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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are withdrawn. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “wherein the polyelectrolyte multilayer film coats only the bottom surface of the m wells” (emphasis added) in line 3. While the specification describes the bottom surface of at least one well is coated (page 2, line, last paragraph; page 12, fourth paragraph; page 15, lines 2-3), the disclosure fails to describe the polyelectrolyte multilayer film coats only the bottom surface of the m wells. Note that any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure and that the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion (see MPEP 2173.05(I)). Thus, the claim was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 9-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubner et al. (US 20050191430 A1; cited in the IDS filed 10/15/2021) in view of Tian et al. (US 20180141263 A1; effectively filed 04/24/2015) and Clements et al. (US 20020022219 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Rubner teaches a multiwell plate comprising wells (paragraph [0083], “cell plates”; paragraph [0019], “multiwell plates”; wherein cell plates and multiwell plates comprise wells), wherein a bottom surface of m wells is coated by a polyelectrolyte multilayer film (paragraph [0008] teaches coating a surface with layers of polyelectrolytes; paragraphs [0118]-[0119] teaches polyelectrolyte multilayer thin films were deposited on multiwell plates, which is interpreted as at least the bottom surface of at least one well of the multiwell plate being coated by a polyelectrolyte multilayer thin film),
wherein m is an integer from 2 to the number of wells of the multiwell plate (paragraph [0119] teaches “multiwell plate”, which includes at least 2 wells, thus m is interpreted as at least 2),
the polyelectrolyte multilayer film comprising n layer pairs (paragraph [0008], “alternating layers”, i.e. layer pairs; paragraph [0119] teaches “number of layers was assembled”), n is an integer from 1 to 2000 (paragraph [0008] teaches alternating layers of polymers, thus at least 1 pair is present, i.e. n =1) and each layer pair comprising a layer of a first polyelectrolyte PE1 (paragraph [0008] teaches a first polymer is a cationic polyelectrolytes; paragraph [0119], “PAH”) and a layer of a second polyelectrolyte PE2 of opposite charge (paragraph [0008] teaches a second polymer is an anionic polyelectrolytes; paragraph [0119], “PAA, PMA, or SPS”),
wherein the first polyelectrolyte PE1 is either a cationic polymer comprising amino groups (paragraph [0008] teaches a first polymer is a cationic polyelectrolytes; paragraph [0119], “PAH”), or an anionic polymer (interpreted as not required due to the “or” statement),
wherein the second polyelectrolyte PE2 is a cationic polymer comprising amino groups when PE1 is an anionic polymer (interpreted as not required due to the “or” statement), or PE2 is an anionic polymer when PE1 is a cationic polymer comprising amino groups (paragraph [0008] teaches a second polymer is an anionic polyelectrolytes; paragraph [0119], “PAA, PMA, or SPS”).
Rubner fails to explicitly teach: wherein the polyelectrolyte multilayer film coats only the bottom surface of the m wells; and wherein the polyelectrolyte multilayer film has a coefficient of variation CV of its mean thickness less than or equal to 20.3%, and wherein CV =(SD/hMEAN)x100, SD being the standard deviation (see equation in claim 1), hN, hW, hC, hE and hS are respectively, film thicknesses determined at the positions North, West, Center, East, South inside each well as shown in figure 3.
Rubner teaches films exhibit homogenous, well-mixed surfaces (paragraph [0092]) and layer thicknesses do not vary by more than 10% (paragraph [0094], table 2).
Tian teaches microplates (abstract). Tian teaches microplates are be formed so that the shape/geometry of each well is substantially the same and/or the batch to batch variation less between microplates; variation between wells within a plate or among different batches of plates may be minimized (i.e., wall thickness between wells of the same microplate and wells of different batches of microplates exhibit high homogeneity); for example, the CV value between wells of the same microplate and between batches of microplates may range from about 3% to about 5% (paragraph [0027]). Tian teaches a uniform thickness ensures that wells have a consistent wall thickness, and the CV value can be between about 3% to about 5%, however in some instances, it can be about 3% or less (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyelectrolyte multilayer film of Rubner to incorporate the Rubner’s teachings of films exhibiting homogenous, well-mixed surfaces (paragraph [0092]) and layer thicknesses do not vary by more than 10% (paragraph [0094], table 2) and Tian’s teachings of minimizing variation between wells within a plate or among batches of plates, for example the CV value between wells being 5% or less (paragraphs [0027],[0030]) and uniform thickness of wells (paragraph [0030]) to provide: wherein the polyelectrolyte multilayer film has a coefficient of variation CV of its mean thickness less than or equal to 20.3%, and wherein CV =(SD/hMEAN)x100, SD being the standard deviation (see equation in claim 1), hN, hW, hC, hE and hS are respectively, film thicknesses determined at the positions North, West, Center, East, South inside each well as shown in figure 3. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully minimizing variation of the polyelectrolyte multilayer film of the wells and providing a uniform thickness of the film (Rubner, paragraphs [0092],[0094]; Tian, paragraphs [0027],[0030]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the polyelectrolyte multilayer film of Rubner to incorporate the Rubner’s teachings of films exhibiting homogenous, well-mixed surfaces (paragraph [0092]) and layer thicknesses do not vary by more than 10% (paragraph [0094], table 2) and Tian’s teachings of minimizing variation between wells within a plate or among batches of plates, for example the CV value between wells being 5% or less (paragraphs [0027],[0030]) and uniform thickness of wells (paragraph [0030]) to provide: wherein the polyelectrolyte multilayer film has a coefficient of variation CV of its mean thickness less than or equal to 20.3%, and wherein CV =(SD/hMEAN)x100, SD being the standard deviation (see equation in claim 1), hN, hW, hC, hE and hS are respectively, film thicknesses determined at the positions North, West, Center, East, South inside each well as shown in figure 3 through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05(II)). Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully minimizing variation of the polyelectrolyte multilayer film of the wells and providing a uniform thickness of the film (Rubner, paragraphs [0092],[0094]; Tian, paragraphs [0027],[0030]). I.e., It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed CV of its mean thickness less than or equal to 20.3% because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a uniform thickness of the film to minimize variation as discussed by Tian (paragraphs [0027],[0030]) and also to provide less than 10% thickness variation of the film of Rubner (paragraph [0092]). Doing so would optimize the thickness of the film to ensure minimal variation of the thickness, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a CV of at least less than 10% (Rubner, paragraph [0094], table 2), or even less than 5% (Tian, paragraph [0027],[0030]).
Modified Rubner fails to explicitly teach: wherein the polyelectrolyte multilayer film coats only the bottom surface of the m wells.
Clements teaches a method of manufacture and assembly of multiwell plates (abstract). Clements teaches well bottoms with coatings, which can include cell culture components that facilitate growth or adhesion (paragraph [0050]). Clements teaches only the well bottoms are coated and not the well walls; which can have important advantages in many assay systems where biomolecular attachment to well walls can cause problems with assay results; and wherein when cells attach to the side walls of the well, they often will later retract and settle onto the well bottom, killing the cells of interest attached there; and in a plate having wells with non-functionalized side walls and functionalized bottoms, one can be sure that the desired assay activity occurs on the well bottom (paragraph [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyelectrolyte multilayer film of modified Rubner to incorporate the teachings of multiwell plates where only the well bottoms are coated (paragraph [0073]) to provide: wherein the polyelectrolyte multilayer film coats only the bottom surface of the m wells. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully ensuring desired activity occurring at the bottom of the wells, reducing biomolecular attachment to the side walls of the well that can cause problems with assay results, and preventing undesired killing of cells of interest in the well (Clements, paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 9, Rubner further teaches wherein the anionic polymer is selected from the group consisting of poly(acrylic) acid, poly(methacrylic) acid, poly(glutamic) acid, polyuronic acid, glycosaminoglycans, poly(aspartic acid) and Polystyrene sulfonate, any combination of polyamino-acids in D and/or L forms, and mixtures thereof (paragraph [0119], “PAA, PMA, or SPS”, i.e. poly(acrylic) acid, poly(methacrylic) acid, Polystyrene sulfonate; paragraph [0079] teaches glycosaminoglycans, poly(glutamic) acid, poly(aspartic acid)).
