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 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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 (claim 14 substantially recites the same element) recites that “an absorption rate of the plurality of particles with respect to an energy beam used for the ionization is equal to or higher than an absorption rate of the conductive layer with respect to the energy beam”. Although the specification suggests that this relates to efficient transmission of energy to the sample component, the claim and specification do not define how the absorption rate is determined, including the wavelength of the energy beam, the measurement method, and the normalization basis for comparing the plurality of particles with the conductive layer. Because the relative absorption may vary depending on these conditions, the scope of the limitation is unclear.
Claim 7 recites that “a sensitizing action of the plurality of particles with respect to the energy beam is greater than a sensitizing action of the conductive layer with respect to the energy beam.” The term “sensitizing action” renders the claim indefinite because neither the claim or the specification defines what property or phenomenon is being compared. It is unclear whether “sensitizing action” refers to optical absorption, photothermal conversion, ionization efficiency in the mass spectrometer, or some other physical or analytical effect. The claim also does not recite any test condition or objective metric for determining whether the sensitizing action of the particles is “greater than” that of the conductive layer. As such, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0358436 A1 [hereinafter Naito] in view of US 2010/0175745 A1 [hereinafter Kostecki and US 8278626 B2 [hereinafter Murakami]).
Regarding Claim 1:
Naito teaches a sample support body used for ionizing a component of a sample (Abstract: “a sample support for a surface-assisted laser desorption/ionization method”, the sample support body comprising:
a substrate configured to include a main surface and a plurality of holes opened in the main surface (para. [0045]: “a sample support 2 having a substrate in which a plurality of through-holes are provided is arranged on the sample 10”);
a conductive layer configured to be provided on the main surface so as not to block the holes (Figs. 3 and 5, claim 1 and paras. [0049 and 0055]: “a conductive layer formed of a conductive material and configured to cover at least a portion of the one surface not provided with the through-holes.” Figs. 3 and 5 also show the conductive layer 23 covers the surface 21a and 21b of the substrate without blocking the through-holes S); and
However, Naito does not specifically note that a plurality of particles configured to be provided on a surface of the conductive layer, wherein an absorption rate of the plurality of particles with respect to an energy beam used for the ionization is equal to or higher than an absorption rate of the conductive layer with respect to the energy beam.
Kostecki teaches a plurality of particles configured to be provided on a surface of the conductive layer (para. [0032]: “a metal electron source layer in accordance with the invention can take the form of metal (e.g., Ag) nanoparticles on an electronically conductive thin film (e.g., carbon) on a semiconductor (e.g., TiO2) layer”).
As such, in the modified structure, the nanoparticles provide the claimed absorption rate with respect to an energy beam used for the ionization is equal to or higher than an absorption rate of the conductive layer with respect to the energy beam because Kostecki teaches that the “resonant multiple excitation of the surface plasmon resonance in Ag nanoparticles leads to a strong enhancement of the photoemission yield” (see para. [0007] of Kostecki), while Naito’s conductive layer functions as the conductive/energy-transfer layer. Specially, Kostecki teaches silver/gold/copper nanostructured metals and particularly identifies that “Silver absorbs electromagnetic wavelengths in the visible and near UV range…When silver is in the form of nanoparticles, it has been found that the wavelength absorption range can broaden, extending far into visible wavelengths, for example to about 650 nm” (see para. [0033] of Kostecki). As such, providing Kostecki’s silver/gold nanoparticles on Naito’s conductive layer would result in particles having an absorption rate equal to or higher than that for the conductive layer with respective to the laser/UC energy beam used for ionization.
Naito teaches that, when a laser beam is applied to the surface of the sample support, energy is transmitted to the sample via the conductive layer, thereby ionizing the sample in the SALDI method. Murakami teaches using metal particles in a mass spectrometry sample-support device to excite localized plasmons and improve ionization/desorption (see US8278626B2 [hereinafter Murakami]). Kostecki teaches that illumination of nanostructured silver creates surface plasmons in silver nanoparticles and broadens the wavelength absorption ranges into visible wavelengths. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to provide Kostecki’s plasmonic metal nanoparticles on the Naito’s conductive layer, since Murakami teaches that adding such conductive particles would enhance ionization/desorption efficiency and detected signal strength in a mass spectrometry device, while Kostecki provides suitable nanostructure metal particle materials and absorption properties for such nanostructured metal particles.
Regarding Claim 2:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the sample support body of claim 1. Kostecki further teaches wherein the plurality of particles are a plurality of nanoparticles deposited on the surface of the conductive layer (para. [0032]: metal nanoparticles, such as Ag nanoparticles, are disposed on an electronically conducive film).
Regarding Claim 5:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the sample support body of claim 1. Kostecki further teaches wherein the plurality of particles have absorbability for laser light (para. [0030]: Kostecki teaches Ag nanoparticles/nanostructured silver absorption in the near-UV/visible optical range, including broadened absorption into wavelengths. Since laser light is optical electromagnetic radiation, Kostecki teaches particles having absorbability for laser light).
Regarding Claim 6:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the sample support body of claim 1. Kostecki further teaches wherein the plurality of particles have absorbability for ultraviolet rays (para. [0030]: teaches that silver is preferred for opto-electronic properties in the near-UV and visible spectrum, thus the Ag nanoparticles having absorbability for ultraviolet rays, at least near-UV).
Regarding Claim 7:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the sample support body of claim 1. The combined references further teach wherein a sensitizing action of the plurality of particles with respect to the energy beam is greater than a sensitizing action of the conductive layer with respect to the energy beam. Kostecki teaches that optically excited plasmons in metallic electrodes produce hot electrons, that silver plasmon energies are suited for optical expiation, and that nanoparticles form broadest ha plasmon/absorption behavior. Thus, in the modified Naito structure, the Ag nanoparticles would provide a greater sensitizing action to the ionization energy beam than the underling conductive layer because the nanoparticles are specifically added as plasmonic optical-energy absorbing structure, while Naito’s original conductive layer merely performs ordinary energy transmissions.
Regarding Claim 8:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the sample support body of claim 1. The combined references further teach wherein a material of the plurality of particles is different from a material of the conductive layer (in the modified structure the nanoparticles as taught in Kostecki is formed by Ag and the conductive layer as taught in Naito is formed from a different material such as Pt, Au, Cr, Ni, or Ti).
Regarding Claim 9:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the sample support body of claim 1. Kostecki further teaches wherein a material of the plurality of particles includes a metal element (the nanoparticles can be silver nanoparticles).
Regarding Claim 10:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the sample support body of claim 9. Kostecki further teaches wherein a material of the plurality of particles is gold, platinum, or titanium dioxide (para. [0006]: “Suitable metals include …gold…”)
Regarding Claim 12:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the sample support body of claim 1. Kostecki further teaches wherein a material of the plurality of particles is a compound including a metal element or carbon (para. [0006]: “Suitable metals include …alloys of silver, gold and copper with each other”).
Regarding Claim 14:
Naito teaches a method for manufacturing a sample support body used for ionizing a component of a sample (para. [0061]: “a process of manufacturing the sample support 2”), the method comprising:
a first step of preparing a substrate that includes a main surface and a plurality of holes opened in the main surface (para. [0061]: “an Al (Aluminum) substrate 50 that will become a material of the substrate 21 is prepared”);
a second step of providing a conductive layer on the main surface so as not to block the holes (para. [0062]: “After the substrate 21 is manufactured… Finally, the conductive layer 23 formed of Au or Pt is provided to cover the one surface 21a and the other surface 21b of the substrate 21, the inner surfaces of the through-holes S”).
However, Naito does not specifically note that a third step of providing a plurality of particles on a surface of the conductive layer; wherein an absorption rate of the plurality of particles with respect to an energy beam used for the ionization is equal to or higher than an absorption rate of the conductive layer with respect to the energy beam.
Kostecki teaches a third step of providing a plurality of particles on a surface of the conductive layer (para. [0031]: forming/depositing metal nanoparticles on a conductive layer including Ag nanoparticles and nanoparticle layers);
As such, the combined references teach wherein an absorption rate of the plurality of particles with respect to an energy beam used for the ionization is equal to or higher than an absorption rate of the conductive layer with respect to the energy beam, as discussed in claim 1.
Naito teaches a method of manufacturing a SALDI sample support body by preparing a substrate and then providing a conductive layer on the substrate surface. Kostecki teaches that providing nanostructured metal particles on an electronically conductive thin film and such nanostructured meta particles provide plasmonic absorption in the near-UV/visible range. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to add a further step of providing nanoparticles after Naito’s conductive layer forming step so that Kostecki’s absorption-enhancing nanoparticles are provided on the exposed surface of Naito’s conductive layer, to improve absorption of the laser/UV energy sued in Naito’s SALDI ionization while preserving Naito’s holed substrate and conductive layer structure.
Regarding Claim 15:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the method for manufacturing a sample support body of claim 14. Kostecki further teaches wherein in the third step, the plurality of particles are provided by a wet process (para. [0039]: “silver nanoparticles can be chemically synthesized using a technique based on solution chemistry... Evaporation of the solution mix yields a layer of silver nanoparticles, for example, in the range of about 1-50 nm”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Naito in view of Kostecki and Murakami, further in view of US 20240124314A1[hereinafter Yoshikawa].
Regarding Claim 1:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the sample support of claim 1. The combined references do not specifically note wherein an area corresponding to the plurality of particles is smaller than an area corresponding to the conductive layer when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the main surface. Yoshikawa teaches wherein an area corresponding to the plurality of particles is smaller than an area corresponding to the conductive layer when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the main surface (paras. [0067-0068]: “the first region is a region to which the inorganic nanoparticles attach… The second region is a region excluding the first region and is a region where the inorganic nanoparticles are not disposed”).
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches disposing nanoparticles on the conductive layer to improve energy absorption. Yoshikawa teaches disposing nanoparticles only on a first region on a substrate rather than over the entire substrate surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to disposing nanoparticles from Kostecki only on selected regions of the conductive layer of Naito rather than over the entire conductive layer surface in the same manner as taught in Yoshikawa, to leave second region between the first regions without nanoparticles, because patterned nanoparticle placement allows the density, distribution, and effective particle-covered area to be controlled while still providing the desired optical absorption enhancement from the nanoparticles, avoiding unnecessary full-surface coverage of the conductive layer.
Regarding Claim 4:
Naito in view of Kostecki, further in view of Yoshikawa teaches the sample support of claim 3. Yoshikawa further teaches wherein the surface of the conductive layer includes a plurality of first regions separated from each other and a second region positioned between the plurality of first regions, the plurality of particles are provided in each of the plurality of first regions, and the plurality of particles are not provided in the second region (para. [0016]: “a plurality of the first regions is regularly arranged on the substrate, and the inorganic nanoparticles are disposed in each of the plurality of the first regions”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Naito in view of Kostecki and Murakami, further in view of US 20160325225A1 [hereinafter Esser].
Regarding Claim 11:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the sample support of claim 1. The combined references do not specifically note wherein a material of the plurality of particles includes carbon. Esser teaches wherein a material of the plurality of particles includes carbon (paras. [0045-0046]: “the nanoparticle exhibits surface plasmon resonance. In one embodiment, the nanoparticle is carbon black, a carbon nanotube, or activated carbon”).
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches disposing nanoparticles on the conductive layer to improve energy absorption. Esser teaches carbon black nanoparticles convert light energy to thermal energy and can absorb light across the solar spectrum. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use such carbon-containing nanoparticles as the particles in the modified Naito structure because carbon-based nanoparticles were known light-absorbing/photothermal particles suitable for absorbing incident energy and converting it to heat.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Naito in view of Kostecki and Murakami, further in view of US 20210323006A1 [hereinafter Singer].
Regarding Claim 13:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the sample support of claim 1. The combined references do not specifically note wherein the plurality of particles are formed by an electrostatic spraying method. Singer teaches wherein the plurality of particles are formed by an electrostatic spraying method (paras. [0008, 0146, 0156, 0164]: “… exposing a conductive target to a spray in the presence of an electric field, wherein the spray includes a self-limiting electrospray composition,” which may include “one or more solvents, and/or optionally a plurality of filler particles”, which may be a metal, and “the metal may be…gold nanoparticles”).
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches disposing nanoparticles on the conductive layer to improve energy absorption. Singer teaches that electrospray deposition can provide well-adhered, conformal coating while reducing wasted material and that the electrospray composition may include solvent and filler particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to form the particles on the conductive layer of the modified Naito sample support by electrostatic spaying as a known coating technique for depositing material from a liquid spay onto a conductive target in the presence of an electric field, to provide controlled particle placement and reduce material waste.
Regarding Claim 16:
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches the method manufacturing a sample support of claim 15. The combined references do not specifically note wherein in the third step, a liquid including the plurality of particles is jetted onto the surface of the conductive layer by an electrostatic spraying method. Singer teaches wherein in the third step, a liquid including the plurality of particles is jetted onto the surface of the conductive layer by an electrostatic spraying method (paras. [0146, 0156, 0164]: exposing a conductive target to a solvent and filler particles, such as gold nanoparticles).
Naito in view of Kostecki teaches disposing nanoparticles on the conductive layer to improve energy absorption. Singer teaches that electrospray deposition can provide well-adhered, conformal coating while reducing wasted material and that the electrospray composition may include solvent and filler particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to jet or spay a liquid including the particles onto the conductive layer, to allow the nanoparticles to be carried in liquid form and deposited onto the conductive layer surface to form the desired particle containing coating, to provide controlled, conformal deposition with reduced material waste.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights