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 with respect to claim(s) 1-12, 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues:
At p. 13 last para to p. 14 para 1 “…Instead, Raring merely discloses a laser with a linewidth 0.5 to 2 nm (paragraph 9). Therefore, even if Aydogan and Alt (and Lin) were modified to include Raring's laser, the resulting combination would not include "at least one light-emitting diode configured to emit light that has a linewidth of less than 5 nm," as recited in claim 13…”
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner specifically applied the teaching of Raring to reject the limitation that has a linewidth of less than 5 nm. This refers to light that has a linewidth of less than 5 nm. The light emitting diode is already disclosed in Aydogan. In addition, Raring also teaches “a spontaneous emission spectral full width at half maximum of less than 50 nm in a light emitting diode mode of operation” (p. 9 claim 3 col 2 last para) and this is equated as “has a linewidth of less than 5 nm” (less than 5nm is within the range of less than 50 nm).
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, Hongying, et al. "Optofluidic fluorescent imaging cytometry on a cell phone." Analytical chemistry 83.17 (2011): 6641-6647 (hereinafter Zhu), in view of Alt, E. et al., US 9310300 B2 (hereinafter Alt), in view of Lin, Hsing-Ying, et al. "Direct detection of orchid viruses using nanorod-based fiber optic particle plasmon resonance immunosensor." Biosensors and Bioelectronics 51 (2014): 371-378 (hereinafter Lin), and further in view of Al-Rawashdeh, Nathir, and Colby A. Foss Jr. "UV/Visible and infrared spectra of polyethylene/nanoscopic gold rod composite films: effects of gold particle size, shape and orientation." Nanostructured Materials 9.1-8 (1997): 383-386. (hereinafter Al-Rawashdeh) OR Banin, U., et al., US 9529228 B2 (hereinafter Banin), and in view of Lee, D. et al., KR 20110027013 A (hereinafter Lee), and further in view of US10365214B2 (hereinafter Ozcan).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu teaches an accessory that is operable with a portable electronic device to measure a sample on a transparent substrate that has nanostructures coated with reagent, the accessory comprising: a housing (see annotated fig. below) configured to removably couple to the portable electronic device (Fig. 1(D) has the portable cell phone) and configured to receive the transparent substrate (see annotated fig. below, the transparent glass is inserted to the accessory); a light source configured to emit light into an edge of the transparent substrate (see annotated fig. 1(C) below; note that the fluorescent beads correspond to the sample) and cause the light to be extracted from the transparent substrate, wherein the light source comprises first and second light-emitting devices (see annotated fig. below, there are two light sources).
However, Zhu does not teach nanostructures and wherein the nanostructures comprise nanorods with aligned longitudinal axes and a sensor configured to detect whether the transparent substrate is present within the housing, wherein the first light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has not reacted with the reagent, and wherein the second light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has reacted with the reagent.
Alt, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches nanostructures (col 9 line 59; the nanostructure is the nanoparticle).
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 Alt to Zhu to have nanostructures in order to provide an improved capabilities for performing optical assays (col 3 lines 31-34).
Zhu, when modified by Alt, fails to teach wherein the nanostructures comprise nanorods with aligned longitudinal axes and a sensor configured to detect whether the transparent substrate is present within the housing, wherein the first light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has not reacted with the reagent, and wherein the second light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has reacted with the reagent.
Lin, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, discloses wherein the nanostructures comprise nanorods (this is “AuNR” in Fig. 2(b); Note that the dimension of the substrate of Lin is in the range of Zhu, which means the nanorods in the substrate of Lin can be integrated into Zhu device without breaking the device.).
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 Lin to Zhu, when modified by Alt, to have wherein the nanostructures comprise nanorods in order to provides faster analysis, better reproducibility (Abstract lines 13-14).
Zhu, when modified by Alt and Lin, fails to teach nanorods with aligned longitudinal axes and a sensor configured to detect whether the transparent substrate is present within the housing, wherein the first light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has not reacted with the reagent, and wherein the second light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has reacted with the reagent.
Al-Rawashdeh, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches nanorods with aligned longitudinal axes (fig. 4 shows nanorods with aligned longitudinal axes).
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 Al-Rawashdeh to Zhu, when modified by Alt and Lin, to have nanorods with aligned longitudinal axes in order to maximize the plasmon resonance signal of the measurement.
OR
Banin, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches nanorods with aligned longitudinal axes (fig. 2c shows nanorods with aligned longitudinal axes).
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 Banin to Zhu, when modified by Alt and Lin, to have nanorods with aligned longitudinal axes in order to optimize emission signal from the measurement (col 12 lines 54-56).
Zhu, when modified by Alt, Lin, and Al-Rawashdeh or Banin, does not teach a sensor configured to detect whether the transparent substrate is present within the housing, wherein the first light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has not reacted with the reagent, and wherein the second light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has reacted with the reagent.
Lee, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches a sensor configured to detect whether the transparent substrate is present within the housing (p. 5 para 8; note the transparent substrate corresponds to the biochip 215).
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 Lee to Zhu, when modified by Alt, Lin, and Al-Rawashdeh or Banin, to have a sensor configured to detect whether the transparent substrate is present within the housing in order to save electrical energy (p. 5 para 8).
Zhu, when modified by Alt, Lin, and Al-Rawashdeh or Banin, fails to teach wherein the first light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has not reacted with the reagent, and wherein the second light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has reacted with the reagent.
Ozcan, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches wherein the first light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has not reacted with the reagent (this is element RC in fig. 2C; the nanorods correspond to the Au NP; col 4 lines 35-45; the red light has its own spectral peak), and wherein the second light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has reacted with the reagent (this is element GS in fig. 2C; the nanorods correspond to the Au NP; col 4 lines 35-45; the green light has its own spectral peak).
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 Ozcan to Zhu, when modified by Alt, Lin, and Al-Rawashdeh or Banin, to have wherein the first light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has not reacted with the reagent, and wherein the second light-emitting device is configured to emit light at a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength coinciding with a spectral peak in a plasmon resonance of the nanorods exhibited when the sample has reacted with the reagent in order to detect mercury in the sample (col 6 lines 9-16).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Zhu does not teach the accessory of claim 1, wherein the illumination from the light source is configured to travel through the transparent substrate in a direction perpendicular to the aligned longitudinal axes.
Banin, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches the accessory of claim 1, wherein the illumination from the light source is configured to travel through the transparent substrate in a direction perpendicular to the aligned longitudinal axes (this is shown if fig. 2c; note this is a general teaching).
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 Banin to Zhu, when modified by Alt and Lin, to have the accessory of claim 1, wherein the illumination from the light source is configured to travel through the transparent substrate in a direction perpendicular to the aligned longitudinal axes in order to optimize emission signal from the measurement (col 12 lines 54-56).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu does not teach the accessory of claim 1, wherein the nanostructures comprise metal nanostructures and wherein the reagent comprises an antibody. Lin, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches the accessory of claim 1, wherein the nanostructures comprise metal nanostructures and wherein the reagent comprises an antibody (Abstract lines 6-9).
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 Lin to Zhu to have the accessory of claim 1, wherein the nanostructures comprise metal nanostructures and wherein the reagent comprises an antibody in order to provides faster analysis, better reproducibility, and lower detection limit than ELISA (Abstract lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu teaches the accessory of claim 5, wherein the first and second light- emitting devices are first and second semiconductor light- emitting devices (there are two LEDs in the annotated fig. above; p. 3 col 2 para 3 last sentence).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu teaches the accessory of claim 1, further comprising: a battery configured to power the light source (p. 1 col 2 para 2 lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu teaches the accessory of claim 9, wherein the sensor comprises an optical sensor (see annotated Fig. 1 (B) above).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu teaches the accessory of claim 1, and wherein the first and second light-emitting devices are first and second semiconductor light-emitting device (there are two LEDs in the annotated fig. above; p. 3 col 2 para 3 last sentence).
Zhu fail to teach wherein the nanostructures comprise metal nanorods.
Lin, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, discloses wherein the nanostructures comprise metal nanorods (this is “AuNR” in Fig. 2(b); Note that the dimension of the substrate of Lin is in the range of Zhu, which means the nanorods in the substrate of Lin can be integrated into Zhu device without breaking the device.).
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 Lin to Zhu, when modified by Alt, to have wherein the nanostructures comprise metal nanorods in order to provides faster analysis, better reproducibility (Abstract lines 13-14).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, Alt, Lin, Al-Rawashdeh OR Banin, Lee, and Ozcan, as applied to claim 6 above, and in view of Viegas, D. et al., US 20180143133 A1 (hereinafter Viegas), and further in view of Raring, J., US20130044782A1 (hereinafter Raring).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Zhu fails to teach the accessory of claim 6, wherein the first and second semiconductor light-emitting devices have linewidths of less than 5 nm.
Viegas, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches the accessory of claim 6, wherein the first and second semiconductor light-emitting devices (this corresponds different wavelengths of the laser, para [0094] lines 4-9).
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 Viegas to the modified device of Zhu to have the accessory of claim 6, wherein the first and second semiconductor light-emitting devices have linewidths of less than 5 nm in order to allow efficient detection of individual Raman modes (para [0094] lines 4-9).
Zhu, when modified by Viegas, does not teach light-emitting devices have linewidths of less than 5 nm.
Raring, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches light-emitting devices have linewidths of less than 5 nm (para [0009] last sentence; laser diodes is a type of semiconductor light-emitting device).