Regarding claim 10, Rubner further teaches wherein the cationic polymer comprising amino group is selected from the group consisting of poly(lysine), poly(diallydimethylammonium chloride), poly(allylamine), poly(ethylene)imine, chitosan, polyarginine, Poly(ornithine), polyhistidine, poly(mannosamine), polyallylamine hydrochloride, any combination of polyamino acids in D and/or L forms, and mixtures thereof (paragraph [0119], “PAH”, i.e. polyallylamine hydrochloride; paragraph [0079] teaches poly(ethylene)imine, chitosan, poly(lysine); paragraph [0086] teaches poly(diallydimethylammonium chloride).
Regarding claim 11, Rubner further teaches wherein the polyelectrolyte multilayer film is a poIy(L-lysine)/hyaluronan sodium film, a polystyrene sulfonate/polyallylamine hydrochloride film, a poIy(L-lysine)/poly(L-glutamic acid) film or a chitosan/poly(L-glutamic acid) film (paragraph [0119] teaches layers of PAH and PAA, PMA or SPS, i.e. polystyrene sulfonate/polyallylamine hydrochloride film; paragraph [0087], “SPS/PAH multilayer”).
Regarding claim 13, Rubner further teaches wherein the anionic polymer (paragraph [0119], “PAA, PMA, or SPS”) comprises carboxylic groups (paragraph [0101] teaches PAA is rich in carboxylic acids; paragraph [0103] teaches PMA and PAA has carboxylic acid groups), and the polyelectrolyte multilayer film is cross-linked via amide bonds or derivatives thereof formed from the carboxylic groups and the amino groups of the polyelectrolyte multilayer film (paragraph [0092] teaches PAH and PAA are fully-charged molecules that form layers due to high ionic crosslink density; paragraph [0103] teaches PAH/PMA films exhibit dense ionic crosslinking; paragraph [0105] teaches PAH/SPS produces highly ionically crosslinked multilayers; paragraph [0121] teaches crosslinking of the layers; therefore, the fully-charged oppositely charged molecules, e.g. PAA and PAH, are crosslinked via their carboxylic group and amino group, i.e. ionic crosslinking).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubner in view of Tian and Clements as applied to claims 8 and 13 above.
Regarding claim 12, Rubner further teaches the multiwell plate according to claim 8, further comprising a layer of a third polyelectrolyte PE3 deposited on the top of the polyelectrolyte multilayer film (paragraph [0119] teaches the substrate was immersed in PAH, and then PAA, PMA or SPS, and then the procedure is repeated until the desired number of layers was assembled, thus at least three total layers are present; i.e. PAH is the third polyelectrolyte added on top of the PAA, PMA, or SPS during the first repeated procedure), and the third polyelectrolyte PE3 is a cationic polymer comprising amino groups when the second polyelectrolyte PE2 is an anionic polymer (paragraph [0008] teaches a first polymer is a cationic polyelectrolytes; paragraph [0119], “PAH”), or the third polyelectrolyte PE3 is an anionic polymer when the second polyelectrolyte PE2 is a cationic polymer comprising amino groups (interpreted as not required due to the “or” statement).
Modified Rubner fails to teach: wherein the third polyelectrolyte PE3 is linked to at least a peptide.
