DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 Applicant’s requitement for reconsideration on April 23 was received.
The text of those sections of Title pre-AIA 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action issued on November 21, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Bass et al. (US 2002/0081236 A1) on claims 1, 3-7, 13 and 15-16 are maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Bass teaches a method of applying a liquid such as blocking composition for example on a substrate for an assay ([0022], [0041], Claims 1 and 2), the method comprising: providing a substrate for an assay, wherein the substrate for an assay comprises a solid substrate provided with a plurality of discrete spots of a biological material such as polynucleotides on a surface thereof ([0022], [0041], [0058], Claim 1); and spray coating the blocking composition onto the substrate as particles or droplets having a diameter of about 10-150 micrometers and being less than the diameter of the discrete spots of biological material, wherein the spray coating is performed using an ultrasonic atomizer (Abstract, [0022], [0041], [0058], [0060], [0066], Claims 1, 2, and 8, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) see MPEP 2144.05). Bass does not explicitly teach the whole range of the particles or droplets size in about 20-100 micrometers, but teaches particles or droplets size about 10-150 micrometers as discussed above ([0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range in about 20 -100 micrometers, because the claimed range about 20 -100 micrometers overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art about 10-150 micrometers, a prima facie case of obviousness exists and expect the same success when applying the same particle sizes.
Regarding claim 3, Bass teaches wherein the substrate is provided with an array of the biological material on a surface thereof (Abstract, Claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Bass teaches wherein the substrate for an assay comprises a microarray ([0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Bass teaches a method as disclosed above. Bass does not explicitly teach wherein the size of the spots of biological material on the surface of the substrate is about 100µm - 300µm. However, Bass recognizes the array spot is adjusted by changing the application ([0042], [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the size of the spots to yield a desired application ([0042], [0043]). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in know process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 6, Bass teaches wherein the blocking composition comprises a blocking buffer (claims 1 and 2, [0070]).
Regarding claim 7, Bass teaches wherein the biological material comprises a DNA for example ([0022], [0028]).
Regarding claim 13, Bass teaches comprising improving specificity and/or sensitivity during subsequent analysis ([0005], [0007], [0022], [0044]).
Regarding claim 15, Bass teaches wherein the method reduces, avoids and/or prevents the occurrence of aberrant results ([0040]).
Regarding claim 16, Bass teaches further comprising applying a sample on the blocked substrate ([0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are
Bass does not disclose a method of spray coating contains a blocking composition.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Bass teaches a method of spray coating contains a blocking composition, because Bass teaches ejecting a volume of a liquid to uniformly coat said surface with liquid by ultrasonic energy wherein the liquid comprises a blocking agent for example (claims 1 and 2). Therefore, Bass teaches a method of spray coating contains a blocking composition.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI YAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7181. The examiner can normally be reached on MTTHF. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAH-WEI YUAN can be reached on 571-272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAI Y ZHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights