spherical core-shell structure as taught in ZHANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the spherical core-shell structure because HABIB teaches using a “spherically symmetric core-shell” structure, like the structure taught in ZHANG, and also teaches depositing the PEDOT:PSS polymer onto gold, which some of the nanoparticles in ZHANG include. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as HABIB teaches the PEDOT:PSS electrochromic layer can be deposited onto gold.
With respect to claim 20, HABIB teaches a biological coating including at least one of lipids, proteins, or peptides. “Furthermore, biocompatible PEDOT polymer enables surface functionalization with proteins for tethering colloidal electro-plasmonic nanoprobes to specific cell types.” (p.8, right column, top paragraph).
With respect to claim 21, the combination of HABIB and ZHANG teaches wherein the core is formed from a dielectric material or a magnetic material. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 19, each of the gold-shell nanoparticles taught in ZHANG has a SiO2 core. SiO2 is a dielectric material.
With respect to claim 22, the combination of HABIB and ZHANG teaches wherein the core includes at least one of silica or magnetite. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 19, each of the gold-shell nanoparticles taught in ZHANG has a SiO2 core. Silica is common name for SiO2.
With respect to claim 23, while neither HABIB nor ZHANG specifically teach the core having a diameter from about 80 nm to about 150 nm, ZHANG teaches varying thicknesses in which the core diameter is 166 nm. The supplementary information of ZHANG also includes a table that shows a range of diameters along with a range of shell thicknesses, including 100 nm core diameter with a 10 nm gold shell thickness. (p.3 of Supplementary Material, Table S1).
In addition to the above, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art or where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, “differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” (MPEP 2144.05, II.A.).
In order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of “routine optimization”, the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range.” (MPEP 2144.05, II.B.).
In this case, the core diameter is a result-effective variable. ZHANG specifically teaches that the core diameter is a result-effective variable (i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result). “[T]he plasmon resonance spectrum of metallic nanoshells can be tuned in a wide optical region by judiciously varying the shell thickness and/or core size.” (p.2283, top left column). This is confirmed by other prior art. See Figure 7 of Ghosh Chaudhuri, Rajib, and Santanu Paria. “Core/shell nanoparticles: classes, properties, synthesis mechanisms, characterization, and applications.” Chemical reviews 112.4 (2012): 2373-2433. As shown in Figure 7 of
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
CHAUDHURI, the optical resonance of SiO2/Au core nanoshells increases (i.e., shifts to long wavelengths and toward the NIR spectrum) as the ratio between the core radius and the shell thickness increases.
As such, it would have been routine optimization for one having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a core diameter of from about 80 nm to about 150 nm. The core diameter and shell thickness are result-effective variables and one having ordinary skill in the art would naturally look to these variables when designing a nanoparticle that would scatter light from a light source having a wavelength between 1000 nm and 1700 nm.
With respect to claim 24, while neither HABIB nor ZHANG specifically teach wherein each of the nanoparticle probes has a diameter from about 140 nm to about 200 nm, ZHANG teaches varying thicknesses in which the core diameter is 166 nm. Furthermore, the supplementary information of ZHANG includes a table that shows a range of diameters along with a range of shell thicknesses, including 160 nm core diameter with a 10 nm gold shell thickness. (p.3 of Supplementary Material, Table S1).
The diameter of the nanoparticle is based on the core diameter plus the thickness of the conductive shell and the thickness of the electrochromic polymer coating. In one example from Table S1 of ZHANG, the core diameter is 160 nm and the thickness of the gold shell is 10 nm. Notably, the dipolar peak position has a NIR wavelength of 836. While HABIB teaches various thicknesses of the PEDOT:PSS coating, a fixed thickness of 20 nm is frequently discussed. (See, e.g., caption of Figure 1: “FDTD simulations show that plasmonic excitations lead to strong confinement of the light within the 20-nm-thick electrochromic layer.”; see also Figure 2 caption). Moreover, the supplementary information of HABIB also discusses thicknesses of 10 nm and 20 nm. (See Table S1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to construct the HABIB-ZHANG nanoparticles to include a core diameter of 160 nm, a gold shell thickness of 10 nm, and an electrochromic polymer coating thickness of 10-20 nm, such that the nanoparticles have a diameter of 180-190 nm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create this nanostructure because it is capable of emitting backscattered light in the NIR spectrum. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as HABIB and ZHANG teach that such nanoparticles can be constructed.
In addition to the above, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art or where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, “differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” (MPEP 2144.05, II.A.).
In order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of “routine optimization”, the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range.” (MPEP 2144.05, II.B.).
In this case, the core diameter and shell thickness are result-effective variables. ZHANG specifically teaches that these are result-effective variables (i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result). “[T]he plasmon resonance spectrum of metallic nanoshells can be tuned in a wide optical region by judiciously varying the shell thickness and/or core size.” (p.2283, top left column). This is confirmed by other prior art. See Figure 7 of Ghosh Chaudhuri, Rajib, and Santanu Paria. “Core/shell nanoparticles: classes, properties, synthesis mechanisms, characterization, and applications.” Chemical reviews 112.4 (2012): 2373-2433. As shown in Figure 7 of CHAUDHURI, the optical resonance of SiO2/Au core nanoshells increases (i.e., shifts to long wavelengths and toward the NIR spectrum) as the ratio between the core radius and the shell thickness increases.
As such, it would have been routine optimization for one having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at nanoparticle probes having a diameter from about 140 nm to about 200 nm. The core diameter and shell thickness are result-effective variables and one having ordinary skill in the art would naturally look to these variables when designing a nanoparticle that would scatter light from a light source having a wavelength between 1000 nm and 1700 nm.
With respect to claim 25, the combination of HABIB and ZHANG teaches wherein the conductive shell includes at least one of graphene, gold, silver, aluminum, copper, titanium, magnesium, palladium, and zirconium. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 19, As discussed above in the rejection of claim 19, ZHANG teaches nanoparticles having a SiO2 core with a conductive (noble metal) shell. One of the conductive shells is gold. HABIB teaches depositing the electrochromic polymer on gold.
With respect to claim 26, the combination of HABIB and ZHANG teaches the electrochromic polymer coating includes at least one of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene): polystyrene sulfonate, polypyrrole, polyaniline, or poly(3,4-propylenedioxythiophene). The particular electrochromic polymer described in HABIB is poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene): polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS). (Abstract).
With respect to claim 27, the combination of HABIB and ZHANG teaches wherein the conductive shell has a thickness from about 1 nm to about 10 nm. Figure 2 of ZHANG shows the gold shell thickness can be 8 nm. Figure 3(A) of ZHANG shows the extinction spectra for 8 nm shell.
Moreover, the thickness of the conductive shell is a result-effective variable. ZHANG specifically teaches that “the plasmon resonance spectrum of metallic nanoshells can be tuned in a wide optical region by judiciously varying the shell thickness and/or core size.” (p.2283, top left column).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the HABIB-ZHANG such thickness of the gold shell was from about 1 nm to about 10 nm. The thickness of the gold shell is a result-effective variable and ZHANG provides one example in which the thickness is 8 nm.
With respect to claim 28, the combination of HABIB and ZHANG teaches wherein the conductive shell has a from about 10 nm to about 30 nm. Figure 2 shows the gold shell thickness can be 23 nm. Figure 3(A) of ZHANG shows the extinction spectra for 12, 18, 23, and 27 nm shells.
Moreover, the thickness of the conductive shell is a result-effective variable. ZHANG specifically teaches that “the plasmon resonance spectrum of metallic nanoshells can be tuned in a wide optical region by judiciously varying the shell thickness and/or core size.” (p.2283, top left column).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the HABIB-ZHANG such thickness of the gold shell was from about 10 nm to about 30 nm. The thickness of the gold shell is a result-effective variable and ZHANG provides different examples in which the thicknesses are 12, 18, 23, and 27 nm.
NOTE: If claim 28 is amended as suggested above in the claim objections (i.e., such that claim 28 recites “wherein the electrochromic polymer coating has a thickness from about 10 nm to about 30 nm”), claim 28 would still be rejected under Section 103. Examiner notes that HABIB teaches the electrochromic polymer coating having a thickness of 10 nm to about 30 nm. While HABIB teaches various thicknesses of the PEDOT:PSS coating, a fixed thickness of 20 nm is frequently discussed. (See, e.g., caption of Figure 1: “FDTD simulations show that plasmonic excitations lead to strong confinement of the light within the 20-nm-thick electrochromic layer.”; see also Figure 2 caption). The supplementary information of HABIB also discusses thicknesses of 10 nm and 20 nm. (See Table S1).
With respect to claim 29, the cited art does not explicitly teach the core and the conductive shell are configured to exhibit resonance scattering of near infrared light having a wavelength from about 1000 nm to about 1100 nm. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 19, HABIB teaches that the nanoantennas can be used for “deep brain imaging” (p.8, right column) and suggests that it is possible to use NIR wavelengths. “Using spherically symmetric core-shell plasmonic structures loaded with electrochromic polymers, it is possible to operate electro-plasmonic probes at near-infrared wavelengths, which is particularly amenable for in vivo applications owing to reduced photon scattering and absorption in deep tissue as shown in a recent study.” (p.8, right column, top paragraph). Notably, the reference that HABIB cites to here is HONG, which is entitled: “Through-skull fluorescence imaging of the brain in a new near-infrared window.” (see Reference 43). HONG specifically teaches utilizing a NIR-II region of 1.0-1.7 nm. (Abstract and p.723, right column).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” (MPEP 2144.05, II.A.).
In order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of “routine optimization”, the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range.” (MPEP 2144.05, II.B.).
In this case, the claimed wavelength range of the light source is 1,000 to 1,700 nm. HABIB teaches that a spherical core-shell nanoantenna can be used for NIR applications. The claimed resonance scattering has a wavelength from about 1000 nm to about 1100 nm, which is within the NIR range. ZHANG specifically teaches that these are result-effective variables (i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result). “[T]he plasmon resonance spectrum of metallic nanoshells can be tuned in a wide optical region by judiciously varying the shell thickness and/or core size.” (p.2283, top left column). This is confirmed by other prior art. See Figure 7 of Ghosh Chaudhuri, Rajib, and Santanu Paria. “Core/shell nanoparticles: classes, properties, synthesis mechanisms, characterization, and applications.” Chemical reviews 112.4 (2012): 2373-2433. As shown in Figure 7 of CHAUDHURI, the optical resonance of SiO2/Au core nanoshells increases (i.e., shifts to long wavelengths and toward the NIR spectrum) as the ratio between the core radius and the shell thickness increases. In Figure 7, the core radius is 60 nm such that the diameter is 120 nm. In Figure 7, the optical resonance wavelength approaches 1000 nm as the core to shell ratio increases.
As such, it would be routine optimization of the result-effective variables of the core-shell structure (i.e., core diameter and shell thickness) to arrive at scattered light having a wavelength of 1000 nm to about 1100 nm.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US-20050130324-A1 teaches nanoshell particles (“nanoshells”) for use in biosensing applications and describes how the particles are tunable. “The preferred particles have a non-conducting core and a metal shell surrounding the core. For given core and shell materials, the ratio of the thickness (i.e., radius) of the core to the thickness of the metal shell is determinative of the wavelength of maximum absorbance of the particle. By controlling the relative core and shell thicknesses, biosensing metal nanoshells are fabricated which absorb light at any desired wavelength across the ultraviolet to infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum.” (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-1386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00CT.
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 M. Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-5284. 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.
/JASON P GROSS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANNE M KOZAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights