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 24-27, 29-30 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 24 recites the limitation "further comprising optics which focus the source laser to a linear focus" in lines 1-2. It is not clear whether these further optics are the same as the optics defined in claim 21, line 5, or if these are additional optics. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claims 25-27 and 29-30 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 24.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the optics are configured…." in lines 1-2. It is not clear whether the optics being referred to the optics defined in claim 21, line 5, or the optics defined in claim 21, line 8. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
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 21-23, 28-29, 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0224263 ("Suryanaraya") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0003547 ("Meller").
Regarding claim 21, Suryanaraya discloses a Raman chip reader (Fig. 11B) for sampling a chip (102, Fig. 11B) comprising an enhancement structure (paragraphs [0110]-[0111]), the chip reader comprising:
a source laser (162, Fig. 11B, paragraph [0109]);
optics (164, Fig. 11B) for collection of light (paragraph [0110]) scattered from the chip (120, Fig. 11B);
a spectrometer (166, Fig. 11B);
an optical detector (168, Fig. 11B) for receiving the output of the spectrometer (166, Fig. 11B, paragraph [0111]); and
a computer (170, Fig. 11B) for recording and analyzing the resulting spectra (paragraph [0113]).
Suryanaraya does not explicitly disclose a precision stage, optics to focus a beam from the source laser, a dichroic beam splitter, nor a long pass filter.
However, Meller discloses a precision stage (PZT stage, Fig. 2A) for receiving the chip (paragraph [0128]), optics (telescope, objective, Fig. 2A, paragraph [0128]) to focus a beam from the source laser (Fig. 2A, paragraph [0128]), a dichroic beam splitter (DM, Fig. 2A), and a long pass filter (LP, Fig. 2A, paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include disclose a precision stage , optics to focus a beam from the source laser, a dichroic beam splitter, and a long pass filter, as disclosed by Meller in the device of Suryanaraya in order to accurately measure the spectra.
Regarding claim 22, Suryanaraya in view of Meller discloses the chip reader of claim 21, and Meller further discloses that the precision stage (PZT stage, Fig. 2A) comprises one or more nanopositioners (paragraph [0130]) to align a focus of the source laser over the enhancement structure (paragraph [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include nanopositoners as disclosed by Meller in the device of Suryanaraya in order to ensure optimal alignment and the best possible performance.
Regarding claim 23, Suryanaraya in view of Meller discloses chip reader of claim 22, and Meller further comprises that the one or more nanopositioners are configured to provide a resolution of approximately 10 nm (paragraph [0130]: “a finer alignment was performed by moving the x, y and z coordinates with a step size of 10 nm using the piezo controller”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a resolution of 10 nm as disclosed by Meller in the device of Suryanaraya in order to ensure optimal alignment and the best possible performance.
Regarding claim 28, Suryanaraya in view of Meller discloses chip reader of claim 21, and Suryanaraya discloses that the largest field enhancement of the enhancement structure is dependent of the polarization of the incident light (paragraph [0106]), but does not explicitly disclose that the polarization of the source laser radiation at the focal region is selected to optimize the Raman scattering from the long-chain polymer interacting with the enhancement structure.
However, Lee discloses polarized laser light focused on the nanostructures (paragraph [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use polarized source laser radiation as disclosed by Lee in order to ensure the largest field enhancement.
Regarding claim 29, Suryanaraya in view of Meller and Lee discloses chip reader of claim 28, but does not disclose that the cross section of each of the one or more enhancement structures is elliptical and the polarization of the source laser radiation at the enhancement structure is along the long axis of the elliptical cross section.
However, the specific polarization, whether it is circularly polarized as disclosed by Lee, or a different one, is a design choice. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a specific polarized source laser radiation as disclosed by Lee and Suryanaraya in order to ensure the largest field enhancement.
Regarding claim 31, Suryanaraya in view of Meller discloses chip reader of claim 21, and Suryanaraya further discloses a processing computer (170, Fig. 11B) connected to the spectrometer (166/168, Fig. 11B), the processing computer (170, Fig. 11B) comprising a processor, a computer controller, and a memory (paragraphs [0107], [0113], inherent components in a processing computer).
Regarding claim 32, Suryanaraya in view of Meller discloses chip reader of claim 31, and Suryanaraya further discloses a computer-readable medium (paragraph [0113]) containing instructions that (implied by Suryanaraya), when executed by the processor, cause the computer controller to: (3) collect Raman radiation (paragraphs [0110]); (4) optionally interpret Raman spectra (paragraph [0111], [0113]); and (5) store spectra or spectral interpretations in memory (paragraph [0113]). Meller discloses: (1) position the chip (paragraph [0128]); (2) focus the source laser (paragraph [0128], [0130]).
Claims 24-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanaraya in view of Meller further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0213369 ("Lee").
Regarding claim 24, Suryanaraya in view of Meller discloses chip reader of claim 21, and Suryanaraya further discloses optics (164, Fig. 11B), but does not disclose that the optics focus the source laser to a linear focus that encompasses an enhancement structure on the chip.
However, Lee discloses optics (implied, paragraphs [0024], [0132], given the ability to do laser spot or line) which focus the source laser to a linear focus (paragraphs [0024], [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a focused laser line as disclosed by Lee in the device of Suryanaraya in view of Meller in order to simultaneously illuminate parallel channels.
Regarding claim 25, Suryanaraya in view of Meller and Lee discloses chip reader of claim 24, but does not disclose that the linear focus has a width less than or equal to about the wavelength of the source laser.
However, the specific linear focus width is a design choice. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a specific width in order to probe a specific region and ensure the Raman signal comes only from that specific region, or improve the spatial resolution of the Raman image.
Regarding claim 26, Suryanaraya in view of Meller and Lee discloses chip reader of claim 24, and Suryanaraya further discloses a row of enhancement structures embedded in parallel nanochannels (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0071], [0176]). Lee further discloses the focus extends along a row of parallel channels (Fig. 10D, paragraphs [0024], [0132]).
Regarding claim 27, Suryanaraya in view of Meller and Lee discloses chip reader of claim 24, but does not disclose that the focal line extends along a row of enhancement structures embedded along a single nanochannel.
However, the specific focal line extension along a single nanochannel or across multiple nanochannels is a design choice. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a specific direction for the focal line extension in order to probe a specific nanochannel and ensure the Raman signal comes only from that specific nanochannel.
Regarding claim 30, Suryanaraya in view of Meller and Lee discloses chip reader of claim 24, and Suryanaraya further discloses that the optics (164, Fig. 11B) are configured to align individual line images into an entrance slit of the spectrometer (paragraph [0110]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights