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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/15/2026 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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2006172613 A (hereinafter Takashi).
Regarding claim 1, Takashi teaches an electric field enhancing element (p. 6 para 3 lines 4-7), comprising: a substrate (fig. 11 element 41; p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 4); a plurality of microstructures provided at the substrate and having conductivity (fig. 11 element 42, p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 4); and a transparent layer covering the plurality of microstructures and the substrate (fig. 11 element 43; p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 4), wherein an enhanced electric field generated by the plurality of microstructures is at a maximum at a position (p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 4; this is shown in fig. 4 “Ag/dye”) on an opposite side of the plurality of microstructures from the substrate and separated from the plurality of microstructures (fig. 13, the enhanced electric field is on top of the metal; p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 4), in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (since it is on top of the metal, this means it has a direction perpendicular to the substrate), “wherein the enhanced electric field is present at a position separated from the plurality of microstructures by 100 nm or more in the direction perpendicular to the substrate” (fig. 11, the distance from the top of element 42 to the top of 43 is more than 200 nm; proper scaling is based on the height of element 42 (same height as in fig. 1 which is 40 nm, p. 8 last para line 5)).
Regarding claim 2, Takashi teaches the electric field enhancing element according to claim 1, “wherein the transparent layer is provided between adjacent microstructures among the plurality of microstructures, and a refractive index of the transparent layer is higher than a refractive index of the substrate” (this is shown in fig. 11).
Regarding claim 4, Takashi teaches The electric field enhancing element according to claim 1, wherein the enhanced electric field is present at the position separated from the plurality of microstructures by 200 nm or more in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (fig. 11, the distance from the top of element 42 to the top of 43 is more than 200 nm; proper scaling is based on the height of element 42 (same height as in fig. 1 which is 40 nm, p. 8 last para line 5)).
Regarding claim 5, Takashi teaches the electric field enhancing element according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of microstructures are periodically arrayed (this is shown in fig. 11).
Regarding claim 6, Takashi teaches the electric field enhancing element according to claim 1, wherein a material of each of the plurality of microstructures is a metal (p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 4).
Regarding claim 7, Takashi teaches the electric field enhancing element according to claim 1, wherein a material of the transparent layer is a dielectric (element 43 in fig. 11 is a dielectric, p. 8 para 1 last sentence).
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 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi and in view of Rodriguez, S. R. K., et al. "From weak to strong coupling of localized surface plasmons to guided modes in a luminescent slab." Physical Review B 90.23 (2014): 235406 (hereinafter Rodriguez).
Regarding claim 8, Takashi does not teach a Raman spectroscopic device, comprising: the electric field enhancing element according to claim 1; “a light source configured to irradiate the electric field enhancing element with light”; and “a detector configured to detect light from the electric field enhancing element”.
Rodriguez teaches a Raman spectroscopic device, comprising: the electric field enhancing element according to claim 1 (this is fig.1(a)); “a light source configured to irradiate the electric field enhancing element with light” (p. 2 col 2 para 2 lines 3-6); and “a detector configured to detect light from the electric field enhancing element” (p. 2 col 2 para 2 lines 3-6; the spectrometer has the detector).
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 Rodriguez to Takashi to have a Raman spectroscopic device, comprising: the electric field enhancing element according to claim 1; “a light source configured to irradiate the electric field enhancing element with light”; and “a detector configured to detect light from the electric field enhancing element” in order to improve the performance of solid-state light-emitting devices (p. 8 col 2 para 2 lines 7-9).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi and in view of CN 114545537 A (hereinafter Song).
Regarding claim 9, Takashi teaches an electric field enhancing element, comprising: a substrate (fig. 11 element 41; p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 4); a plurality of microstructures provided at the dielectric layer and having conductivity (fig. 11 element 42, p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 4); and a transparent layer covering the plurality of microstructures, and the substrate (fig. 11 element 43; p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 4), wherein an enhanced electric field generated by the plurality of microstructures is at a maximum at a position (p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 4; this is shown in fig. 4 “Ag/dye”) on an opposite side of the plurality of microstructures from the substrate and separated from the plurality of microstructures (fig. 13, the enhanced electric field is on top of the metal; p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 4), in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (since it is on top of the metal, this means it has a direction perpendicular to the substrate), wherein the enhanced electric field is present at a position separated from the plurality of microstructures by 100 nm or more in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (fig. 11, the distance from the top of para line 5)).
Takashi does not teach a dielectric layer, disposed on the substrate.
Song, from the same field of endeavor as Takashi, discloses a dielectric layer, disposed on the substrate (fig. 1 element 3, p. 5 para 6 last sentence).
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 Song to Takashi to have a dielectric layer, disposed on the substrate in order to provide a super-material near infrared broadband absorber, which has simple structure, low cost and high absorption rate (p. 2 para 10).
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