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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25 objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims 1, 15, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25 are objected because of the “kWs/cm2”. The specification does not discuss the term “kWs/cm2”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret “kWs/cm2” as “kW/cm2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
All the references used by the examiners have been examined carefully and are appropriate to combine.
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, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook, K., et al., KR 20190102914 A (hereinafter Wook), in view of Sugimoto, M. et al., US 20140255913 A1 (hereinafter Sugimoto), in view of US20090213368A1 (hereinafter Roper), and further in view of US20150077743A1 (Maznichenko).
Regarding claim 1, Wook teaches a substrate and a light source, wherein the substrate comprises: a metal body (this is the gold thin film in fig. 2) and located on a surface of said metal body a layer of nanoparticles (fig. 2 shows nanoparticles on the surface of gold and silica films), wherein the nanoparticles have an average diameter or size of 25 nm to 100 nm (para [0030])
Wook fails to teach the surface comprises 100 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 to 100,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2, the surface is non-porous, and wherein the metal body has a thickness of at least 30 µm beneath said surface with the nanoparticles, and wherein the light source is set to irradiate the substrate with light having a wavelength of 200 to 1200 nm and with an intensity of one of at least 1 kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2.
Sugimoto, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, discloses the metal body has a thickness of at least 30 µm beneath said surface with the nanoparticles (Fig. 2 “10” and “30”, para [0087] last sentence, para [0136]).
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 Sugimoto to Wook to have the metal body has a thickness of at least 30 µm beneath said surface with the nanoparticles in order to propagate the surface plasmon in the metal layer (para [0087] last sentence; note that Wook and Sugimoto are proper to combine; Sugimoto teaches a thickness of less than 100 µm, the plasmon resonance taking place on the metal surface).
Wook, when modified by Sugimoto, does not teach the surface comprises 100 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 to 100,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2, the surface is non-porous, and wherein the light source is set to irradiate the substrate with light having a wavelength of 200 to 1200 nm and with an intensity of one of at least 1 kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2.
Roper, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches the surface comprises 100 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 to 100,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 (p. 11 claims 12-14; 1011 particles per squared cm is equal to 109 particles per squared mm, which is within the range of this limitation), the surface is non-porous (p. 11 claim 1 “tin-sensitive surface” is a non-porous surface; para [0034] lines 9-13).
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 Roper to Wook, when modified by Sugimoto, to have the surface comprises 100 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 to 100,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2, the surface is non-porous in order to increase in the order of magnitude the spectroscopic signal (para [0024]).
Wook, when modified by Sugimoto and Roper, fails to teach wherein the light source is set to irradiate the substrate with light having a wavelength of 200 to 1200 nm and with an intensity of one of at least 1 kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2.
Maznichenko, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches wherein the light source is set to irradiate the substrate with light having a wavelength of 200 to 1200 nm and with an intensity of one of at least 1 kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2 (p. 8 claim 8).
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 Maznichenko to Wook, when modified by Sugimoto and Roper, to have wherein the light source is set to irradiate the substrate with light having a wavelength of 200 to 1200 nm and with an intensity of one of at least 1 kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2 in order to analyze molecular reaction dynamics, catalysis, photo-initiation, laser ablation, charge transfer, degradation, physical phase transformation, crystal lographic phase transformation, resin curing, cellular uptake, cellular damage that require a power density higher than the analyte’s damage threshold (para [0088] lines 7-13).
Regarding claim 2, Wook does not teach the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the surface of the metal body comprises a metal oxide.
Sugimoto, from the same field of endeavor as Ho, discloses the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the surface of the metal body comprises a metal oxide (Fig. 2 “10” and “30”, para [0087] last sentence, para [0136]).
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 Sugimoto to Wook to have the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the surface of the metal body comprises a metal oxide in order to enhance the signals of the measurement SERS (para [0008] lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Wook teaches the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles are of a noble metal (the nanoparticles are gold).
Regarding claim 6, Wook does not teach the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the metal body comprises aluminium or copper.
Sugimoto, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the metal body comprises aluminium (para [0088] last sentence) or copper.
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 Sugimoto to Wook to have the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the metal body comprises aluminium or copper in order to enhance the SERS measurements (para [0008] sentence 1).
Regarding claim 9, Wook discloses the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles are Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy (SERS) active (para [0016]).
Regarding claim 12, Wook does not teach, the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the surface comprises 2,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 to 10,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2.
Roper, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the surface comprises 2,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 to 10,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 (p. 11 claims 13-14; 2 x 1011 particles per squared cm is equal to 2 x 109 particles per squared mm, which is within the range of this limitation).
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 Roper to Wook, when modified by Sugimoto, to have the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the surface comprises 2,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 to 10,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 in order to increase in the order of magnitude the spectroscopic signal (para [0024]).
Regarding claim 13, Wook discloses the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the volume above the surface is unobstructed by any part of the substrate (this is shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Wook does not teach a method of manufacture of a substrate and the light source according to claim 1 comprising manufacturing the substrate depositing a suspension of nanoparticles in a dispersion medium on a surface of a metal body, wherein the surface is non-porous, with the metal body having a thickness of at least 30 µm beneath said surface, wherein said suspension is deposited in amounts comprising 100 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 to 100,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 of the surface, and removing the dispersion medium with the nanoparticles remaining on the surface; and providing the light source set to irradiate the substrate with light having a wavelength of 200 to 1200 nm and with an intensity of one of at least 1 kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2.
Sugimoto, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, discloses a method of manufacture of a substrate according to claim 1 comprising “depositing a suspension of nanoparticles in a dispersion medium on a surface of a metal body” (para [0094] lines 4-7), with the metal body having a thickness of at least 30 µm beneath said surface (Fig. 2 “10” and “30”, para [0087] last sentence, para [0136]), and removing the dispersion medium with the nanoparticles remaining on the surface (para [0094] lines 4-7; part of the method is removing the colloidal medium).
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 Sugimoto to Wook to have a method of manufacture of a substrate according to claim 1 comprising depositing a suspension of nanoparticles in a dispersion medium on a surface of a metal body, with the metal body having a thickness of at least 30 µm beneath said surface, and removing the dispersion medium with the nanoparticles remaining on the surface in order to maximize the SERS signals (para [0008] lines 1-5).
Wook, when modified by Sugimoto, fails to teach wherein the surface is non-porous, wherein said suspension is deposited in amounts comprising 100 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 to 100,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 of the surface; and providing the light source set to irradiate the substrate with light having a wavelength of 200 to 1200 nm and with an intensity of one of at least 1 kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2.
Roper, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches wherein the surface is non-porous (p. 11 claim 1 “tin-sensitive surface” is a non-porous surface; para [0034] lines 9-13), wherein said suspension is deposited in amounts comprising 100 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 to 100,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 of the surface (p. 11 claims 12-14; 1011 particles per squared cm is equal to 109 particles per squared mm, which is within the range of this limitation).
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 Roper to Wook, when modified by Sugimoto, to have wherein the surface is non-porous, wherein said suspension is deposited in amounts comprising 100 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 to 100,000 Mio nanoparticles/mm2 of the surface in order to increase in the order of magnitude the spectroscopic signal (para [0024]).
Wook, when modified by Sugimoto and Roper, fails to teach providing the light source set to irradiate the substrate with light having a wavelength of 200 to 1200 nm and with an intensity of one of at least 1 kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2.
Maznichenko, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches providing the light source set to irradiate the substrate with light having a wavelength of 200 to 1200 nm and with an intensity of one of at least 1 kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2 (p. 8 claim 8).
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 Maznichenko to Wook, when modified by Sugimoto and Roper, to have providing the light source set to irradiate the substrate with light having a wavelength of 200 to 1200 nm and with an intensity of one of at least 1 kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2 in order to analyze molecular reaction dynamics, catalysis, photo-initiation, laser ablation, charge transfer, degradation, physical phase transformation, crystal lographic phase transformation, resin curing, cellular uptake, cellular damage that require a power density higher than the analyte’s damage threshold (para [0088] lines 7-13).
Regarding claim 17, Wook teaches a method of spectroscopy comprising providing the substrate and light source of claim 1, “depositing an analyte on the substrate's surface comprising the nanoparticles” (para [0064-65]), “irradiating the analyte on the substrate with light with a wavelength of 200 to 1200 nm” (para [0064-65]), “measuring a reflecting light or scattered light from said analyte” (para [0067], gold film is a reflector, thus, it measures scattered light).
Wook fails to teach with an intensity of one of at least 1kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2.
Maznichenko, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches with an intensity of one of at least 1kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2 (p. 8 claim 8).
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 Maznichenko to Wook, to have with an intensity of one of at least 1kWs/cm2 and at least 1 kW/cm2 in order to analyze molecular reaction dynamics, catalysis, photo-initiation, laser ablation, charge transfer, degradation, physical phase transformation, crystal lographic phase transformation, resin curing, cellular uptake, cellular damage that require a power density higher than the analyte’s damage threshold (para [0088] lines 7-13).
Regarding claim 18, Wook does not teach the method of claim 17, wherein the irradiation is with light at an intensity of at least 1 kW/cm2, and/or the applied energy of at least 0.1 Ws, and/or an irradiation with light from a laser with a power of at least 100 mW for at least 1 sec.
Maznichenko, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches teach the method of claim 17, wherein the irradiation is with light at an intensity of at least 1 kW/cm2 (p. 8 claim 8), and/or the applied energy of at least 0.1 Ws, and/or an irradiation with light from a laser with a power of at least 100 mW for at least 1 sec.
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 Maznichenko to Wook, to have the method of claim 17, wherein the irradiation is with light at an intensity of at least 1 kW/cm2, and/or the applied energy of at least 0.1 Ws, and/or an irradiation with light from a laser with a power of at least 100 mW for at least 1 sec in order to analyze molecular reaction dynamics, catalysis, photo-initiation, laser ablation, charge transfer, degradation, physical phase transformation, crystal lographic phase transformation, resin curing, cellular uptake, cellular damage that require a power density higher than the analyte’s damage threshold (para [0088] lines 7-13).
Regarding claim 21, Wook teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the surface is flat (fig. 2 shows the substrate is flat; also, US20090213368A1 (hereinafter Roper) teaches the substrate is flat (para [0064] last sentence)).
Regarding claim 22, Wook does not teach the substrate and light source of claim 1, wherein the intensity is at least 1 kWs/cm2. Regarding claim 23, Wook does not teach the method of claim 17, wherein the intensity is at least 1 kWs/cm2. Regarding claim 24, Wook does not teach the substrate and light source of claim 1, wherein the intensity is at least 2.5 kWs/cm2. Regarding claim 25, Wook does not teach the method of claim 17, wherein the intensity is at least 2.5 kWs/cm2.
Maznichenko, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches “the substrate and light source of claim 1, wherein the intensity is at least 1 kWs/cm2, the method of claim 17, wherein the intensity is at least 1 kWs/cm2, the substrate and light source of claim 1, wherein the intensity is at least 2.5 kWs/cm2, and teach the method of claim 17, wherein the intensity is at least 2.5 kWs/cm2” (p. 8 claim 8).
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 Maznichenko to Wook, to have “the substrate and light source of claim 1, wherein the intensity is at least 1 kWs/cm2, the method of claim 17, wherein the intensity is at least 1 kWs/cm2, the substrate and light source of claim 1, wherein the intensity is at least 2.5 kWs/cm2, and teach the method of claim 17, wherein the intensity is at least 2.5 kWs/cm2” in order to analyze molecular reaction dynamics, catalysis, photo-initiation, laser ablation, charge transfer, degradation, physical phase transformation, crystal lographic phase transformation, resin curing, cellular uptake, cellular damage that require a power density higher than the analyte’s damage threshold (para [0088] lines 7-13).
Claim(s) 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook, Sugimoto, Roper, and Maznichenko, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Dai, H. et al., US 20130172207 A1 (hereinafter Dai).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Wook does not teach the substrate and the light source of claim 1 wherein the surface is a flat surface in a contiguous area of at least 1 mm2 and/or lacks a nanostructured surface made of the body metal with a nanostructured surface being made by pits or peaks of a centre distance of at least 100 nm and with a depth or height respectively of at least 10 nm.
Dai, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches the substrate and the light source of claim 1 wherein the surface is a flat surface (fig. 1 shows the film is flat) in a contiguous area (para [0158] lines 12-20) of at least 1 mm2 (para [0184] lines 10-14) and/or lacks a nanostructured surface made of the body metal with a nanostructured surface being made by pits or peaks of a centre distance of at least 100 nm and with a depth or height respectively of at least 10 nm.
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 Dai to the modified device of Wook to have the substrate and the light source of claim 1 wherein the surface is a flat surface in a contiguous area of at least 1 mm2 and/or lacks a nanostructured surface made of the body metal with a nanostructured surface being made by pits or peaks of a centre distance of at least 100 nm and with a depth or height respectively of at least 10 nm in order to increase the SERS signals.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Wook does not teach the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the layer of nanoparticles has a -thickness of 0 to 6 nanoparticles at a surface of least 1 mm2 on the metal body.
Dai, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the layer of nanoparticles has a -thickness of 0 to 6 nanoparticles at a surface (fig. 2K shows the clustering of nanoparticles forming into islands, this means the thickness is of 0 to 6 nanoparticles; para [0181] lines 8-12) of least 1 mm2 on the metal body (para [0184] lines 10-14).
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 Dai to the modified device of Wook to have the the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the layer of nanoparticles has a -thickness of 0 to 6 nanoparticles at a surface of least 1 mm2 on the metal body in order to enhance the fluorescence measurements in the broad range visible-NIR range (para [0106] last sentence).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook, Sugimoto, Roper, and Maznichenko, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Farrugia, V., et al., US 20160215107 A1 (hereinafter Farrugia).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Wook does not teach the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein at least 0.01% of the nanoparticles form aggregates or agglomerates.
Farrugia, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein at least 0.01% of the nanoparticles form aggregates or agglomerates (para [0055] lines 1-13).
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 Farrugia to the modified device of Wook to have the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein at least 0.01% of the nanoparticles form aggregates or agglomerates in order to enhance the plasmonic signals (para [0020] last sentence).
Claim(s) 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook, Sugimoto, Roper, and Maznichenko, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Aziz, Md., et al., US 20190237614 A1 (hereinafter Aziz).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Wook does not teach the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein at least 90% of the nanoparticles are located at inter-particle distances in the range of 0 nm to 100 nm.
Aziz, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein at least 90% of the nanoparticles are located at inter-particle distances in the range of 0 nm to 100 nm (para [0072] lines 9-14).
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 Aziz to the modified device of Wook to have the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein at least 90% of the nanoparticles are located at inter-particle distances in the range of 0 nm to 100 nm in order to detect analyte using enhanced Raman scattering (para [0077] last sentence).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Wook does not teach the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein at least 0.1% of the nanoparticles are in contact with other nanoparticles.
Aziz, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein at least 0.1% of the nanoparticles are in contact with other nanoparticles (this is within the range discussed in para [0072] lines 9-14).
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 Aziz to the modified device of Wook to have the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein at least 0.1% of the nanoparticles are in contact with other nanoparticles in order to detect analyte using enhanced Raman scattering (para [0077] last sentence).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook, Sugimoto, Roper, and Maznichenko, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Li, C., et al., CN 110132940 A (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Ho does not teach the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the substrate is flexible or elastic.
Li, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the substrate is flexible (p. 1 para 6) or elastic.
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 Li to the modified device of Wook to have the substrate and the light source of claim 1, wherein the substrate is flexible or elastic in order to have an easy portable and direct wiping detection (p. 1 para 10 sentence 1).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook, Sugimoto, Roper, and Maznichenko, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Wook teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the suspension of nanoparticles is deposited onto the surface of the metal body in a vessel with side walls and/or with “a height of the deposited suspension” (this is the water-air interface shown in fig. 1).
Wook, when modified by Sugimoto and Taketomi, does not explicitly teach “at least 0.1 mm”.
MPEP2144.05 II states “In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution)”. This means “at least 0.1 mm” is simply a routine optimization.
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 “at least 0.1 mm” to Wook in order to minimize the solvent interacting with the substrate.
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook, Sugimoto, Roper, and Maznichenko, as applied to claim 17 above, and in view of Chiu, N. et al., US 20190219504 A1 (hereinafter Chiu).
Regarding claim 19, Wook, when modified by Tao, does not disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the irradiation is at an angle between a light beam and the area of the surface of at least 40°. Regarding claim 20, Wook, when modified by Tao, does not teach the method of claim 17, wherein a detector for reflected light is configured to receive light reflecting from said surface at an angle of at least 400, wherein one or more optical elements guide said light reflecting from said surface at the angle to the detector.
Chiu, from the same field of endeavor as Wook, teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the irradiation is at an angle between a light beam and the area of the surface of at least 40° (para [0032]) and the method of claim 17, wherein a detector for reflected light is configured to receive light reflecting from said surface at an angle of at least 400 (fig. 6, angle of incidence is equal to angle of reflection), “wherein one or more optical elements guide said light reflecting from said surface at the angle to the detector (the prism 35 guides the reflecting light to detector 37).
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 Chiu to Wook, when modified by Tao, to have the method of claim 17, wherein the irradiation is at an angle between a light beam and the area of the surface of at least 40° and the method of claim 17, wherein a detector for reflected light is configured to receive light reflecting from said surface at an angle of at least 400, wherein one or more optical elements guide said light reflecting from said surface at the angle to the detector in order to detect various biological molecules (Abstract last sentence).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights