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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 2 are pending in this application and were examined on their merits.
The rejection of Claims 1-3 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applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, has been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 01/20/2026.
The rejection of Claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Uesugi et al. (07/19/2019) in view of Nippon Tungsten (2019), cited in the IDS,
translation, has been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 01/20/2026.
The rejection of Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Uesugi et al. (07/19/2019) in view of Nippon Tungsten (2019), cited in the IDS,
translation, and further in view of Suetsugu et al. (JP2004-275202A), translation, has been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 01/20/2026.
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 1-2 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 1 now recites, “a density of each one of the walls is equal to or greater than 99%”.
It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are as the percentage is meaningless without units (relative density/specific gravity is commonly expressed in units of g/cm2) or an indication of what the percentage is a correlated with (for example compared to a standard, the density of a component thereof or density of a composite). Claim 2 is rejected as being dependent upon rejected Claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Uesugi et al. (07/19/2019), of record, in view of Nippon Tungsten (2019), cited in the IDS, translation, as evidenced by Masumoto et al. (2017).
Uesugi et al. teaches a component (MVC or micro vacuum chuck, Pg. 3, Section
2.1) including a second surface (wall), a first flat surface (wall), multiple holes (n=7 or
17) for passing air from the first surface toward the second surface and walls formed in
a direction from the first to the second surface, the walls separating the holes (Pg. 4,
Fig. 1 and Pg. 5, Fig. 2);
and sucking a biological tissue with an initial length of 5mm (Pg. 7, Line 45) with
the holes on the first surface side in a single direction, thereby collecting the tissue (Pg.
4, Fig. 1).
The reference teaches the holes have a diameter of 50 µm, 100 µm (meeting the limitation of Claim 1 that the ceramic component has a diameter of each one of the holes is equal to or greater than 50 µm and equal to or less than 190 µm) or 200 µm (Pg. 8, Lines 10-13 and Pg. 9, Fig. 5).
The reference additionally teaches wherein the component is able to fix variously
sized and shaped 3D tissues by adjusting the size and shape of the component (Pg. 4,
Lines 22-23).
Uesugi et al. did not teach a method wherein the end portion of the walls on the
first surface side are rounded and formed as a curved surface when viewed in a
direction perpendicular to the direction in which the wall is formed from the first surface;
wherein when the biological tissue is sucked into contact with the holes, equal to
or greater than 50% and equal to or less than 90% of an area of the biological tissue,
wherein the component is made of ceramic,
and has a density of each one of the walls is equal to or greater than 99%, as required by Claim 1.
Nippon Tungsten teaches a porous alumina/NPP-3D (see Masumoto, Pg. 12, Abstract and Title) ceramic vacuum chuck component (Pg. 2, Lines 12 and Pg. 6, "Our Porous Vacuum Chuck”) wherein the pores on the first surface side are rounded and formed as a curved surface when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which the pores are formed from the first surface;
wherein a large pore size and blunt wall ends produce large dents/deformation
and a small pore size and rounded pores produce no dents/deformation (Pg. 5, Figs. 1-
3); and
wherein the porous ceramic component reduces suction marks as much as
possible and prevents deformation of thin workpieces (Pg. 4, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the instant
invention to modify the method of Uesugi et al. of using a vacuum component to collect
a biological tissue to use a porous ceramic vacuum component of Nippon Tungsten and
further modify the end portion of the walls on the first surface side to be rounded and
formed as a curved surface when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the direction in
which the wall is formed from the first surface because this would allow the collection of
a biological tissue with suction over a wider area than that of the component of Uesugi
and produce less denting/deformation in the tissue. Those of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce suction marks
on the biological tissue as much as possible and prevent deformation of thin tissue.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because both references are reasonably drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, porous vacuum chucks and the use thereof.
While the references listed above do not specifically teach the limitation of Claim 1, that the ceramic component has a density of each one of the walls is equal to or greater than 99%, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the density of a ceramic composition is a result-effective optimizable variable. For example, the density of a ceramic is inversely related to the porosity of the material. This is motivation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to practice or test the ceramic % density parameter values widely to find those that are functional or optimal to provide a sufficiently porous ceramic with a desired density which then would be inclusive or cover the instantly claimed values. Absent any teaching of criticality by the Applicant concerning the ceramic components percentage density, it would be prima facie obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these limitations are an optimizable variable which can be met as a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(B). Those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obtain a ceramic component with the desired porosity/density. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making these modifications because all of the references are reasonably drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, porous vacuum chucks and the use thereof.
With regard to the limitation of Claim 1, "wherein when the biological tissue is
sucked into contact with the holes, equal to or greater than 50% and equal to or less
than 90% of an area of the biological tissue", while the references listed above do not specifically teach the limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the area of biological tissue sucked into contact with the holes is a result-effective optimizable variable. That is, the % area of the biological tissue sucked into contact with the holes is dependent on the size of the biological tissue and the density of holes in the ceramic vacuum component. This is motivation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to practice or test the parameter values widely to find those that are functional or optimal to provide a ceramic vacuum component which sucks the desired percentage of tissue when in use, which then would be inclusive or cover the instantly claimed values. Absent any teaching of criticality by the Applicant concerning the ceramic components percentage density, it would be prima facie obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these limitations are an optimizable variable which can be met as a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(B). Those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obtain a ceramic component with the desired percentage of biological tissue adsorbed. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making these modifications because all of the references are reasonably drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, porous vacuum chucks and the use thereof.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Uesugi et al. (07/19/2019), of record, in view of Nippon Tungsten (2019), cited in the IDS, translation, as evidenced by Masumoto et al. (2017), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Saita et al. (CA 1,325,327).
The teachings of Uesugi et al. and Nippon Tungsten were discussed above.
Neither reference taught a method wherein the component is made of zirconia, as required by Claim 2.
Saita et al. teaches a method of making a porous ceramic from a ceramic powder, wherein the ceramic powder may be alumina, zirconia, calcium triphosphate or hydroxyapatite (Pg. 10, Claims 1-2).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Uesugi et al. and Nippon Tungsten of using a porous alumina ceramic vacuum component to collect a biological tissue to use a zirconia ceramic component as taught by Saita et al. above because the art recognizes that porous ceramic may be prepared from either alumina or zirconia. See the MPEP at 2144.06, II. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification based on the availability of ceramics and artisan preference.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because Nippon Tungsten is drawn to a porous alumina ceramic and Saita et al. teaches that porous ceramics may be prepared from either alumina or zirconia.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Nippon Tungsten does not teach a component with the claimed hole diameter range and further teaches when the hole diameter of NPP-3D vacuum chuck is 0.5 µm it absorbs thin objects without deformation. Applicant concludes that the reference teaches that the diameter of each hole should be 0.5 µm as opposed to the claimed range (Remarks, Pg. 3, Lines 17-27 and Pg. 4, Lines 1-9).
This is not found to be persuasive for the following reasons, as discussed above, Uesugi et al. teaches a component (MVC or micro vacuum chuck, Pg. 3, Section
2.1) including a second surface (wall), a first flat surface (wall), multiple holes (n=7 or
17) for passing air from the first surface toward the second surface and walls formed in
a direction from the first to the second surface, the walls separating the holes (Pg. 4,
Fig. 1 and Pg. 5, Fig. 2),
wherein the holes have a diameter of 50 µm, 100 µm (meeting the limitation of Claim 1 that the component has a diameter of each one of the holes is equal to or greater than 50 µm and equal to or less than 190 µm) and 200 µm (Pg. 8, Lines 10-13 and Pg. 9, Fig. 5).
The Applicant argues that the Specification teaches that biological tissue may be held without causing tissue damage by using a suction pressure of 800-1000 Pa while Nippon Tungsten teaches a suction pressure of 40-100 kPa. Applicant concludes that the Nippon Tungsten reference suggests the use of 0.5 µm pores to avoid leaving suction marks and because of the small pore size higher suction is required to avoid suction loss. Applicant notes that the reference does not indicate whether porous NPP-3D to absorb biological tissue at 40-100 kPa would leave adsorption marks (Remarks, Pg. 4, Lines 11-17 and Pg. 5, Lines 1-8).
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., suction pressures) 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). As discussed above and in the prior action, Nippon Tungsten was not cited for any reference to pore size or suction pressure but for its teaching that a large pore size and blunt wall ends produce large dents/deformation and a small pore size and rounded pores produce no dents/deformation (Pg. 5, Figs. 1- 3);
and wherein the porous ceramic component reduces suction marks as much as possible and prevents deformation of thin workpieces (Pg. 4, Lines 1-4).
The Applicant argues that the limitation of Claim 1 of, “when the biological tissue is sucked in contact with the holes, a total area of the holes is equal to or greater than 50% and equal to or less than 90% of an area of the biological tissue”, the prior art does not teach or suggest the limitation (Remarks, Pg. 5, Lines 11-14 and Pg. 6).
This is not found to be persuasive for the reasoning provided above, that is, the area of biological tissue sucked into contact with the holes is a result-effective optimizable variable subject to routine optimization and experimentation.
The Applicant argues that Nippon Tungsten discloses a fine, porous structure throughout the entire material which resembles a sponge and does not therefore teach or suggest the concept of walls forming pores (Remarks, Pg. 7, Lines 1-4).
This is not found to be persuasive for the reasoning provided above, that is, Uesugi et al. teaches a component (MVC or micro vacuum chuck, Pg. 3, Section
2.1) including a second surface (wall), a first flat surface (wall), multiple holes (n=7 or
17) for passing air from the first surface toward the second surface and walls formed in
a direction from the first to the second surface, the walls separating the holes (Pg. 4,
Fig. 1 and Pg. 5, Fig. 2). Nippon Tungsten was not cited for any teaching related to “walls”.
The Applicant argues with regard to the limitation of Claim 1, that the ceramic component “has a density of each one of the walls is equal to or greater than 99%”, Uesugi teaches a PDMS vacuum chuck which is not a ceramic as claimed. Applicant argues that Uesugi achieves the intended purpose of performing a tensile test with a PDMS vacuum chuck, therefore there is no motivation for the ordinary artisan to modify Uesugi to use the ceramic vacuum chuck of Nippon Tungsten (Remarks, Pg. 7, Lines 5-28 and Pg. 8, Lines 1-2).
This is not found to be persuasive for the following reasons, Uesugi was not cited for any teaching of a ceramic vacuum chuck. This limitation was provided by Nippon Tungsten as discussed above. Further, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Uesugi et al. of using a vacuum component to collect a biological tissue to use a porous ceramic vacuum component of Nippon Tungsten and further modify the end portion of the walls on the first surface side to be rounded and formed as a curved surface when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which the wall is formed from the first surface because this would allow the collection of a biological tissue with suction over a wider area than that of the component of Uesugi and produce less denting/deformation in the tissue. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce suction marks on the biological tissue as much as possible and prevent deformation of thin tissue.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAUL C MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3348. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-8pm EST.
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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/PAUL C MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1653 02/17/2026