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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 4 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-23 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4 December 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes no IDS is provided as of 6 February 2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150 word limit. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “to characterize the material samples on the common substrate” in the second line of the claim. In all other claims “the material samples” is recited as “the one or more material samples.” Appropriate correction is required in order to maintain claim language consistency.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a liquid handler” in claims 1 and 12. A liquid handler is interpreted to be a device that will hold a volume of liquid that is aspirated and dispensed with a pumping system, like a pipette or equivalents thereof (pg. 9, lines 15-23).
“a dispensing robot” in claim 1. A dispensing robot is interpreted to be a device that will hold a volume of liquid with a tip to deliver the liquid, like a capillary or equivalents thereof (pg. 11, lines 22-25).
“a controller” in claims 1 and 12. A controller is interpreted to be a computer that runs softer to operate hardware or an equivalent thereof (pg. 4, lines 15-19).
“a coating element” in claim 12. A coating element is interpreted to be a slot die head (pg. 12, line 9) or another equivalent known in the art including by not limited to ink jet printing, spray coating, spin coating, dip coating, or screen printing (pg. 13, lines 3-5).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 attached copy).
Regrading 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).
Regarding claim 2, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 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).
Regarding claim 3, Wagner teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 (see above).
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 (ink formulation) 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 (pg. 16438, col. 1, par. 01). Therefore, with the goal of minimizing material consumption 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.
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 in order to minimize material consumption. Because the goal of each aspect of the platform is to minimize material consumption in ink formulation processes, modifying the solution component volumes to 50 µL or less as provided by Wagner, provides likewise sought functionality 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) in view of Whitacre, et. al. (US 20180188279 A1).
Regarding claim 4, 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 in order to reduce mix time and ensure all components are thoroughly mixed. Because both systems are automated and controlled to aspirate predetermined components at predetermined volumes to be mixed together for further analysis, modifying the liquid reagent to be able to mix the components within the device as provided by Whitacre, provides likewise sought functionality 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, 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 in order to minimize reaction zone/cell size and increase throughput of the device. Because both devices transfer small volumes of solutions to a substrate for further reactions and analysis to occur, modify the dispensing robot to dispense on a nanoliter-scale as provided by Zaffaroni, provides likewise sought functionality 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, 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 into wash stations/units as taught by Sugimura in order to prevent carryover and minimize wash cycle times. Because both systems aspirate and dispense multiple liquid components and samples between various locations for further analysis, combining the formulation system with washing stations as provided by Sugimura, provides likewise sought functionality wherein the combination will yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 10, 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 into wash stations/units as taught by Sugimura in order to prevent carryover and minimize wash cycle times. Because both systems aspirate and dispense multiple liquid components and samples between various locations for further analysis, combining the formulation system with washing stations as provided by Sugimura, provides likewise sought functionality wherein the combination will yield predictable results. 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, 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 in order to develop a system with the main goal of being efficient to test a large number of samples. Because both systems use coat a substrate surface with a material, modifying one type of coating method to be a spay nozzle or die head as provided by Potyrailo, provides likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Conclusion
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
/SAMUEL P SIEFKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758