Detailed Notice
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/20/2025.
Claims 11-20 are pending examination.
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.
Claim 14 is 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. Specifically, the instant claim requires that the depth profile of the editing tool is narrow than the width of the produced structure. That is, that the tool creates a structure smaller than itself. As presently written, the instant claim is entirely unclear on its face. It is noted that looking at instant specification [0024-0026] that applicant is trying to apply the limitation that the structures produced the by editing tool have non-uniform depth profiles, wherein the section of the cavity deeper in the structure is narrower than the portion near the surface of the cavity. Attention is required.
Claim 17 is 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. Specifically, applicant require the limitations “other processes” but provides no exhaustive list as to what bounds “other processes”. Clarification is required. For the sake of compact prosecution, it is understood that any infinitesimally brief act or event in the course of the production of the edited structures constitutes an “other process”.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stonas et al (US 2002/0104762 A1) in view of Duffin (US 20190329359 A1).
Regarding Claim 11 and 15, Stonas teaches a method for producing structures comprising:
an editing tool ([0085] “Exposure may be performed using IL (interference lithography) or AIL (achromatic interference lithography) (with two orthogonal exposures), or using conventional mask-based photolithography with a grid mask…” in which IL is defined as using lasers (see [0067] and [0069])
an editable structure (Fig. 3 elements 103-105) in close proximity to an electrode structure (Fig. 3 element 102), in which patterns are generated in the editable structure (See Fig. 3 c),
wherein pattern generation is accomplished at least in part by the editing tool, and wherein hollow portions in at least one of the generated patterns are filled entirely or partially by solid materials at least in part via electrodeposition from electrically conductive fluids, gases, or plasmas using the electrode structure as an electrode ([0083]), and magnetic materials are deposited onto the solid materials, the magnetic materials constitute produced magnetic structures ([0033]).
And where the filings (e.g. see [0120-0123] regarding the formation of Ag plugs formed by electrodeposition on an edited structure by means of an edited tool), can be subsequently removed from the substrate to yield free standing (see [0009]) rod-shaped diodes (see Fig. 5 and [0123]).
Stonas discloses the editing structure and electrode structure in a single container (See Fig. 1) with a heating element (element 131 halogen lamp OR temperature control device [0013] [0103]) yet fails to explicitly show the editing tool in the single container.
However, Stonas doesn’t teach the use of a singular container.
Duffin teaches a micromachining apparatus in the same field of endeavor (abstract).
Duffin teaches that a micromachining apparatus can be placed in a housing (see element 20 of Fig. 1 and [0035]), which defines a work space.
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have taken the housing structure of Duffins and incorporate it into the method of Stonas in order to define a work space for the micromachining process in Stonas.
Regarding Claim 12, Stonas teaches the produced structures may be Ag plugs formed by electrodeposition on an edited structure by means of an edited tool (e.g. see [0120-0123]).
Regarding Claim 16, Stonas teaches to claim 11 as shown above.
However, Stonas does not teach that the editing tool is a discharge electrode.
Duffin teaches a micromachining apparatus in the same field of endeavor (abstract).
Duffin teaches that laser ablation can be used to edit structures in surfaces which electrode discharge machining cannot, and that electrode discharge machining can be used to set micro bores in workpieces (see [0002-0004]). Duffin teaches that the use of both a laser and an electrode discharge machining electrode in a machining apparatus to form editable structures on a workpiece (see [0048-0061]). Duffin teaches that the combination of EDM and laser machining is useful in order that the holes bored on the surface of the workpiece are placed with a high degree of accuracy, owing to the use of the laser positioning on test piece, thereby ensuring the relative positions of the EDM and the workpiece to be bored (see [0055-0061]).
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the EDM element of Duffin could be incorporated into the method of forming editable structures in Stonas, in order that boring holes could be made on a variety of substrates.
Regarding Claim 17 and 19, Stonas teaches electrodeposition from electrically conductive fluids using the electrode structure as an electrode (e.g. see [0120-0123] regarding the formation of Ag plugs formed by electrodeposition and [0083]). It is understood that during the electrodeposition process, deposited materials are polarized in the electric field produced at the electrode surface, wherein charge accumulates and that the polarization of the deposited material is an “other process”. Further, Stonas teaches the use of a surface pretreatment [0123] and the formation of multilayer structures [0110], further defining “other processes”.
Regarding Claim 20, Stonas teaches electrodeposition from electrically conductive fluids using the electrode structure as an electrode (e.g. see [0120-0123] regarding the formation of Ag plugs formed by electrodeposition and [0083]). It is understood that the electrically conductive structure is not moving during the deposition.
Claim 13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stonas et al (US 2002/0104762 A1) in view of Duffin (US 20190329359 A1), as applied to claim 11, in further view of Messner (US 20180334700 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Stonas teaches to Claim 11 as shown above.
However, Stonas does not teach that the produced structures incorporate biological materials.
Messner teaches a method for seeding cells using a microwell system (abstract).
Messner teaches a polyimide coating is laser etched to produce a microwell array [0069]. Messner teaches that the obtained microwell system can then be used for cell-seeding or assaying [0072].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to have taken the polyimide arrays generated by the IL system of Stonas [0136-0137] and to have used them in the method of Messner, with the predictable result of a microwell system generated by IL being used for cell-seeding.
Regarding Claim 14, Stonas teaches to Claim 11 as shown above.
However, Stonas does not teach that the produced structures have non-uniform depth profiles.
Messner teaches a method for seeding cells using a microwell system (abstract).
Messner teaches a polyimide coating can be edited to produce a microwell array [0069]. Messner teaches a method for forming the microwell structure using a “hot needle” which produces structures in the polyimide film (element 50 in the Fig. 3b and c below) that are narrower at the base of the film (nearest to the substrate) than at the surface (as shown below), see further [0069-0070].
PNG
media_image1.png
610
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the hot cleft needle editing tool of Messner could be incorporated into the structure producing method of Stonas as a matter of simple substitution (see MPEP 2143 I B).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stonas et al (US 2002/0104762 A1) in view of Duffin (US 20190329359 A1) in view of Duffin (US 20190329359 A1), as applied to claim 11, in further view of Martello (US3846269A).
Regarding Claim 18, Stonas teaches to Claim 11 as shown above.
However, Stonas does not teach that the editable structure is deposited in a reel to reel process.
Martello teaches a method of coating an electrically conductive substrate with polyimide (abstract). See Fig. 1 for exemplary demonstration below.
PNG
media_image2.png
477
347
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Martello teaches that a Al, Cu Ni, etc. sheet or ribbon is pooled on a reel (element 1) and fed through a pulley (Col. 6, Lines 68-75) onto which is deposited a polyimide coating (Col. 7, Lins 1-15).
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the polyimide workpiece of Stonas could have been supplied by the manufactured polyimide workpieces of Martello, in order that one would arrive at a process for produces structures which uses an editable structure formed by a reel-to-reel process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759