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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks filed on November 10th, 2025. Claims 1, 2, 5-13, 15-25 are pending. Claims 3, 4, and 14 are canceled. Claims 21-25 are newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on November 10th, 2025 is acknowledged. Newly-added claims 21-25 are also included therewith. Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 8 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “metal”, and the claim also recites “stainless steel, an iron alloy, an aluminum alloy” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Applicant may desire an additional dependent claim to provide an earlier genus-type recitation prior to provide species thereof, or to remove the genus of “metal” from the listing in cl. 8.
Claim 15 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.
The metes and bounds of the configuration to the pedestal are indefinitely defined herein.
First the scale of the number “0.5” is absent.
Secondly, the designation of Liters to “5” (and even assumingly to “0.5” as well) is not understood given that these structures are on the micro-scale at largest.
Examiner further notes that the published claim 15 in Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2024/0192147 presents microliters.
For purposes of Examination, the recitation will be taken to be construed as microliters, however clarification is required, and with the “0.5” if it is also microliters are another order.
Claims 17 and 18 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.
The recitation “the middle” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. It appears that Applicant intends to initially define the confines of the pedestal in order to set forth designations of various elements at various spatial points within the defined confines.
Further, as in claim 18, the recitation “each segment” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim as Applicant has not established the “radial pattern” with its particularly sought segments that define such pattern. Applicant should provide further discussion to the “radial pattern” including its geometry and its “segments.”
Claim 25 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.
The metes and bounds of the claimed methodology are indefinitely understood as it relates to the active step of “tippling” that affords the result of causing the droplet to slide off the first pedestal.
The term “tippling” is not a recognized or understood term and the specification does not provide further discussion thereto its definition.
A Merriam-Webster definition is found for tippling as “to drink liquor especially by habit or excess,” that does not appear relevant herein.
Even assuming the “L” in the word is an accidental typographical error, it is unclear what Applicant intends by “tipping.”
Does Applicant intend some sort of step that pushes/hits the ferrule?
For purposes of Examination, this will be taken as providing a washing-type step in removing the droplet.
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) 1, 2, 6-7, 9-13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashmeade et al. (US 2013/0016348), hereafter Ashmeade, in view of Ciasca et al. (“Wet sample confinement by superhydrophobic patterned surfaces for combined X-ray fluorescence and X-ray phase contrast imaging,” Microelectronic Engineering, 2013, pp. 304-309), hereafter Ciasca.
With regard to claims 1/10, Ashmead discloses spectrophotometer comprising (and likewise with respect to a ferrule for use therewith as in cl. 10) first and second ferrules each with respective pedestals (first ferrule as lower ferrule 512 with pedestal 206 (a pedestal as in cl. 10; and configured to receive a drop of size 0.5 to 5 microliters as in cl. 15), second ferrule as upper ferrule 518 with pedestal 522) (see pars.[0037,0048]), figs. 4, 5B, for example),and wherein the first and second ferrules are moveably coupled so that the first and second pedestals align on opposite sides of a sample location (i.e. lower ferrule 512 is centered by ring bearings 516 through which lower ferrule 512 can slide up and down, as in par.[0047]; upper ferrule 518 is mounted to sensor arm 204 that is movable, and similarly as in the first and/or second ferrule is movable to adjust an optical path length as in cl. 9; see pars.[0042,0048], and wherein; also see Fig. 5b upper ferrule 518 and lower ferrule 512 are movable to opposite sides of sample location in the vicinity of first pedestal 206 as seen in fig. 5b).
Further, as in cls. 1 and 12, Ashmeade further discloses and one or more radiation sources (and configured to transmit at least one of ultraviolet light and visible light; pars.[0006,0051] as in cl. 16) optically coupled with one or both of the first and second ferrules and configured to excite a test droplet suspected between the first and second pedestals in the sample location (herein, light source 300 may include one or more light sources that emit light approximately centered at one or more wavelengths selected for analysis of a sample in the area of sample holder/pedestal 206, wherein the one or more radiation sources are further constituted by a converging lens device and transmitting fiber (as in cl. 7; see par.[0047], fig. 5A, B wherein transmitting optical fiber 308 is within the first ferrule 512 to thereby function to transmit light therethrough and through the first pedestal 206 and subsequently therethrough to the second pedestal/ferrule for detection thereof) to focus the light to the sample holder/pedestal 206(see pars.[0032,0035,0036], fig. 3, for example).
With regard to claim 11, the pedestal 206 of Ashmeade is fully capable of (i.e. “configured to” herein) hold the drop in place via surface tension in combination with a second ferrule, wherein both the drop and the second ferrule are drawn to prospective workpieces not positively claimed and Ashmeade (as modified below) discloses a commensurately structured pedestal as claimed. With regard to claim 13, the one or more radiation sources are located on an exterior edge of the pedestal (the light source as provided by the source in connection with the transmitting fiber 308 is located on an exterior edge of the pedestal 206; fig. 5b, for example).
With regard to claims 1/10 and 6, Ashmead does not specifically disclose a plurality of nano or micro scale structures formed on the first or second pedestal (the pedestal as in cl. 10), the plurality of nano or micro scale structures causing the first or second pedestal (the pedestal as in cl. 10) to be hydrophobic, and wherein the plurality of nano or micro scale structures are configured to create an angle as recited therein cl. 6 at greater than 150 degrees.
With regard to claim 2, Ashmead does not specifically disclose the wherein the plurality of nano or micro scale structures comprises one or more of: a plurality of nanometer-scale structures; a plurality of micrometer-scale structures; one or more irregular-shaped structures; one or more hierarchical structures.
Ciasca is in the field of imaging and microfluidics (abstract) and discloses a plurality of micro scale structures formed on the pedestal, the plurality of micro scale structures causing the pedestal to be hydrophobic (superhydrophobic patterned surfaces, and further providing for the angle at greater than 150 degrees as in cl. 6) (abstract, pg. 305 sec.2.2, figs. 1-3, for example). Further thereto, Ciasca discloses wherein the plurality of nano or micro scale structures comprises a plurality of micrometer- scale structures (given by the superhydrophobic patterned surfaces given by a pattered array of pillars having etched thereon a few tens of nanometers of the silicon passivated surface) (see abstract, page 305 sec. 2.2, for example). Further, as in cl. 8, Ciasca discloses that the plurality of micro scale structures comprise metal as in chromium (pg. 305, sec 2.2 wherein the deposited chromium, Cr, film defines the patterned array of pillars
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill modify Ashmead to include the plurality of micrometer-scale structures formed on the first or second pedestal such as suggested by the analogous art Ciasca in positioning and imaging of liquids to be analyzed and would provide the benefits of limiting the liquid-surface contact area and minimizing sample contamination and allowing for stable sample positioning, alignment, and measurement of the liquid (see page 301, sec. 1, first two full pars. on the right-hand column), which would likewise be appreciated by Ashmeade that similarly desires to particularly position and align a sample for particular optical investigation and detection thereof.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashmeade in view of Wang et al. (US 2013/0059123).
Ashmeade has been discussed above in the preceding rejection.
With regard to claims 1/10 and 6, Ashmead does not specifically disclose a plurality of nano or micro scale structures formed on the first or second pedestal (the pedestal as in cl. 10), the plurality of nano or micro scale structures causing the first or second pedestal (the pedestal as in cl. 10) to be hydrophobic, and wherein the plurality of nano or micro scale structures are configured to create an angle as recited therein cl. 6 at greater than 150 degrees.
With regard to claim 2, Ashmead does not specifically disclose the wherein the plurality of nano or micro scale structures comprises one or more of: a plurality of nanometer-scale structures; a plurality of micrometer-scale structures; one or more irregular-shaped structures; one or more hierarchical structures.
With regard to claim 8, Ashmeade does not specifically disclose the plurality of nano or micro scale structures comprise one or more of the following materials as recited therein.
Wang discloses superhydrophobic surfaces, including surfaces having hierarchal structure (having features both microscale and nanoscale dimensions) having superhydrophobic properties (abstract). Wang shows in figs. 4A-F the posts (i.e. pedestals; see fig. 3A-F, for example) provided with microstructured surfaces (4B-C), nanostructured surface (4D), and hierarchical surfaces (4E-F) along with images of droplets in contact with the surfaces (pars.[0016,0033-0035,0056,0058,0059], figs. 3A-F, 4A-F, for example). Wang further discloses the plurality of nano or micro scale structures comprise an a metal or a composite (cls. 4-8, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ashmeade to provide a plurality of nano or micro structures (and as in nanometer or micrometer-scale structures, hierarchical structures as in cl. 2, and comprising a metal or composite as in cl. 8) such as suggested by the analogous art of Wang to surface modification for droplet holding/positioning in which the superhydrophobicity provided by the nanometer/micrometer scale structures/hierarchical structures comprising metal/composite affords the benefit of a very large contact angle of greater than 150 degrees to provide a beneficial sample pedestal that readily presents the liquid sample for proper optical investigation thereof.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashmeade in view of Ciasca as applied to claim 1, 2, 6-7, 9-12, 15, and 16 above.
Ashmeade/Ciasca does not specifically disclose that the plurality of nano or microscale structures comprise more nano or microscale structures around a periphery of the first/second pedestal and fewer near a center of the concordant first/second pedestal as in cl. 5.
However, this is seen as an obvious engineering design choice to affect the sought hydrophobicity/contact angle of an applied sample liquid thereto, and wherein the present recitation affords only a general qualifier that more are at the periphery than at the center, which reads on a difference of a singular nano or micro scale structure that is also deemed an obvious modification by one of ordinary skill in the art in accepting of minor manufacturing differences wherein such difference would remain to provide the sought hydrophobic surface as desired by Ashmeade/Ciasca. This is further seen as an obvious design choice for those reasons discussed above absent a showing of a criticality or unexpected results arising otherwise. See also MPEP 2144 VI.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashmeade in view of Wang as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-12, 15, and 16 above.
Ashmeade/Ciasca does not specifically disclose that the plurality of nano or microscale structures comprise more nano or microscale structures around a periphery of the first/second pedestal and fewer near a center of the concordant first/second pedestal as in cl. 5.
However, this is seen as an obvious engineering design choice to affect the sought hydrophobicity/contact angle of an applied sample liquid thereto, and wherein the present recitation affords only a general qualifier that more are at the periphery than at the center, which reads on a difference of a singular nano or micro scale structure that is also deemed an obvious modification by one of ordinary skill in the art in accepting of minor manufacturing differences wherein such difference would remain to provide the sought hydrophobic surface as desired by Ashmeade/Wang. This is further seen as an obvious design choice for those reasons discussed above absent a showing of a criticality or unexpected results arising otherwise. See also MPEP 2144 VI.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashmeade in view of Ciasca.
Ashmeade has been discussed above.
With regard to claim 1, as it pertains to the implicit elements provided to the referenced-method herein, Ashmead does not specifically disclose a plurality of nano or micro scale structures formed on the first or second pedestal the plurality of nano or micro scale structures causing the first or second pedestal to be hydrophobic.
Further, as in cl. 10, Ashmeade does not specifically disclose placing a test droplet as claimed (Ashmeade does disclose positioning the ferrules as claimed; pars.[0031,0048,0049], and detecting the light transmitted through a sample at the pedestal 206 with a detector (pars.[0010,0038], for example).
Ciasca has been discussed above. Ciasca discloses providing a droplet on a sample location of a ferrule having a pedestal (fig. 1, 2, for example) and optically investigating the droplet by way of X-ray imaging and fluorescence measurements, including with a detector as in a CCD (page 307, sec. 3.2-3.3, figs. 4A-E, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ashmeade to provide a test droplet to the first ferrule having the first pedestal (and which equates with that of the sample holder as in Ashmeade) such as suggested by the analogous art of Ciasca to in positioning and imaging of liquids to be analyzed wherein providing a droplet with a superhydrophobic surface as given by the pedestal comprising a plurality of nano or micro scale structures affords a clear alternative form to the sample to be analyzed as in Ashmeade wherein such a sample is beneficially provided in limiting the liquid-surface contact area and minimizing sample contamination and thus allowing for stable sample positioning, alignment, and optical measurement thereof.
Claim(s) 25, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashmeade in view of Ciasca as applied to claim 24 above and in further view of Xiao et al. (US 2016/0097606), hereafter Xiao.
Ashmeade/Ciasca has been discussed above.
Ashmeade/Ciasca does not specifically disclose tippling the ferrule to cause the test droplet to slide off of the first pedestal.
Xiao discloses superhydrophobic nanostructure surfaces that allow for easy removal of droplets (abstract, pars.[0027,0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ashmeade/Ciasca to include providing washing the droplet off the pedestal such as suggested by the analogous art of Xiao to superhydrophobic surfaces for droplets wherein washing the droplet off of the pedestal provides for a simple cleaning step in which a subsequent droplet, assay can then be prepared thereat the pedestal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17, 18, and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest wherein the one or more radiation sources comprise a single radiation source in the middle of the pedestal and the plurality of nano or micro structures comprise a bullseye pattern around the single radiation source as in cl. 17. Further, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest wherein the one or more radiation sources comprise a single radiation source in the middle of the pedestal and the plurality of nano or micro structures comprise a radial pattern around the single radiation source, each segment of the radial pattern tapering to the middle of the pedestal as in cl. 18. Further, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest wherein the plurality of nano or micro structures are formed surrounding an aperture of the pedestal as in cl. 21 (and thus as it pertains to dependents thereof in cls. 22&23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 2010/0047523) discloses hydrophobic composites and methods of making the same that is relevant to Applicant’s field of endeavor.
Yasseri et al. (US 2011/0189858) discloses nanostructures provided roughened surfaces that provide increased hydrophobicity that is relevant to Applicant’s field of endeavor.
Wang et al. (US 2013/0244001) discloses superhydrophobic nanostructures and having further surface modifications that is relevant to Applicant’s field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL N TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-8914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/NEIL N TURK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798