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 Raring to the modified device of Zhu to have light-emitting devices have linewidths of less than 5 nm in order to prevent severe image distortion in display application (para [0008] last sentence, para [0009] last sentence; replacing the laser diode of Raring to Zhu).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, Alt, Lin, Al-Rawashdeh OR Banin, Lee, and Ozcan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jena, S. et al., US 20140072189 A1 (hereinafter Jena).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Zhu does teach the accessory of claim 1, further comprising: a magnet configured to attract the portable electronic device.
Jena, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches the accessory of claim 1, further comprising: a magnet configured to attract the portable electronic device (see Fig. 3 element 66, para [0098] last sentence).
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 Jena to the modified device of Zhu to have the accessory of claim 1, further comprising: a magnet configured to attract the portable electronic device in order to secure properly the alignment of the accessory to the camera of the mobile device (see para [0098] lines 9-11).
Claim(s) 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan, A. et al., US 9057702 B2 (hereinafter Aydogan) in view of Alt, and further in view of Raring.
Regarding claim 13, Aydogan teaches an accessory configured to operate with an electronic device, comprising: a housing (fig. 3B “housing 52”, col 8 lines 59-62) configured to removably couple to the electronic device (fig. 4 shows “mobile device 10” attached to “housing 52”), wherein the housing has a portion configured to receive a transparent substrate (fig. 3A “66”, col 9 lines 10-13) that supports a sample (the fluorescent beads which is also the sample) and that has a peripheral edge including first and second edge surfaces (the three edge surfaces of flow cell 66 are exposed to the 3 LEDs as shown in fig. 3B); and “light sources configured to emit light into the first and second edge surfaces of the transparent substrate to illuminate the sample” (the three edge surfaces of flow cell 66 are exposed to the 3 LEDs as shown in fig. 3B) and “scatter light from the sample in a perpendicular direction relative to the emitted light towards a sensor in the electronic device” (light from the fluorescent beads travel in a perpendicular to the sensor of the mobile device 15, col 5 line 46).
Aydogan, does not disclose nanostructures and wherein the light sources include at least one light-emitting diode configured to emit light that has a linewidth of less than 5 nm and a wavelength of at least 600 nm.
Alt, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches nanostructures (col 9 line 59; the nanostructure is the nanoparticle).
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 Alt to Zhu to have nanostructures in order to provide an improved capabilities for performing optical assays (col 3 lines 31-34).
`Lin, from the same field of endeavor as Aydogan, teaches wherein the light sources include at least one light-emitting diode configured to emit light that has a wavelength of at least 600 nm (see supporting, p. 2 last para).
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 Lin to Aydogan to have wherein the light sources include at least one light-emitting diode configured to emit light that has a wavelength of at least 600 nm in order to provides faster analysis, better reproducibility, and lower detection limit than ELISA (Abstract lines 13-14).
Aydogan, when modified by Lin, fails to teach has a linewidth of less than 5 nm.
Raring, from the same field of endeavor as Aydogan, teaches has a linewidth of less than 5 nm (para [0009] last sentence; laser diodes is a type of semiconductor light-emitting device).
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 Raring to Aydogan to have a linewidth of less than 5 nm in order to prevent severe image distortion in display application (para [0008] last sentence, para [0009] last sentence; replacing the laser diode of Raring to Zhu).
Regarding claim 14, Aydogan teaches the accessory of claim 13, wherein the light sources comprise semiconductor light-emitting devices (fig. 3B “60”, col 8 line 64).
Regarding claim 15, Aydogan teaches the accessory of claim 13, wherein the peripheral edge of the transparent substrate has third and fourth edge surfaces (fig. 3A shows “66” has 4 sides), and wherein the light sources are configured to emit light into at least three of the first, second, third, and fourth edges surfaces (fig. 3B shows 3 LEDs illuminate the 3 sides of “66”).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aydogan and Alt as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Lin, and further in view of Viegas .
Regarding claim 16, Aydogan does not teach the accessory of claim 13, wherein the nanostructures comprise metal nanoparticles with dimensions of less than 400 nm.
Lin, from the same field of endeavor as Aydogan, teaches the accessory of claim 13, wherein the nanostructures comprise metal nanoparticles with dimensions of less than 400 nm (p. 2 col 2 para 4 lines 23-25; note that Alt teaches nanostructures).
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 Lin to Aydogan to have the accessory of claim 13, wherein the nanostructures comprise metal nanoparticles with dimensions of less than 400 nm in order to provides faster analysis, better reproducibility, and lower detection limit than ELISA (Abstract lines 13-14).
Claim(s) 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aydogan, Alt, Lin, and further in view of Jiang, L. et al., . CN 107132210 A (hereinafter Jiang).
