DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by "Rapid genetic screening with high quality factor metasurfaces", arXiv.org, Cornell University Library, 201 Olin Library Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853, 15 October 2021 by Hu et al. (hereinafter Hu) (Submitted by Applicant in IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1, Abstract) comprising (Fig. 1-4):
a guided-mode resonance metasurface pixel ("GMR pixel") (Fig. 1a, Page 3, Par. [3]) having a cavity section to support GMR at a certain Q (Fig. 1a, 1c, Page 4, Par. [1]) and having optics at each end of the GMR pixel, to contain light and mitigate energy losses due to scattering of light, in response to light being directed towards the GMR pixel of the metasurface sensor (Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions).
Regarding Claim 2, Hu teaches a surface of the GMR pixel is functionalized for attachment of a distinct set of one or more respective receptors and/or probe molecules, wherein in response to light being directed towards a sample and the functionalized GMR pixel, the functionalized GMR pixel is to selectively attach to a distinct type of molecular structures, among a plurality of other types molecular structures, in the biological sample (Fig. 1a, Page 6, Par. [1]).
Regarding Claim 3, Hu teaches the cavity section has multiple nanoblocks, and wherein blocks of the GMR pixel are to react to light directed towards a surface of the GMR pixel, and to cause formation of a photonic bandgap, where no photonic modes with frequencies within the bandgap are allowed to propagate, and wherein frequencies corresponding to the edge of the bandgap are tuned based on the dimensions of the nanoblocks (Fig. 1a, 1d, 1f, Page 4, Par. [1]).
Regarding Claim 4, Hu teaches the optics include, at each end of the GMR pixel and on opposing sides of the cavity section, a first set of one or more nanoblocks and a second set of one more nanoblocks (Fig. 1a, 1d, 1f, Page 4, Par. [1]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hu teaches a surface of one of the similarly-constructed GMR pixels is functionalized for attachment of a distinct set of one or more respective receptors and/or probe molecules, and a surface of another one of the similarly-constructed GMR pixels is functionalized for attachment of a different distinct set of one or more respective receptors and/or probe molecules, with the respective surfaces being collectively functionalized to distinguish between different types of biological molecules in the biological sample (Fig. 1a, Page 3, Par. [3]; Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions).
Regarding Claim 7, Hu teaches the optics function or act as photonic mirrors by containing a resonant mode (Fig. 1a, Page 3, Par. [3]; Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions).
Regarding Claim 8, Hu teaches the cavity section has multiple nanoblocks of different dimensions, one of the different dimensions being distinguishable from another of the different dimensions in terms of nanoblock length (Fig. 1a, Page 4, Par. [2]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hu teaches a method (Hu, Fig. 1, Abstract) comprising (Hu, Fig. 1-4) (Also see Claim 1 rejection above. Note: an apparatus claim can be used to implement a method claim):
directing light towards a guided-mode resonance metasurface pixel ("GMR pixel") of a metasurface sensor, wherein the GMR pixel has a cavity section to support GMR at a certain Q (See Claim 1 rejection Above); and
containing light and mitigating energy losses due to scattering of light, in response to the light being directed towards the GMR pixel, via optics at each end of the GMR pixel (See Claim 1 rejection Above).
Regarding Claim 10, Hu teaches the cavity section has multiple nanoblocks to support GMR at a certain high-Q characterized as being greater than 1000 (Fig. 1a, Page 3, Par. [3]; Page 4, Par. [1]).
Regarding Claim 11, Hu teaches the cavity section is to support GMR at a certain high-Q characterized as being greater than 10 (Fig. 1a, Page 3, Par. [3]; Page 4, Par. [1]).
Regarding Claim 12, Hu teaches the cavity section has multiple nanoblocks of different lengths which are dimensioned such that the respective ends of the multiple nanoblocks collectively align to form a tapered dimension of at least a portion of the cavity section between the optics ends (Fig. 1a, Page 4, Par. [2]; Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 5, 13-23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0042511 A1 Atanackovic (hereinafter Atanackovic).
Regarding Claim 5, Hu teaches the GMR pixel is one of a plurality of similarly- constructed the GMR pixels (Fig. 1a, Page 3, Par. [3]), each having a cavity section to support GMR at the certain Q (Fig. 1a, Page 4, Par. [1]) and having optics at each end of the GMR pixel, to contain light and optimally mitigate energy losses due to scattering of light, in response to light being directed towards the GMR pixel of the metasurface sensor (Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions), but does not explicitly teach wherein the apparatus further include logic circuitry to selectively access, and discerning responsiveness of, different ones of the plurality of similarly-constructed the GMR pixels.
However, Atanackovic teaches logic circuitry to selectively access, and discerning responsiveness of, different ones of the plurality of similarly-constructed the GMR pixels (Par. [0009, 0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu by Atanackovic as taught above such that the apparatus further include logic circuitry to selectively access, and discerning responsiveness of, different ones of the plurality of similarly-constructed the GMR pixels is accomplished in order to reduce cost (Atanackovic, Par. [0034]).
