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 .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the claims recite “wherein the material patches have a width between 20 nm to 150 nm and/or a height between 10 nm to 120 nm, wherein optionally a distance between two adjacent material patches is between 10 nm to 120 nm” and “wherein the material patches are identical to each other, wherein optionally the material patches are dome shaped”. The examiner interprets this as acceptable alternative language because there is no ambiguity as to which alternatives are covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(h) Sec. II.
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 15-17 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “metal”, and the claim also recites “in particular gold, silver, and/or aluminium” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 16 recites the broad recitation “an optically transparent material”, and the claim also recites “in particular fused silica, magnesium fluoride, and/or sapphire” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 17 recites the broad recitation “communication with the analysis device”, and the claim also recites “in particular to the Raman light source and/or the spectrometer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 8-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a Raman spectroscopy probe, the device comprising, among other essential elements, wherein the optical transmission line includes at least one illumination fibre for guiding light from the proximal end to the distal end and at least one collection fibre for guiding light from the distal end of the proximal end, and wherein the magnification layer is positioned in optical communication with the at least one illumination fibre and is positioned not in optical communication with the at least one collection fibre, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim. Claims 2-5 and 8-14 are dependent from claim 1 and therefore are also included in the allowed subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boss (US 6614523) teaches a SERS device including a sensor body having a throughbore; a window mounted to the sensor body that is coterminous with the throughbore; surface enhanced Raman scattering structure mounted to the window; an optical energy source for generating an optical excitation signal; a first optical fiber mounted in the throughbore for directing the optical excitation signal through the surface enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) structure; a second optical fiber mounted in the throughbore for receiving primary Raman emissions generated when an analyte in contact with the surface enhanced Raman scattering structure is irradiated by the optical excitation signal; and a magnification layer arranged at or on the distal end, the magnification layer having an exposed surface for contacting the tissue, wherein the magnification layer is positioned such that the light for inducing Raman scattering impinges on the magnification layer, wherein the magnification layer is for inducing surface enhanced Raman scattering at the exposed surface (col. 4 lines 1-7) However, Boss does not teach, nor is there any reason to modify Boss wherein the magnification layer is positioned not in optical communication with the at least one collection fibre, as claimed.
Vo-Dinh (US 5864397) teaches a probe for SERS measurement including a member of optically transmissive material for receiving the excitation radiation from a laser and for carrying the radiation emitted from a specimen to a detector. An end of the member for placing against the specimen has a coating that produces surface enhancement of the specimen during Raman scattering spectroscopic analysis. Specifically the coating is formed by a first layer of microparticles on the member and a metal layer over the first layer. Vo-Dinh does not teach the above claimed limitations and no reason exists to combine it with prior art to render the claims obvious.
Kinser teaches a SERS probe wherein scattered light generated within the cavity is conveyed to a detector for spectral analysis of the scattered light via one or more of the optical fiber, but does not teach the above claimed limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877