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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes no IDS is provides as of 22 July 2026.
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 11 May 2026. Claims 1-2 and 4-23 are currently pending in the application. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 14-23 are previously withdrawn. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
Objection to the specification for the abstract exceeding 150 words is withdrawn in view of amendments.
The objection to claim 11 is withdrawn in view of amendments.
The interpretation of claims 1 and 12 under U.S.C. § 112(f) are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6-8, and 11-12 under 32 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) in view of in view of Wagner, et. al. ("The evolution of Materials Acceleration Platforms: toward the laboratory of the future with AMANDA") are withdrawn in view of amendments.
The rejection of claim 3 is withdrawn in view of the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of claim 4 under 32 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Wagner in view of Whitacre, et. al. (US 20180188279 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 5 under 32 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Wagner in view of Zaffaroni, et. al. (US 6121048 A) is maintained.
The rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 32 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Wagner in view of Sugimura, et. al. (US 20110293474 A1) are maintained.
The rejection of claim 13 under 32 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Wagner in view of Potyrailo, et. al. (US 20030077390 A1) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, the amendments require the 102(a)(1) of claims 1-2, 6-8, and 11-12 to be withdrawn.
Applicant argues “Wagner does not disclose drawing sample of approximately 50 microliters or smaller” (Remarks, pg. 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as under broadest reasonable interpretation, the “50 microliters or smaller” of claims 1 and 12 allow for any volume of the drawn samples (from the plurality of solution components) to be less than 50 microliters.
First Examiner wishes to establish what the “sample” of Wagner corresponds to in the present claim set. The "samples" of Wagner correspond with the "one or more ink formulations" of the present application. As stated in the non-final office action dated 11 February 2026, Wagner teaches the ideal sample volume is between 20-25 µL (pg. 16438, section "Spin coating parameter study--volume"). Examiner does agree with applicant in that the deposited solution volume (Vspin) is more complex than "minimizing material consumption" as the homogenous drying stains is also reason behind the determination of a 20-25 µL solution volume (pg. 16438, section "Spin coating parameter study--volume"); however, the minimization of material consumption is a reason for testing smaller volumes.
This does not teach away from the limitation, "wherein the liquid handler is configured to draw samples of approximately 50 microliters or smaller from the plurality of solution components" because as Wagner teaches, the total solution volume is ideally 20-25 µL meaning the individual components that make up the total solution volume must add to 20-25 µL and therefore they must be less than the taught 20-25 µL of the solution volume.
The claim recites the samples are 50µL or smaller. The individual components that make up the 20-25 µL total solution volume suggests the "or smaller" range as recited by the claim because the individual components, in an ideal formulation will be less than 25µL.
Examiner notes the use of "or smaller" in the claim is broad and any volume that is less than or equal to 50 µL anticipates the range in claim.
Examiner derives the explanation of the “one or more ink formulations” from Figures 5 and 11 and pg. 17, lines 3-20 of the instant application. Examiner correlates this to the solution volume (Vspin) of Wagner because these solutions are then deposited on a substate for analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagner, et. al. ("The evolution of Materials Acceleration Platforms: toward the laboratory of the future with AMANDA" citations made with respect to previously provided copy).
Regarding claim 1, Wagner teaches an automated materials acceleration platform (MAP) that controls a plurality of automated devices to prepare inks and thin films from stock solutions and clean substrates (pg. 16430, col. 1, par. 03) (for the formulation of inks from feedstock). Wagner teaches the platform is controlled by the software AMANDA that can control a plurality of types of hardware like pipetting and transport robots through the process of creating thin films that start with the stock solutions (Fig. 2; pg. 16431, col. 1, par. 02) (a controller in communication with each of the liquid handler and the dispensing robot, the controller being configured to coordinate the creation and transfer of the one or more ink formulations).
Wagner teaches the platform comprises three boxes, each box with its own task (Fig. 3; pg. 16433, col. 1, par. 02-04). The first box used to prepare solutions with a first pipetting robot wherein individual stock solutions are combined in a well of a well plate by the first pipetting robot (Fig. 3; Fig. 5b, 5b description) (a liquid handler configured to draw samples from a plurality of solution components and mix the components together to create one or more ink formulations). The second box used to prepare the thin film from the newly combined solution comprising a transport robot and a second pipetting robot/liquid handling robot that aspirates the new solution to a substrate to undergo spin coating to from the thin film (Fig. 3, 5b, 5b description; pg. 16433, col. 1, par. 02-04) (a dispensing robot configured to transfer the one or more ink formulations to a common substrate to form one or more material samples).
Wagner is silent to wherein the liquid handler is configured to draw samples of approximately 50 microliters or smaller from the plurality of solution components.
However, Wagner teaches wherein the maximum total volume of mixed sample (the one or more ink formulations) used is 50 µL with an optimal range between 20-25 µL (pg. 16438, section "Spin coating parameter study—volume"). Wagner additionally stresses the goal of minimizing material consumption through minimizing volume of the sample applied to the substrate while still allowing the final product to dry down in an even coat (pg. 16438, col. 1, par. 01). Therefore, with the goal of minimizing material consumption and creating an acceptable dry down coat in ink formulations at volumes of 50 µL or less, it is reasonable to conclude the liquid handler is configured to draw samples of approximately 50 microliters or smaller from the plurality of solution components. This is because the individual components (samples) that make up the 20-25 µL total solution volume (the one or more ink formulations) suggests the "or less" range as recited by the claim because the individual components (samples) in an ideal formulation will be less than 25µL.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ink formulation process of Wagner to use solution component volumes of 50 µL or less as suggested by Wagner because doing so minimizes material consumption while creating an evenly dried coat with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 2, modified Wagner teaches the formulations from the stock solutions are dispensed by the first pipetting robot into a well of a well plate (Fig. 5b + description) (wherein the liquid handler is configured to dispense each of the one or more ink formulations to a well of an array of sample wells).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wagner teaches the ink can be applied to the substrate either linearly or dropped as a dot on the rotating substrate (pg. 16433, col. 1, par. 05-col. 2, par. 01) (wherein the dispensing robot is configured to transfer the one or more ink formulations to the common substrate in a pattern comprising one or more of a dot, a line).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wagner teaches the ink is applied at a pre-defined volume (20 or 25 µL) (pg. 16438, col. 2, par. 04) on the within a pre-defined cell on the substrate (pg. 16433, col. 1, par. 03) (wherein the dispensing robot is configured to transfer the one or more ink formulations at one or more pre-defined location… size… on the common substrate).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wager teaches the platform under the control of the AMANDA software was able to produce a PM6:Y6 based bulk-heterojunction solar cells comprising PM6 a conjugated semiconducting polymer, Y6 a conjugated conductor, and zinc oxide nanoparticles (Fig. 5a, 7c) (wherein the plurality of solution components comprises materials selected from the group consisting of semiconducting materials, semiconducting polymers…conjugated molecules and components thereof…nanoparticles).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wagner teaches the second box of the platform further a camera and UV-Vis spectrometer to collect characterization data of the thin films (Fig. 3b, 3b description; pg. 16433, col. 2, par. 05) (comprising one or more characterization instrument configured to characterize the material samples on the common substrate).
Regarding claim 12, Wagner teaches an automated materials acceleration platform (MAP) that controls a plurality of automated devices to prepare inks and thin films from stock solutions and clean substrates (pg. 16430, col. 1, par. 03) (for the formulation of inks from feedstock). Wagner teaches the platform is controlled by the software AMANDA that can control a plurality of types of hardware like pipetting and transport robots through the process of creating thin films that start with the stock solutions (Fig. 2; pg. 16431, col. 1, par. 02) (a controller in communication with the liquid handler, the controller being configured to coordinate the creation and transfer of the one or more ink formulations).
Wagner teaches the platform comprises three boxes, each box with its own task (Fig. 3; pg. 16433, col. 1, par. 02-04). The first box used to prepare solutions with a first pipetting robot wherein individual stock solutions are combined in a well of a well plate by the first pipetting robot (Fig. 3; Fig. 5b, 5b description) (a liquid handler configured to draw samples from a plurality of solution components and mix the components together to create one or more ink formulation). The second box used to prepare the thin film from the newly combined solution comprising a transport robot and a second pipetting robot/liquid handling robot that aspirates the new solution to a substrate on a spin coater to undergo spin coating to from the thin film (Fig. 3, 5b, 5b description; pg. 16433, col. 1, par. 02-04) (a coating element in communication with the liquid handler and configured to transfer the one or more ink formulations to a common substrate to form one or more material samples).
Wagner is silent to wherein the liquid handler is configured to draw samples of approximately 50 microliters or smaller from the plurality of solution components.
However, Wagner teaches wherein the maximum total volume of mixed sample (the one or more ink formulations) used is 50 µL with an optimal range between 20-25 µL (pg. 16438, section "Spin coating parameter study—volume"). Wagner additionally stresses the goal of minimizing material consumption through minimizing volume of the sample applied to the substrate while still allowing the final product to dry down in an even coat (pg. 16438, col. 1, par. 01). Therefore, with the goal of minimizing material consumption and creating an acceptable dry down coat in ink formulations at volumes of 50 µL or less, it is reasonable to conclude the liquid handler is configured to draw samples of approximately 50 microliters or smaller from the plurality of solution components. This is because the individual components (samples) that make up the 20-25 µL total solution volume (the one or more ink formulations) suggests the "or less" range as recited by the claim because the individual components (samples) in an ideal formulation will be less than 25µL.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ink formulation process of Wagner to use solution component volumes of 50 µL or less as suggested by Wagner because doing so minimizes material consumption while creating an evenly dried coat with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner, et. al. ("The evolution of Materials Acceleration Platforms: toward the laboratory of the future with AMANDA" citations made with respect to attached copy) as applied to claim 1 in further view of Whitacre, et. al. (US 20180188279 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wagner teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 (see above). Wagner additionally the platform is able to shake to mix the combined stock solution (pg. 16435, col. 2, par. 02).
Wagener is silent to wherein the liquid handler is configured to mix the components within the liquid handler to prepare the one or more ink formulations.
Whitacre teaches an automated mixing protocol for aspirating multiple reagents from multiple reagent reservoirs into a cache channel and mixing reservoir (Abstract). Whitacre teaches a fluid system 55 comprising reagent sippers 115 to aspirate multiple reagents and a cache channel 118 with pump 38 at predetermined volumes in a predetermined order (Fig. 7, 8; par. 0080-0082). Whitacre teaches the different reagents begin mixing in the cache channel 118 (par. 0083) and when dispensed in reservoir 136, the aspirated reagents are mixed 262 (Fig. 8; par. 0084) (wherein the liquid handler is configured to mix the components within the liquid handler to prepare the one or more ink formulations). Whitacre teaches when a method calls for the mixing of multiple reagent, especially in a particular order, automating the aspirating, mixing, and dispensing cycle with an all-in-one device reduces mix time and ensures the reagents are all thoroughly mixed (par. 0003).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid handler of Wagner to include the ability to mix the aspirated components within the liquid hander itself as taught by Whitacre because doing so reduces mix time and ensures all components are thoroughly mixed with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner, et. al. ("The evolution of Materials Acceleration Platforms: toward the laboratory of the future with AMANDA" citations made with respect to attached copy) in view of Zaffaroni, et. al. (US 6121048 A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wagner teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 (see above). Wagner additionally stresses the goal of minimizing material consumption through minimizing volume of the sample applied to the substrate (pg. 16438, col. 1, par. 01).
Wagener is silent to wherein the dispensing robot is configured to draw samples of approximately 1 nanoliter or smaller of each ink formulation prepared by the liquid handler.
Zaffaroni teaches an apparatus for analyzing a plurality of compounds on a substrate (Abstract). Zaffaroni teaches the apparatus comprises a substrate with multiple zones/cells wherein a miniaturized reaction occurs in each of the zones/cells (col. 3, lines 5-25). Zaffaroni teaches the apparatus further comprises a delivery system, like a micropipetting apparatus, can be used to dispense droplets with volumes of 5 nL or less (Fig. 1A; col. 9, lines 1-11; col. 17, lines 1-9). Zaffaroni teaches the smaller the volume that can be delivered means smaller zones/cells can be used resulting in a substrate with more reaction zones/cells and increased throughput.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dispensing robot of Wagner to dispense a smaller, nanoliter-scale volume as taught by Zaffaroni because it minimizes the reaction zone/cell size and increases throughput of the device with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Wagner as modified by Zaffaroni discloses a nanoliter-scale delivery system but does not explicitly disclose the volume being 1 nanoliter or smaller.
However, Wagner teaches wherein the dispensed volume is dependent on the size of the substrate surface the film must cover (pg. 16438, col. 1, par. 1). Specifically, Wagner teaches the need to minimize the volume of deposited solution while also evenly, and thoroughly covering the substrate surface (pg. 16438, col. 1, par. 1). Since this particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result), the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nanoliter-scale delivery system of modified Wagner to draw samples of approximately 1 nanoliter or smaller.
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner, et. al. ("The evolution of Materials Acceleration Platforms: toward the laboratory of the future with AMANDA" citations made with respect to attached copy) in view of Sugimura, et. al. (US 20110293474 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wagner teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 (see above).
Wagner is silent to the platform comprising a first wash station configured to rinse an exterior of the liquid handler between the draw of samples of different ink formulations.
Sugimura teaches an automated system with a plurality of units for transferring liquid between units and washing units to rinse the nozzle transferring the solutions (par. 0027). Sugimura teaches the system comprises a washing unit 30 (Fig. 2; par. 0038). Washing unit 30 has an embodiment with at least two washing units 321a and 321b (Fig. 9-11; par. 0111). Sugimura teaches when cleaning a sample probe, the probe is first inserted into wash unit 321a to expel excess liquid to waste Sb1, Sb2, then moved to second wash unit 321b where a wash liquid is aspirated by the probe Sb3-Sb5, and final moved back to first wash unit 321a where the wash liquid is dispensed and the outer wall of the nozzle is washed Sb6-Sb8 (Fig. 12-16, par. 0122-0133) (comprising a first wash station configured to rinse an exterior of the liquid handler between the draw of samples of different ink formulations). Sugimura teaches washing between samples/reagents reduces carryover (par. 0004) and this specific embodiment of the wash stations minimize cycle time spent on washing the nozzle/probes (par. 0007-0008).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the automated ink formulating and coating system of Wagner to further include wash stations/units as taught by Sugimura because the addition of wash units yields predictable results of allowing for cleaning between drawing preventing carryover and minimizing wash cycle times (Sugimura, par. 0004, 0007-0008). The claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements (an automated ink formulating and coating system and wash stations) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (washing components to prevent carryover/contamination). MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wagner teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 (see above).
Wagner is silent to the platform comprising a second wash station configured to wash an interior of the dispensing robot between the transfer of different ink formulations.
Sugimura teaches an automated system with a plurality of units for transferring liquid between units and washing units to rinse the nozzle transferring the solutions (par. 0027). Sugimura teaches the system comprises a washing unit 30 (Fig. 2; par. 0038). Washing unit 30 has an embodiment with at least two washing units 321a and 321b (Fig. 9-11; par. 0111). Sugimura teaches when cleaning a sample probe, the probe is first inserted into wash unit 321a to expel excess liquid to waste Sb1, Sb2, then moved to second wash unit 321b where a wash liquid is aspirated by the probe Sb3-Sb5, and final moved back to first wash unit 321a where the wash liquid is dispensed and the outer wall of the nozzle is washed Sb6-Sb8 (Fig. 12-16, par. 0122-0133) (comprising a second wash station configured to wash an interior of the dispensing robot between the transfer of different ink formulations). Sugimura teaches washing between samples/reagents reduces carryover (par. 0004) and this specific embodiment of the wash stations minimize cycle time spent on washing the nozzle/probes (par. 0007-0008).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the automated ink formulating and coating system of Wagner to further include wash stations/units as taught by Sugimura because the addition of wash units yields predictable results of allowing for cleaning between drawing preventing carryover and minimizing wash cycle times (Sugimura, par. 0004, 0007-0008). The claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements (an automated ink formulating and coating system and wash stations) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (washing components to prevent carryover/contamination). MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner, et. al. ("The evolution of Materials Acceleration Platforms: toward the laboratory of the future with AMANDA" citations made with respect to attached copy) in view of Potyrailo, et. al. (US 20030077390 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wagner teaches the limitations as applied to claim 12 (see above).
Wagner is silent to wherein the coating element comprises one of a slot die head or a spray nozzle.
Potyrailo teaches a system for creating a plurality of coating and combination coating samples (Abstract). Potyrailo teaches the coating system comprises a delivery mechanism 12 to deliver materials 14 to a substrate 18 to create a coating 20 (Fig. 1; par. 0030). The delivery mechanism 12 can be a spray nozzle or gun or a die/scraper casting head (par. 0031) (wherein the coating element comprises one of a slot die head or a spray nozzle). Potyrailo teaches the primary goal of the system and all its parts including the coating delivery system is to optimize the coating process to a large number of samples can be tested in an efficient manner (par. 0006, 0012).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the coating element of Wagner to be a spray nozzle or die head as taught by Potyrailo because it creates a system to efficiently test a large number of samples with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MADISON T HERBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30a-5:00p.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/M.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights