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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Amendment filed on 02/20/2026; and IDS filed on 11/05/2025.
Claim 2 has been amend.
Claims 16-19 have been added.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-19 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10-15 have been previously withdrawn from consideration.
Note, rejections and objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FALDE et al (Superhydrophobic Materials for Biomedical Applications. Biomaterials. 2016 October; 104: 87–103) in view of ZHOU et al (Fluoroalkyl Silane Modified Silicone Rubber/Nanoparticle Composite: A Super Durable, Robust Superhydrophobic Fabric Coating. Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 2409–2412.
Regarding claim 1, FALDE teaches “superhydrophobic surfaces are actively studied across a wide range of applications and industries, and are now finding increased use in the biomedical arena as substrates to control protein adsorption, cellular interaction, and bacterial growth, as well as platforms for drug delivery devices and for diagnostic tools” (see abstract), wherein the devices would include “nanoparticle/microparticle designs for prolonged systemic circulation” (see pg. 6, 1st paragraph), wherein nanoparticle would read on particle and systemic circulation would read on a medium; and superhydrophobic coatings (see pg. 20, 2nd line and throughout the whole reference), such as perfluorocarbons (see pg. 10), which reads of coated with perfluorocarbon. Biomedical applications, defined as those where the superhydrophobic surface interacts with tissues, cells, biological fluid, and/or biological molecules (see pg. 2).
FALDE further teaches “The prevention of protein adsorption is a major focus is being investigated. In general, superhydrophobic surfaces possessing higher apparent contact angles prevent protein adsorption over longer time periods than those with lower contact angles. Several groups report selective protein adsorption based on the curvature of a structure alone, suggesting that any material may possess an anti-fouling feature. However, as these surfaces exhibit a large surface area, once wetted, the total protein adsorption is significantly greater than for the corresponding smooth, flat surfaces. Stimuli-responsive systems that refresh and clean a surface will likely extend the useful lifetime of these materials.
For many in vitro and in vivo applications, cellular attachment to a substrate is a prerequisite. The presence of entrapped air limits cells from interacting with the material surface. The roughness and curvature present on the superhydrophobic surface affect cell spreading and proliferation, with materials possessing greater contact angles reducing both cellular activities. Superhydrophobic-superhydrophilic patterned surfaces allow the precise seeding of different cell types in closely adjacent arrays, allowing co-culture of cells for use in diagnostics, cell signaling studies, and tissue engineering over a few days.
Similarly, bacterial adsorption and growth can be inhibited for over three days by reducing the wetted area available for bacterial adsorption. Antibacterial agents can be incorporated and released over time, either as a bolus or by slow elution during material wetting as in the drug delivery applications. Furthermore, there are examples showing that the rough morphology of a surface can itself inhibit the growth of Gram-negative bacteria through a biophysical effect. Since the reduction in bacterial adhesion and growth in the first hours and days can significantly reduce overall infection rates, this is one of the most promising applications of superhydrophobic materials.” (see pg. 21, under Conclusion).
FALDE does not teach using a superhydrophobic coating, such as perfluorocarbon solid layer and perfluorocarbon liquid layer.
ZHOU, which is the same reference used by Applicant to make the coating of perfluorocarbon solid layer and perfluorocarbon liquid layer perfluorocarbons (see Applicant’s specification at [0055]), teaches the prior art had known of superhydrophobic coating (see title and pg. 2409), wherein the nanoparticle is fluorinated alkyl silane (FAS) functionalized nanoparticle (see pg. 2409, 2nd col) and dispersed into PDMS/THF solution also containing FAS to form a coating solution (see pg. 2409, 2nd col). Additional disclosures include: superhydrophobic surfaces with a water contact greater than 150° have attracted tremendous attention over the last decade in both academic and industrial area. They show anti-sticking, which reads on avoid adhesion or slippery, and water repellency, wherein emerging applications include controlling cell-substrate adhesion, reducing fluid resistance and avoiding fluid drag in microfluidic devices (see pg. 2409, 1st col).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate a superhydrophobic coating, such as perfluorocarbon solid layer and perfluorocarbon liquid layer, as taught by ZHOU, on medical devices, such as magnetic particles. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications and reasonably would have expected success because these coatings are functional equivalents of superhydrophobic coating.
