RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The objections to the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 02/11/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 05/08/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 02/11/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 05/08/2026.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 14, 17-18 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Jang et al. (Fabrication of 2D Au Nanorings with Pt Framework, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2014, 136, 17674-17680).
Regarding claim 1, Jang et al. discloses a ring-like shaped frame comprising an internal ring made of platinum and a gold external frame which surrounds the internal platinum ring. (Abstract and Fig. 1-2). The exterior gold ring would therefore meet the limitation of a “gold nanoparticle”. The outer gold ring-like shaped frame includes a central bore which would therefore meet the limitation of a “porous structure”.
Regarding claim 2, Jang et al. discloses a nanoframe comprising a nanoring of platinum surrounded by a nanoframe of gold. (Fig. 1-2). Therefore, both rings are nanoparticles are “entangled to each other” in view of the fact they form a unitary structure including both nanoring and nanoframe (i.e. nanoparticles) and provide a symmetric structure. Jang et al. further discloses that the structure permits near-IR Raman scattering. (page 17679, left col., last line).
Regarding claim 7, the bore included in the center of the nanoring (see Fig. 1-2). would meet the limitation of a “porous nanostructure positioned on the inner space of the ring-like shaped frame” as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Jang et al. discloses a nanoframe comprising a nanoring of platinum surrounded by a nanoframe of gold which includes several nanosized “lumps” aggregated together. (Fig. 1-2 and 5). Therefore, both rings are nanoparticles are “entangled to each other” in view of the fact they form a unitary structure including both nanoring and nanoframe (i.e. nanoparticles) and provide a symmetric structure. Jang et al. further discloses that the structure permits near-IR Raman scattering. (page 17679, left col., last line).
Regarding claim 14, Jang et al. discloses a ring-like shaped frame comprising an internal ring made of platinum and a gold external frame which surrounds the internal platinum ring. (Abstract and Fig. 1-2). The exterior gold ring would therefore meet the limitation of a “gold nanoparticle”. The bore included in the center of the nanoring (see Fig. 1-2). would meet the limitation of a “porous nanostructure positioned on the inner space of the ring-like shaped frame” as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, the rings can have a hexagonal structure. (Fig. 2(e))
Regarding claim 18, Jang et al. discloses specific example with an inner diameter of 45 nm, an outer diameter of 129 nm and a thickness of 41 nm (page 17675, right col.) which lie within the presently claimed ranges and therefore disclose the ranges with sufficient specificity as to anticipate the claims. (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claims 24-26, the nanorings can be used to make SERS samples. (page 17679, left col., last line).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not disclose that the porous nanostructure located in the inner space of the platinum internal ring frame contains an inner part which comprises or consists of nanoparticles that are entangled to each other and an outer part which is connected to the ring-like shaped frame.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 05/08/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections made of record in office action mailed on 02/11/2026 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that the Au frame taught in Jang et al. is a solid rim which lacks any porosity and therefore does not include a “porous structure”. (Applicant’s arguments filed 05/08/2026, page 9).
A claim must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. MPEP. A “porous structure” refers to a material comprising a hole, pore, void or other empty space. As can be seen in Fig. 1-2 of Jang et al., the gold frame includes a central bore with would meet the limitation of a “pore” since it is effectively a hole through the middle of the frame having nanometer dimensions (i.e. a nanoparticle). Therefore, the claim remains unpatentable over Jang et al. Therefore the “solid rim” as argued by Applicant nonetheless comprises a feature which would be described as “porous”.
With respect to the rejections of claims 7, 14 and claims dependent thereon, Applicant argues that the structure of Jang et al. fails to teach a porous nanostructure inside the ring frame. “Nanostructure” broadly refers to a nanometer sized structural feature including a solid or void space. Herein, the empty hole in the center of the nanoring of Jang et al. would meet the limitation of a “porous nanostructure” positioned in the center of the ring.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 7-8, 14, 17-18 and 24-26 remain unpatentable over the teachings of Jang et al.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 06/04/2026
Prosecution Insights