Regarding claim 17, Aydogan teaches a system for measuring biological samples, comprising: an electronic device with a light sensor (fig. 1A “15”, col 5 line 46); and an accessory (fig. 3B “52”, col 8 line 60), comprising: a housing configured to receive the transparent substrate (fig. 3A shows “52” housed “66”); and a “light source in the housing that is configured to emit light into a peripheral edge of the transparent substrate” (fig. 3B shows three LEDs illuminate the side of “66”) to “cause the light to scatter from the sample” (the fluorescent beads light up, col 4 lines 63-65) into the light sensor (col 4 lines 63-65).
Aydogan does not teach nanostructures and a transparent substrate having nanostructures coated with reagent on a corrugated surface, wherein the corrugated surface includes ridges on which the nanostructures are formed and grooves that are free from the nanostructures.
Alt, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches nanostructures (col 9 line 59; the nanostructure is the nanoparticle).
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 Alt to Zhu to have nanostructures in order to provide an improved capabilities for performing optical assays (col 3 lines 31-34).
Aydogan, when modified by Alt, does not teach a transparent substrate having nanostructures coated with reagent on a corrugated surface, wherein the corrugated surface includes ridges on which the nanostructures are formed and grooves that are free from the nanostructures.
Lin, from the same field of endeavor as Aydogan, teaches a transparent substrate having nanostructures coated with reagent on a corrugated surface (Fig. 2(b) “AuNR-Bio”).
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 Lin to Aydogan, when modified by Alt, to have a transparent substrate having nanostructures coated with reagent on a corrugated surface in order to provides faster analysis, better reproducibility, and lower detection limit than ELISA (Abstract lines 13-14).
Aydogan, when modified by Alt and Lin, does not teach a corrugated surface, wherein the corrugated surface includes ridges on which the nanostructures are formed and grooves that are free from the nanostructures.
Jiang, from the same field of endeavor as Aydogan, teaches a corrugated surface (Abstract line 4), wherein the corrugated surface includes ridges on which the nanostructures are formed and grooves that are free from the nanostructures (fig. 2f shows the nano-rods are formed on the ridges and none in the grooves).
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 Ming to Aydogan, when modified by Alt and Lin, to have a corrugated surface, wherein the corrugated surface includes ridges on which the nanostructures are formed and grooves that are free from the nanostructures in order to have good sensitivity, chemical stability and spatial uniformity, and low processing cost (Abstract last sentence).
Regarding claim 19, Aydogan teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the light source comprises semiconductor light-emitting devices (fig. 3B shows 3 LEDs illuminate the 3 sides of “66”).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aydogan, Alt, Lin, Al-Rawashdeh, and in further view of Jiang.
Regarding claim 18, the modified apparatus of Aydogan fails to teach the system of wherein the nanostructures are coated on the corrugated surface and have aligned longitudinal axes.
Al-Rawashdeh, from the same field of endeavor as Zhu, teaches the system of wherein the nanostructures are coated on the corrugated surface and have aligned longitudinal axes (this is shown in fig. 1).
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 Al-Rawashdeh to the modified apparatus of Aydogan, to have the system of wherein the nanostructures are coated on the corrugated surface and have aligned longitudinal axes in order to maximize the plasmon resonance signal of the measurement.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aydogan, Alt, Lin, and Jiang, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Ozcan.
Regarding claim 20, Aydogan does not teach the system of claim 19, wherein the semiconductor light-emitting devices include a first semiconductor light-emitting device configured to emit light at a first wavelength and a second semiconductor light-emitting device configured to emit light at a second wavelength that is different than the first wavelength,
and wherein the light sensor is configured to measure the scattered light to detect spectral shifts in plasmon resonances of the nanostructures.
Ozcan, from the same field of endeavor as Aydogan, teaches the system of claim 19, wherein the semiconductor light-emitting devices include “a first semiconductor light-emitting device configured to emit light at a first wavelength” (col 17 claim 4) and “a second semiconductor light-emitting device configured to emit light at a second wavelength” (col 17 claim 4) that is different than the first wavelength (the two LEDs have different wavelengths), and “wherein the light sensor is configured to measure the scattered light to detect spectral shifts in plasmon resonances of the nanostructures” (this is equated to the solid line graph, 0 nM concentration of mercury and that contain a certain mercury concentration, in Fig. 9A).
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 Ozcan to Aydogan to have the system of claim 19, wherein the semiconductor light-emitting devices include a first semiconductor light-emitting device configured to emit light at a first wavelength and a second semiconductor light-emitting device configured to emit light at a second wavelength that is different than the first wavelength, and wherein the light sensor is configured to measure the scattered light to detect spectral shifts in plasmon resonances of the nanostructures in order to detect the mercury levels within the water (see column 1 lines 33-34).
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
Prosecution Insights