Regarding claim 4, the references do not specifically teach the thickness of the layers/coatings as claimed by Applicant. The thickness of a layer/coating in a composition is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably would expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal layer/coating thickness in order to best achieve the desired results, such as anti-sticking, which reads on avoid adhesion or slippery, water repellency, wherein emerging applications include controlling cell-substrate adhesion, reducing fluid resistance and avoiding fluid drag. Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, this optimization of layer/coating thickness would have been obvious at the time of Applicant's invention.
Regarding claim 8-9, FALDE teaches the nanoparticles could be copper nanoparticles (see pg. 14, last paragraph) and Cr/Au nanorods (see pg. 17), which reads on the particle has a magnetic moment, regarding to Applicant’s claim 8-9.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 8-9, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FALDE et al (Superhydrophobic Materials for Biomedical Applications. Biomaterials. 2016 October; 104: 87–103) in view of ZHOU et al (Fluoroalkyl Silane Modified Silicone Rubber/Nanoparticle Composite: A Super Durable, Robust Superhydrophobic Fabric Coating. Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 2409–2412 and FISHCER et al (US 2011/0270434) and SCHMAEL et al (Nanopropellers and Their Actuation in Complex Viscoelastic Media. ACS Nano 8, 2014, pg. 8794-8801).
As discussed above, the references teach Applicant’s invention.
Regarding claims 16-19, the references do not teach that the particle is a propeller; or the medium is a porous viscoelastic medium; or the particle is larger than the average pore size of the medium.
Regarding claims 18-19, FISCHER teaches magnetically actuated propellers (“MAPs”; see abstract), which are optimized for low Reynolds number propulsion and can be moved in fluids and biological tissues. Additional disclosures include: magnetic properties (see [0016]; helical structure (see [0016]); the MAPs can be functionalized and suitable molecules can be bound on their surfaces to carry a function including rheological function in complex fluids (see [0039]). The MAPs could be conjugated to certain chemicals, including but not limited to DNA, drug- or therapeutic-molecules or particles and subsequently used for delivering said chemicals, in a suitable environment, such as but not limited to specific tissue, organs, cells, or cell cultures etc. One or many conjugated MAPs are propelled in a tissue or an organ to deliver certain chemicals, particles, and/or materials, e.g. drug molecules in a specific region of a body, e.g. a particular tissue and/or organ and/or membrane (see [0069]). The propellers may also be magnetically actuated to probe the mechanical and/or viscoelastic and/or rheological properties of the surrounding medium (see [0067]). The medium of interest which includes but is not limited to a solution, fluid, or tissue it is located in (see [0027]).
Regarding claims 16-19, SCHAMEL teaches tissue and biological fluids are complex viscoelastic media with a nanoporous macromolecular structure (see abstract), wherein SHAMEL demonstrate that helical nanopropellers can be controllably steered through such a biological gel (see abstract). Small and larger micropropellers, wherein the small nanopropellers have the same size range as the gel’s mesh/pore size (see abstract), which means the larger micropropellers are larger than the average mesh/pore size of the medium.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate coating the magnetically actuated propellers (MAP) with ZHOU’s superhydrophobic coating in a porous viscoelastic medium, where the propeller size is larger than the pore size of the medium. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications, because the superhydrophobic coating would reduce sticking, adhesion and reducing fluid resistance in the smaller porous viscoelastic medium, and reasonably would have expected success because ZHOU teaches the prior art had use superhydrophobic coating for reducing fluid resistance and avoiding fluid drag in microfluidic devices.
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.
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKE MINH VU whose telephone number is (571)272-8148. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at (571) 272-0616. 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.
/JAKE M VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1618
Prosecution Insights