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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/05/2026 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
Claim objections for 8-9 are withdrawn in response to the amendment. Claim rejections for 2-3 and 5-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in response to the amendment.
Currently, claim(s) 1-14 and 16-19 is/are pending, with claims 16-19 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: As to claim 1, the term “they” in ln. 7 should instead read “the laser beams”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 should 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0074760 A1 to Lida (hereinafter referred to as “IIDA”) in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0247866 to Plewa (hereinafter referred to as “PLEWA”).
As to claim 1, IIDA teaches to a method of forming a liquid flow in a surface region of a liquid (paragraph [0275] of IIDA teaches to an optical trapping by using light-induced force resulting from laser beams; paragraph [0012] of IIDA teaches that the light irradiation results in temperature difference and convection liquid, moving the plurality of particles over the convection; paragraph [0002] of IIDA teaches to a well-known optical tweezer/trapping technique), the method comprising irradiating, with laser beams, a specific surface region of the liquid (paragraph [0096], Fig. 1, of IIDA teaches to a holding region in a substrate, wherein the region is irradiated) which contains particles dispersed therein (paragraph [0287] of IIDA teaches to sample 135, wherein a liquid in which gold nanoparticles 5 is dispersed) having an average particle size based on length of 1 nm or larger and 100 nm or smaller (paragraph [0271] of IIDA teaches to a range from 2nm to 100 nm) such that a temperature of the specific surface region of the liquid is higher than a temperature of other surface region of the liquid around the specific surface region so as to form a temperature gradient between both of the surface regions of the liquid (paragraph [0096] of IIDA teaches to such that a temperature of the specific surface region of the liquid is higher than a temperature of other surface region of the liquid around the specific surface region so as to form a temperature gradient between both of the surface regions of the liquid, as Iida teaches to producing a temperature difference).
While IIDA teaches the method of optical tweezer as set forth above, IIDA fails to explicitly teach the method to comprise the laser beams travelling in parallel to each other when they contact the specific surface region of the liquid as claimed. However, PLEWA teaches to optical tweezers (see PLEWA at ¶0103), in which a uniform source of light 316 is directed at a trapping space 318 filled with a medium 320 (see PLEWA at Fig. 16E and ¶0199). Accordingly, PLEWA teaches that it was well known in the optical tweezer art to have used the laser beams travelling in parallel to each other at irradiating a liquid medium. The optical tweezer techniques can comprise of uniform sources of light, including lasers (see PLEWA at ¶0160), which are parallel to each other in irradiation. Because PLEWA teaches that such methods were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used optical tweezer technique of IIDA with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their perspective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.)
As to claim 2, IIDA in view of PLEWA teaches to a method of claim 1, wherein the specific surface region of the liquid which contains the dispersed particles is directly irradiated with the laser beams (Iida, paragraph [0286], Fig. 44, teaches to the specific region of the liquid which contains the dispersed particles is directly irradiated with the laser beams, without a thin film 12 on cover glass 11).
As to claim 3, IIDA in view of PLEWA teaches to a method of claim 1, wherein the specific surface region of the liquid which contains the dispersed particles is indirectly irradiated with the laser beams through a wall member of a container in which the liquid is charged (Iida, paragraph [0123], Fig. 2, teaches to the liquid being indirectly irradiated with laser beams through a wall member, or thin film 12, of a container, or substrate 10, in which the liquid is charged; Iida, Fig. 34, teaches the substrate 102, as a container for sample 13).
As to claim 5, IIDA in view of PLEWA teaches to a method of claim 1, wherein the particles are gold nanoparticles (Iida, paragraph [0287], teaches to sample 135, wherein a liquid in which gold nanoparticles 5 is dispersed).
As to claim 6, IIDA in view of PLEWA teaches to a method of claim 5, wherein a length based average diameter of the particles is 1 nm to 100 nm (Iida, paragraph [0271], teaches to a length based average diameter of the particles is 1 nm to 100 nm, as Iida teaches to a range from 2nm to 100 nm).
As to claim 12, IIDA in view of PLEWA teaches to a method for moving an object, the method comprising forming the liquid flow in the surface region of the liquid according to the method of claim 1 (Iida, paragraph [0251], Fig. 37, teaches to forming the liquid flow in the surface region of the liquid according to the method of claim 1, as Iida teaches to a micro flow path 14 formed in a surface of substrate 103), wherein while the object is floated on and/or inside of the surface region of the liquid (Iida, paragraph [0108], teaches to wherein while the object is floated on and/or inside of the surface region of the liquid, as Iida teaches that the term “dispersion” means floating of a microscopic object in a liquid), the surface region where the object is floated or a surface region in the vicinity of the former surface region is irradiated with the laser beams as the specific surface region, thereby forming the liquid flow, on which the object is moved (Iida, paragraph [0012], teaches to wherein the object is moved as a result of the irradiation step).
As to claim 13, IIDA in view of PLEWA teaches to a method of claim 12, wherein the object is afloat on the liquid (Iida, paragraph [0108], teaches to wherein while the object is floated on and/or inside of the surface region of the liquid, as Iida teaches that the term “dispersion” means floating of a microscopic object in a liquid).
As to claim 14, IIDA in view of PLEWA teaches to a method of claim 13, wherein the object is present inside of the surface region of the liquid (Iida, paragraph [0108], or Fig. 49, teaches to wherein the object is present inside of the surface region of the liquid, as Iida teaches that the term “dispersion” means floating of a microscopic object in a liquid).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IIDA in view of PLEWA, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kawata, Satoshi, and Tadao Sugiura. "Movement of micrometer-sized particles in the evanescent field of a laser beam." Optics letters 17.11 (1992): 772-774 (hereinafter, Kawata).
As to claim 4, IIDA in view of PLEWA does not explicitly teach wherein irradiation of the laser beams is performed such that the laser beams are totally reflected at a gas-liquid interface.
In an analogous art, Kawata teaches to a method of claim 3, wherein irradiation of the laser beams is performed such that the laser beams are totally reflected at a gas-liquid interface (Kawata, pg. 772, teaches irradiation of the laser beams performed such that the laser beams are totally reflected at a gas-liquid interface).
Both IIDA in view of PLEWA and Kawata relate to optical manipulation of nanoparticles (Shilkin, pg. 644). IIDA in view of PLEWA does not explicitly teach total reflection of laser beams for irradiating microscopic objects. Iida does teach irradiating microscopic objects floating in a liquid. Kawata teaches to total internal reflection of laser beams for moving particles in liquid, including micromanipulation of biological cells (Kawata, pg. 644).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the method of IIDA in view of PLEWA with the total reflection of Kawata for moving small particles, thereby improving the method for forming a liquid flow in a surface region of a liquid.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IIDA in view of PLEWA, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Huang, Xiaohua, et al. "Plasmonic photothermal therapy (PPTT) using gold nanoparticles." Lasers in medical science 23.3 (2008): 217-228 (hereinafter, Huang).
As to claim 7, IIDA in view of PLEWA does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid which contains the particles has a maximum absorption coefficient at a wavelength within a range of a wavelength of the laser beams used ± 40 nm.
In an analogous art, Huang teaches to a method of claim 6, wherein the liquid which contains the particles has a maximum absorption coefficient at a wavelength within a range of a wavelength of the laser beams used ± 40 nm (Huang, pg. 223, teaches to wherein the liquid which contains the particles has a maximum absorption coefficient at a wavelength within a range of a wavelength of the laser beams used ± 40 nm, as Huang teaches using a laser with a wavelength at 800 nm, overlapping with the SPR absorption wavelength maximum of gold nanorods at 800 nm).
Both IIDA in view of PLEWA and Huang relate to photothermal heating using lasers (Huang, pg. 218). IIDA in view of PLEWA does not explicitly teach using a laser at a visible wavelength. IIDA in view of PLEWA does teach to liquid which contains the particles of gold, which has varying particle sizes of 2 nm to 200 nm. Huang, pg. 218, teaches that gold nanospheres, nanorods, nanoshells, and nanocages are irradiated with lasers at visible or near-infrared wavelength for localized heating of gold nanoparticles utilizing surface plasmon resonance oscillations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the method of Iida with the gold nanoparticles of Huang for utilizing surface plasmon resonance oscillations upon irradiation in providing localized heating, thereby providing efficient method of forming a liquid flow in a surface region of a liquid.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IIDA in view of PLEWA, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Huang, as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Maksimova, Irina L., et al. "Near-infrared laser photothermal therapy of cancer by using gold nanoparticles: Computer simulations and experiment." Medical Laser Application 22.3 (2007): 199-206 (hereinafter, Maksimova).
As to claim 8, IIDA in view of PLEWA and Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid contains the particles in a content of 0.5x10-8 % by mass to 10.0x10-8 % by mass.
In an analogous art, Maksimova teaches to a method of claim 7, wherein the liquid contains the particles in a content of 0.5x10-8 % by mass to 10.0x10-8 by mass (Maksimova, Fig. 1, teaches to wherein the liquid contains the particles in a content of 4.04x10-8 % by mass, as Maksimova teaches to particle concentration of 5x109 ml-1 for gold nanoparticles).
Both IIDA in view of PLEWA and Huang and Maksimova relate to optical plasmon resonance caused by irradiation (Maksimova, pg. 200). IIDA in view of PLEWA and Huang does not explicitly teach a gold nanoparticle concentration in a mass percentage. IIDA in view of PLEWA and Huang does teach a gold nanoparticle concentration. In particular, Iida, paragraph [0131], teaches that ultrapure water is employed as a liquid. Iida, paragraph [0321], teaches to having 3.19x1011 counts per mL for the gold particles having a size of 2 nm. Assuming 1 mL of solution has a mass of approximately 1 g, the mass percent for bead is about 2.6x10-6 % by mass. However, with the particle concentration of 5x109 ml-1 of Maksimova, Maksimova, Fig. 1, teaches to wherein the liquid contains the particles in a content of 4.04x10-8 % by mass.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the method of IIDA in view of PLEWA and Huang with the gold particle concentration of Maksimova for permitting the radiation to penetrate more deeply, resulting in more effective method of forming a liquid flow in a surface region of a liquid.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IIDA in view of PLEWA, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Huang, as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Maksimova, as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Rahman, Sanim. "Size and concentration analysis of gold nanoparticles with ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy." Undergraduate Journal of Mathematical Modeling: One+ Two 7.1 (2016): 2 (hereinafter, Rahman).
As to claim 9, IIDA in view of PLEWA, Huang and Maksimova does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid which contains the particle has an absorption coefficient of 9.5x108 M-1cm-1 to 14x108 M-1cm-1.
In an analogous art, Rahman teaches to wherein the liquid which contains the particles has an absorption coefficient of 9.5x108 M-1cm-1 to 14x108 M-1cm-1 (Rahman, pg. 13, Appendix, teaches to wherein the liquid which contains the particles has an absorption coefficient of 9.5x108 M-1cm-1 to 14x108 M-1cm-1, as Rahman teaches to gold nanoparticles that have extinction coefficient of 9.21x108 M-1 cm-1 at a diameter of 20 nm and extinction coefficient of 3.36x109 M-1 cm-1 at a diameter of 30 nm; it is evident that for gold nanoparticles having sizes between 20 nm and 30 nm, one of ordinary skill in the art realizes that the corresponding absorption coefficient must be between 9.21x108 M-1 cm-1 and 3.36x109 M-1 cm-1, reading into the recited range of 9.5x108 M-1cm-1 to 14x108 M-1cm-1; Iida, paragraph [0271], teaches that a range of nanoparticle sizes may be from 2 nm to 500 nm).
Both IIDA in view of PLEWA, Huang and Maksimova and Rahman relate to gold nanoparticles (Rahman, Appendix). IIDA in view of PLEWA, Huang and Maksimova does not explicitly teach gold nanoparticles at a particular size, so as to render an absorption coefficient of a certain range. IIDA in view of PLEWA, Huang and Maksimova does teach using gold nanoparticles having sizes varying from 2 nm to 500 nm for irradiation floating in a flowing liquid. Rahman teaches to gold nanoparticles having different absorption coefficients at a given particle sizes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the method of IIDA in view of PLEWA, Huang and Maksimova in light of the absorption coefficient values of Rahman for efficiently heating gold nanoparticles of already disclosed sizes, thereby improving the method of forming a liquid flow in a surface region of a liquid.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IIDA in view of PLEWA, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kevin Marchitto of US 2003/0196885 A1 (hereinafter, Marchitto).
As to claim 10, IIDA in view of PLEWA does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid which contains the particles is contained in a microchip as a container.
In an analogous art, Marchitto teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the liquid which contains the particles is contained in a microchip as a container (Marchitto, paragraphs [0035] - [0036], teaches to liquid which contains the particles is contained in a microchip as a container, as Marchitto teaches to pumping fluids by pulsed laser, such that fluids in a microchip arrays may flow).
Both IIDA in view of PLEWA and Marchitto relate to using non-ionizing energy, e.g., the infrared radiant energy for moving fluids (Marchitto, paragraph [0033]). IIDA in view of PLEWA does not explicitly teach that the liquid is not contained in a microchip as a container. Iida, paragraph [0243], Fig. 34, does teach substrate 102 as a container for holding a liquid representing sample 13. Marchitto teaches to a microchip, wherein the microchip functions as a container for holding a liquid sample.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the method of IIDA in view of PLEWA with the microchip of Marchitto for providing a space for enabling liquid flow as a result of irradiation.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IIDA in view of PLEWA, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Marchitto, as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Wang, Mark M., et al. "Integration of optoelectronic array devices for cell transport and sorting." Optical Diagnostics of Living Cells IV. Vol. 4260. SPIE, 2001 (hereinafter, Wang).
As to claim 11, IIDA in view of PLEWA and Marchitto does not explicitly teach wherein the microchip is a biochip, a tissue chip or an in vitro human model.
In an analogous art, Wang teaches to wherein the microchip is a biochip, a tissue chip or an in vitro human model (Wang, Fig. 1, pg. 69, teaches using optical tweezer array for liquids containing cells or other biological samples on a biochip).
Both IIDA in view of PLEWA and Marchitto and Wang relate to optical tweezers (Wang, pg. 68), using focused laser beams to trap, hold, and/or manipulate microscopic objects like cells, bacteria, or nanoparticles, IIDA in view of PLEWA and Marchitto does not explicitly teach wherein the microchip is a biochip, a tissue chip or an in vitro human model. IIDA in view of PLEWA and Marchitto does teach using optical tweezer applications for biological samples (Iida, paragraph [0328], Figs. 57-59). IIDA in view of PLEWA and Marchitto does teach using a microchip arrays as a substrate for holding liquid samples (Marchitto, paragraph [0036]). Wang teaches that optical tweezer arrays as a biochip can be provided by using VCSEL arrays (Wang, pg. 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the method of IIDA in view of PLEWA and Marchitto with the biochip of Wang for providing arrays for liquid samples containing biological samples, thereby allowing high throughput measurement and detection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5 of 7, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 US Pub. No. 2017/0074760 A1 to Lida (hereinafter referred to as “IIDA”) in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0247866 to Plewa (hereinafter referred to as “PLEWA”). Please refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights