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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/08/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues:
At p. 6 para 2 to p. 7 para 1 that “… Rodriguez fails to disclose the limitation "an enhanced electric field generated by the plurality of microstructures is at a maximum at a position on an opposite side of the plurality of microstructures from the substrate and separated from the plurality of microstructures"…”
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner pointed out in the non-final office action p. 3 para 1, lines 7-8 that “note that the maximum coupling regime is proportional to the electric field." This is further supported by fig. 1c of Rodriguez where it clearly shows enhance photoluminescence spectrum (red color) of the sample of fig.1a of Rodriguez. An enhance electromagnetic spectrum indicates an enhanced electric field. Thus, Rodriquez teaches the limitation "an enhanced electric field generated by the plurality of microstructures is at a maximum at a position on an opposite side of the plurality of microstructures from the substrate and separated from the plurality of microstructures" even though it does not mention the exact claim limitation. Also, since the structure of the sample of Rodriguez is very identical with the sample of fig. 1 of the instant application, the sample of Rodriguez will behave the same as figs. 7-9 of the instant application.
Applicant argues:
At p. 7 para 2 that “As a result, Rodriguez and Rivas, whether separated or combined, fail to disclose the feature "an enhanced electric field generated by the plurality of microstructures is at a maximum at a position on an opposite side of the plurality of microstructures from the substrate and separated from the plurality of microstructures" recited in amended claim 1”.
Examiner response:
The examiner, again, respectfully disagrees. Rivas also teaches that “an enhanced electric field generated by the plurality of microstructures is at a maximum at a position on an opposite side of the plurality of microstructures from the substrate and separated from the plurality of microstructures” (Rivas: col 6 lines 10-18; further enhancement by the slabs imply an enhancement of the electric field at the position on an opposite side of the plurality of microstructures from the substrate and separated from the plurality of microstructures).
Applicant argues:
At p. 7 last para to p. 8 para 7 that “…According to this cited paragraph of Rodriguez, the 370 nm is the distance between the microstructures, which is different from the position of the maximum enhanced electric field…”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As the examiner wrote in p. 4 para 2 that “(fig. 1(b) 370 nm is more than 100 nm)”, which represents the distance between the microstructures. The “position of the maximum enhanced electric field” is shown in fig. 1c of Rodriguez, which takes place on the slab and the slab is opposite with respect to the microstructure, indicating Rodriguez discloses the “position of the maximum enhanced electric field."
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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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) , and in view of Rodriguez, S. R. K., et al., US 9157605 B2 (hereinafter Rivas).
Regarding claim 1, Rodriguez teaches an electric field enhancing element, comprising: a substrate (fig. 1(a) silica substrate, p. 1 col 2 last para lines 1-4); a plurality of microstructures (fig. 1(a-b) aluminum microstructures, p. 1 col 2 last para lines 1-4) provided at the substrate and having conductivity (this is shown in fig. 1, Al is a conductor); and “a transparent layer covering the plurality of microstructures and the substrate” (this is the red slab waveguide in fig. 1, p. 2 col 1 para 1 line 2 to col 2 para 1 lines 1-2), wherein “an enhanced electric field generated by the plurality of microstructures is at a maximum” (this corresponds to “Figure 3 shows that the ratio of the coupling rate to the total loss rate γL + γG is maximized at an optimum waveguide thickness t = 550 nm” in p. 4 col 1 para 2 lines 1-3; note that the maximum coupling regime is proportional to the electric field), and wherein the enhanced electric field is present at a position separated from the plurality of microstructures by 100 nm or more in the perpendicular line direction (fig. 1(b) 370 nm is more than 100 nm).
Rodriguez, does not teach “at a position on an opposite side of the plurality of microstructures from the substrate and separated from the plurality of microstructures, in a perpendicular line direction of the substrate”.
Rivas, from the same field of endeavor as Rodriguez, discloses “at a position on an opposite side of the plurality of microstructures from the substrate and separated from the plurality of microstructures, in a perpendicular line direction of the substrate” (fig. 1 shows light 122 exiting in the medium 120; this implies the electric field of light is propagating in the medium 120 indicating “at a position on an opposite side of the plurality of microstructures from the substrate and separated from the plurality of microstructures, in a perpendicular line direction of the substrate”).
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 Rivas to Rodriguez to have “at a position on an opposite side of the plurality of microstructures from the substrate and separated from the plurality of microstructures, in a perpendicular line direction of the substrate” in order to enhance the efficiency of emission signal of the secondary light (Abstract lines 7-15; note that these two prior arts are proper to combine because fig. 1 of Rodriguez and fig. 1 of Rivas are similar, which enhances the electric field of the signal).
Regarding claim 2, Rodriguez teaches the electric field enhancing element according to claim 1, wherein “the transparent layer is provided between adjacent microstructures among the plurality of microstructures” (this is shown in fig. 1(a), the slab waveguide is 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” (p. 2 col 1 para 1 line 2 to col 2 para 1 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Rodriguez 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 perpendicular line direction (fig. 1(b) 370 nm is more than 200 nm).
Regarding claim 5, Rodriguez teaches the electric field enhancing element according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of microstructures are periodically arrayed (fig. 1(b) shows the microstructures are periodic).
Regarding claim 6, Rodriguez teaches the electric field enhancing element according to claim 1, wherein a material of each of the plurality of microstructures is a metal (fig. 1 Al is a metal).
Regarding claim 7, Rodriguez teaches the electric field enhancing element according to claim 1, wherein a material of the transparent layer is a dielectric (fig. 1 the slab waveguide is a dielectric material).
Regarding claim 8, 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).
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.
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