Rubner teaches the capability to present on bio-inert multilayers a variety of cell-adhesive biomolecules, e.g., fibronectin or the RGD (arginine-glycine-aspartic acid) amino acid sequence, i.e. peptide, via several different approaches should also expand the versatility of polyelectrolyte multilayers for bio-interface material (paragraph [0043]). Rubner teaches it should be quite facile to chemically modify the functional of PAA, PMA, or PAH to tether specific cell-adhesion proteins, such as RGD to enable controlled binding of cells (paragraph [0043]). Rubner teaches micropatterning of cell-adhesive and -resistant features on a surface should provide opportunities for making cellular networks and arrays as well as biosensors and multilayers could then easily be created to fabricate conformal coatings with highly tailored structural features as well as predictable, favorable interactions with living cells. (paragraph [0043]). Rubner teaches chemical groups of the multilayers possess a rich density of reactivity sites for further biochemical ligand modification, such as for tethering of RGD or other peptide sequences in order to selectively attract cells (paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third polyelectrolyte PE3 of modified Rubner to incorporate the teachings of tethering RGD or other peptide sequences to the polyelectrolyte multilayers of Rubner (paragraphs [0043],[0057]) to provide wherein the third polyelectrolyte PE3 is linked to at least a peptide. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving controlled binding of cells and improving tailoring of the multiwell plate as taught by Rubner (paragraphs [0043],[0057]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Rubner fails to teach wherein a protein is incorporated on and inside the cross-linked polyelectrolyte multilayer film.
Rubner teaches coupling cell-binding proteins to a PEO-rich surface is a popular way in which to prepare hybrid coatings with cell-resistant and cell-adherent domain (paragraph [0005]). Rubner teaches the capability to present on bio-inert multilayers a variety of cell-adhesive biomolecules, e.g., fibronectin or the RGD (arginine-glycine-aspartic acid) amino acid sequence via several different approaches should also expand the versatility of polyelectrolyte multilayers for bio-interface material (paragraph [0043]). Rubner teaches it should be quite facile to chemically modify the functional of PAA, PMA, or PAH to tether specific cell-adhesion proteins to enable controlled binding of cells (paragraph [0043]). Rubner teaches PAH/PAA multilayers absorbing proteins (paragraph [0101] teaches multilayers absorbing lysosomes, i.e. protein incorporated inside the multilayer film). Rubner teaches performing in vitro cell studies to test multilayers ability to adhere to proteins (paragraph [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cross-linked polyelectrolyte multilayer film of modified Rubner to incorporate the teachings of coupling cell-binding proteins to a surface and testing for adsorption of proteins of Rubner (paragraphs [0005],[0043],[0101]) to provide wherein a protein is incorporated on and inside the cross-linked polyelectrolyte multilayer film. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving controlled binding of cells and improving tailoring of the multiwell plate as taught by Rubner (paragraphs [0043]). Furthermore, doing so would improve the ability to analyze the ability of the multilayer film to adsorb proteins as taught by Rubner (paragraph [0101]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103, specifically in the view of the amended claim 8, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rubner et al. (US 20050191430 A1; cited in the IDS filed 10/15/2021) in view of Tian et al. (US 20180141263 A1; effectively filed 04/24/2015) and Clements et al. (US 20020022219 A1).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the combination of Rubner and Tian, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references of Rubner and Tian, since Tian’s CV relates to well wall thickness across different plates rather than a coated layer within a single well (Remarks, page 9), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Rubner provides teachings and motivation of: films exhibit homogenous, well-mixed surfaces (paragraph [0092]) and layer thicknesses do not vary by more than 10% (paragraph [0094], table 2). Tian provides teachings, suggestions, and motivation of: minimizing variation between wells within a plate or among batches of plates, for example the CV value between wells being 5% or less (paragraphs [0027],[0030]); and a uniform thickness ensures that wells have a consistent wall thickness, and the CV value can be between about 3% to about 5%, however in some instances, it can be about 3% or less (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the polyelectrolyte multilayer film of Rubner to incorporate the Rubner’s teachings of films exhibiting homogenous, well-mixed surfaces (paragraph [0092]) and layer thicknesses do not vary by more than 10% (paragraph [0094], table 2) and Tian’s teachings of minimizing variation between wells within a plate or among batches of plates, for example the CV value between wells being 5% or less (paragraphs [0027],[0030]) and uniform thickness of wells (paragraph [0030]) to provide: wherein the polyelectrolyte multilayer film has a coefficient of variation CV of its mean thickness less than or equal to 20.3%, and wherein CV =(SD/hMEAN)x100, SD being the standard deviation (see equation in claim 1), hN, hW, hC, hE and hS are respectively, film thicknesses determined at the positions North, West, Center, East, South inside each well as shown in figure 3. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully minimizing variation of the polyelectrolyte multilayer film of the wells and providing a uniform thickness of the film (Rubner, paragraphs [0092],[0094]; Tian, paragraphs [0027],[0030]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the polyelectrolyte multilayer film of Rubner to incorporate the Rubner’s teachings of films exhibiting homogenous, well-mixed surfaces (paragraph [0092]) and layer thicknesses do not vary by more than 10% (paragraph [0094], table 2) and Tian’s teachings of minimizing variation between wells within a plate or among batches of plates, for example the CV value between wells being 5% or less (paragraphs [0027],[0030]) and uniform thickness of wells (paragraph [0030]) to provide: wherein the polyelectrolyte multilayer film has a coefficient of variation CV of its mean thickness less than or equal to 20.3%, and wherein CV =(SD/hMEAN)x100, SD being the standard deviation (see equation in claim 1), hN, hW, hC, hE and hS are respectively, film thicknesses determined at the positions North, West, Center, East, South inside each well as shown in figure 3 through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05(II)). Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully minimizing variation of the polyelectrolyte multilayer film of the wells and providing a uniform thickness of the film (Rubner, paragraphs [0092],[0094]; Tian, paragraphs [0027],[0030]). I.e., It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed CV of its mean thickness less than or equal to 20.3% because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a uniform thickness of the film to minimize variation as discussed by Tian (paragraphs [0027],[0030]) and also to provide less than 10% thickness variation of the film of Rubner (paragraph [0092]). Doing so would optimize the thickness of the film to ensure minimal variation of the thickness, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a CV of at least less than 10% (Rubner, paragraph [0094], table 2), or even less than 5% (Tian, paragraph [0027],[0030]).
Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the polyelectrolyte multilayer film to have arrived at the claimed coefficient of variation CV of its mean thickness to provide a uniform thickness of the film to minimize variation within and among the wells.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “aspirating a volume higher than or equal to the volume of solution which was deposited so as to realize a film having high spatial homogeneity…”, Remarks, page 9) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lea et al. (US 20080131600 A1) teaches a method for preparing a substrate coated support for use in micro-array devices, wherein the method produces a substrate coated membrane in which the thickness is uniform across the entire coated surface (abstract). Lea teaches known issues in the art of uneven film thicknesses across a surface (paragraphs [0006]-[0008]). Lea teaches spot density plots, confirm the substrate coating planarity, essentially a linearly changing thickness measure, i.e. an even coating thickness (paragraph [0051]). Lea teaches that the variance in signal response at different locations on the surface of the support will be very low, surface responses measuring up to 25% variance and coating planarity measures of up to 25% variance would be acceptable (paragraph [0041]).
Otani et al. (US 20160115435 A1) teaches a cell culture vessel comprising a copolymer coated onto a surface (abstract). Otani teaches the vessel may be a microplate, microwell plate, multiplate, and multiwell plate (paragraph [0041]). Otani when the vessel is a round bottom multi-well plate, only the recessed portion of the well may be coated, or the whole plate may be coated (paragraph [0096]).
Shen et al. (US 20170184580 A1; effectively filed 06/14/2013) teaches only the bottom surface of the waveguide or well is coated with the compound (paragraph [0091]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758