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 .
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 1 recites the limitation "a plurality of fluid channels" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the previous line of claim 1, one or more fluid channels is claimed. Claim 1 should be amended to either state the waveguiding layer comprises a plurality of fluid channels or that the at least one waveguide intersects one or more fluid channels. For purposes of examination, one or more fluid channels will be used to interpret the claims.
Claim 11 recites an air gap having a diameter. However, a circular air gap interface is not disclosed in any of the prior claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,438,279 to Craighead et al.
Craighead discloses in the abstract and figures 1-5, a waveguide structure comprising:
A waveguiding layer (17; figure 1) comprising one or more fluid channels (16);
At least one waveguide that intersects the one or more fluid channels (figure 1);
A first aperture layer comprising a first array of apertures, wherein each of the one or more fluid channels is adjacent to at least one of the apertures of the first array of apertures (figures 11 and 15-16 show an array of two or more aperture locations defined by a plurality of etched areas and gratings); and
A cover layer (top plate 44) affixed to the waveguiding layer to enclose one or more fluid channels.
As to claims 2-4, the gratings are adjacent to the fluid channels and spaced apart.
As to claims 7 and 9, the method in making structure is not a positive limitation in an apparatus claim.
As to claim 8, the waveguide is tunable via a grating structure.
As to claim 10, a core-air interface is disclosed and provided by the etched regions 36, 38, 40 and 42.
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) 11-14 and 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craighead in view of US 2015/0377780 to Walters et al.
Craighead discloses the invention as claimed except for different aperture sizes, patterns or added channels. As to independent claim 25, Craighead discloses the detector configured to perform the claimed function in figure 30 and lacks the second channel.
Walters discloses the provision of different aperture plates, hole sizing, shapes and patterns (figure 3A and 5-8) and additional channels (figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add the features as taught by Walters in Craighead to increase resolution of the detected analyte.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7,016,560 (intersecting waveguide channel).
US 2017/0227465 (multiple apertures “H”).
US 7,248,771 (plurality of detection channels)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874