Regarding Claim 13, Hu as modified by Atanackovic teaches an apparatus (Hu, Fig. 1, Abstract) comprising (Fig. 1-4):
a functionalized metasurface sensor including an array of guided-mode resonance metasurface biosensor pixels ("GMR pixels"), wherein each of the GMR pixels has a cavity section to support GMR at a certain Q (See Claim 1 rejection above) and is functionalized for attachment of a distinct receptor or probe molecules (See Claims 2, 6 rejections above);
optics, coupled at respective ends of each of the GMR pixels, to contain light and optimally mitigate energy losses due to scattering of light, in response to light being directed towards the metasurface sensor (See Claim 1 rejection above); and
light-responsive and data-processing circuitry, responsive to the directed light manipulated by a biological sample at respective ones of the distinct receptor or probe molecules, to distinguish between different types of biological molecules in the biological sample (See Claim 5 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 14, Hu teaches at least one of the GMR pixels has a material capable of being energized by the directed light and has at least one section with a length corresponding to an illumination wavelength energy that is below a band gap of the material (Fig. 1a, 1f, Page 4, Par. [2]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hu teaches at least one of the GMR pixels has a cavity section to support GMR at a certain high-Q characterized as being greater than several thousand (Fig. 1a, 1c, Page 3, Par. [3]; Page 4, Par. [1]).
Regarding Claim 16, Hu teaches the optics are to act as photonics mirrors (Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions), and wherein the different types of biological molecules refer to or include one or more of: nucleic acids, proteins, pathogens, and small molecules (Page 5, Par. [3]).
Regarding Claim 17, Hu teaches the functionalized metasurface sensor, the optics and the light-responsive and data-processing circuitry are configured cooperatively to enable detection of multiple distinct DNA and RNA sequences, as well as different proteins, on a single chip and from a single sample, without relying on recognition any fluorescent or optical tagging (Page 5, Par. [3]; Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions).
Regarding Claim 18, Hu teaches the distinct receptor or probe molecules for attachment to respective ones of the metasurface biosensor pixels (Page 5, Par. [3]; Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions).
Regarding Claim 19, Hu teaches respective ones of the metasurface biosensor pixels are bio printed (Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions).
Regarding Claim 20, Hu teaches the functionalized metasurface sensor, the optics and the light-responsive and data-processing circuitry are configured cooperatively to provide a nanophotonic waveguide device, with each of the GMR pixels acting as a waveguide that is prone to redirect certain of the light in the form of radiation losses, and wherein the optics causes a reduction of Q factors associated with photons scattering from said at least one of the GMR pixels (Fig. 1a, 1c, Page 3, Par. [3]; Page 4, Par. [1]; Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions).
Regarding Claim 21, Hu as modified by Atanackovic teaches a method (Hu, Fig. 1, Abstract) comprising (Hu, Fig. 1-4) (Also see Claim 1 rejection above. Note: an apparatus claim can be used to implement a method claim):
functionalizing a metasurface sensor including an array of guided-mode resonance metasurface biosensor pixels ("GMR pixels"), by attaching a distinct receptor or probe molecules to respective ones of the GMR pixels (See Claims 1, 2 rejections above); and
with each of a plurality of the GMR pixels including optics secured at respective ends of the GMR pixel and including a cavity section to support GMR at a certain Q, directing light towards the metasurface sensor and containing light and thereby mitigating energy losses due to scattering of light (See Claim 5 rejection above), and
using circuitry to respond to the directed light, after being manipulated by a biological sample at respective ones of the GMR pixels, to distinguish different types of biological molecules in the biological sample (See Claim 5 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 22, Hu teaches distinguishing the different types of biological molecules in the biological sample without relying on recognition of any tagged target molecules (Page 5, Par. [3]; Page 6, Par. [1]; Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions).
Regarding Claim 23, Hu as modified by Atanackovic teaches using the circuitry to direct the light towards the metasurface sensor, wherein the circuitry includes a CCD (Atanackovic, Par. [0039]) and a logic circuit to respond to the directed light (Atanackovic, Fig. 7, Par. [0039]).
Regarding Claim 25, Hu teaches customizing or matching surface functionalization resolution of individual ones of the GMR pixels to detect distinct biomarkers relative to neighboring ones of the GMR pixels or certain distinct target species of samples for analysis (Page 5, Par. [1, 3]; Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions).
Regarding Claim 26, Hu teaches the distinct receptor or probe molecules are attached to surfaces of the GMR pixels by applying a material to minimize nonspecific adsorption for binding to an antibody of interest (Page 6, Par. [1]).
Regarding Claim 27, Hu teaches the GMR pixels are functionalized on a single chip to provide molecular binding with two or more classes of biomarkers selected from among one or more of the following: nucleic acids, proteins, and certain substances indicative of disease, infection, and environmental exposure, wherein the distinguishing is based on molecular binding being detected through changes in scattered light intensity from individual ones of the GMR pixels (Page 5, Par. [3]; Page 6, Par. [1]; Page 7, Par. [3]: Conclusions).
Regarding Claim 28, Hu teaches said distinguishing is based on manifestations of sharp scattering spectra, responsive to the directed light, that sensitively change in response to a target biomarker binding to one or more surfaces of respective GMR pixels (Page 6, Par. [1]).
7. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0120213 A1 Drmanac et al. (hereinafter Drmanac).
Regarding Claim 24, Hu as modified by Atanackovic teaches the distinct receptor or probe molecules to respective ones of the GMR pixels (See Claim 21 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach are patterned through acoustic droplet ejection.
However, Drmanac patterned through acoustic droplet ejection (Par. [032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu by Atanackovic by Drmanac as taught above such that patterned through acoustic droplet ejection is accomplished in order to reduce cost (Drmanac, Par. [0312]).
Additional Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The reference listed teaches of other prior art method/system of a guided-mode resonance metasurface pixel.
NPL: "Rapid genetic screening with high quality factor metasurfaces", arXiv.org, [physics.optics], 31 July 2022 (Entire document. Specifically, "Supplementary Information: Rapid genetic screening with high quality factor metasurfaces").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 on 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights