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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group 1 comprising claims 1 – 9 and 25 in the reply filed on 2/4/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 30 – 38 and 65 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/4/2026.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Foster et al. (US 2017/0059546 A1; hereinafter “Foster”).
Regarding claim 1, Foster teaches a nanopore support structure (non-faradaic electrochemical cell 1200 for nucleic acid sequencing; paragraphs 54 – 56; figures 11 – 13) comprising:
a wall layer (dielectric wall layer 1204) comprising walls defining a plurality of wells (well 1205); and
overhangs (TiN hydrophilic layer 1220) extending from the walls across each of the wells, the overhang defining an aperture (opening 1205C) configured to support a membrane (the lipid bilayer formed in the gap between the two sides of hydrophilic layer 1220; figure 12) suitable for insertion of a nanopore (e.g., nanopore 1116 is inserted into lipid bilayer 1114 as shown in figure 11; paragraphs 48, 55 and 56).
PNG
media_image1.png
556
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
573
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Foster teaches a nanopore sensing device comprising:
first and second chambers (e.g., at 1206 and 1208 respectively; paragraphs 40, 41 and 54 – 59; figures 11 – 13);
a planar structure comprising a nanopore support structure according to claim 1, the planar structure being provided with plural fluidic passages which extend between the first and second chambers and include respective wells and apertures of said nanopore support structure, the apertures opening into the first chamber (figures 12 and 13); and
electrodes (e.g., working electrode 1202, counter electrode 1210, reference electrode 1212) arranged to sense a fluidic electrical potential in respective passages between the nanopores and the second chamber.
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.
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) 2 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 2017/0059546 A1; hereinafter “Foster”) in view of Hyde et al. (US 2015/0265994 A1; hereinafter “Hyde”).
Regarding claim 2, Foster does not specifically teach the nanopore support structure according to claim 1, further comprising protrusions protruding laterally of the extent of the overhangs.
However, Hyde teaches throughout the publication related apparatus comprising indentations or protrusions (e.g., paragraphs 222 – 236; figures 19 – 26; in particular figure 23). These indentations 65 and 67 assist in the spreading of apolar medium 70 by wicking over the substrate 3 (paragraph 226). Therefore, the incorporation of these additional protrusions would have been considered to be suitable and predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide protrusions protruding laterally of the extent of the overhangs.
Regarding claim 3 – 9, these claims merely recite slight structural and configuration changes of the protrusions of the apparatus structure which would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation in view of the relevant teachings of Hyde (e.g., figures 19 – 26). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the protrusion structural configurations as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J. SINES whose telephone number is (571)272-1263. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM EST M-F.
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, Elizabeth A Robinson can be reached at (571) 272-7129. 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.
BRIAN J. SINES
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/BRIAN J. SINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796