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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specifications, drawings, and claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/17/2026. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 14-16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller et al. (US 7560070 B1) in view of Mutharasan et al. (US 20080034840 A1; cited in the IDS filed 04/30/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Baller teaches a sensor device (abstract; Figs. 4a-4d) for detecting at least one of an incidence, a concentration and an amount of an analyte in a sample (column 7, lines 55-58 teaches sensor system detecting ssDNA; column 8, lines 59-64 teaches monitoring molecular recognition by static cantilever bending, which is dependent on concentration; column 6, lines 20-35), the sensor device comprising:
a sensor (Figs. 4a-4d, sensor system 40) configured to convert at least one of chemical and biochemical information of an analyte in a sample into an electrical signal (column 8, lines 23-34 teaches the sensor system including cantilevers, and detecting a signal from bending of the cantilever; column 4, line 64 - column 5, line 22 teaches change in deflection from the cantilever is detected by optical or piezoresistive deflection sensors, therefore chemical and biochemical information of the analyte are converted to electrical signals for analysis);
connection electronics (column 5, lines 24-38 teaches detection circuitry and appropriate wiring for the cantilever); and
a housing (Fig. 8, housing 101),
wherein the sensor comprises a test cantilever (Figs. 4a-4c, measurement cantilever 41) that has a base (see below annotated Fig. 4a, interpreted as the base at location 1) and a deformable part (see below annotated Fig. 4a; interpreted as the part of the measurement cantilever 41, which is deformable as shown in Fig. 4b), wherein a receptor layer for selective reception of the analyte is applied at least to the deformable part of the test cantilever (see below annotated Fig. 4a; column 7, lines 59-64 teaches a first coating that is sensitive to a particular complementary DNA strand), and
wherein the sensor further comprises a reference cantilever (Figs. 4a-4c, reference cantilever 42) that has a base (see below annotated Fig. 4a, interpreted as the base at location 2) and a deformable part (see below annotated Fig. 4a; interpreted as the part of the reference cantilever 42, which is deformable as shown in Fig. 4c), wherein a reference layer for selective non-reception of the analyte is applied to the deformable part of the reference cantilever (see below annotated Fig. 4a; column 7, lines 64-67 teaches a reference coating to the top surface of the reference cantilever 42, which is less sensitive to the target DNA than the first coating, i.e. selective non-reception of the analyte),
wherein the housing encloses the sensor (Fig. 8 teaches the housing, i.e. liquid cell 101, enclosing the sensor), and wherein the housing is configured to channel the sample to the deformable parts in a defined manner (Fig. 8 teaches the housing, i.e. liquid cell 101, include an inlet 112 and outlet 113 which channels a sample to the deformable parts, i.e. cantilevers, in a defined manner).
Baller fails to teach: wherein the housing encloses the sensor and the connection electronics, the housing has an opening for connecting the connection electronics, and the housing has a measurement opening through which at least the deformable parts of the cantilevers of the sensor protrude from the housing, and wherein the housing has a protective cap for the deformable parts of the reference and test cantilevers, wherein the protective cap is configured to channel the sample to the deformable parts in a defined manner.
Mutharasan teaches flow cells configured for piezoelectric cantilever sensors for direct, sensitive detection of analytes in fluid media (abstract). Mutharasan teaches a piezoelectric-excited millimeter-sized cantilever (PEMC) sensor (paragraph [0056] and Fig. 8, PEMC sensor 12) in a housing (Fig. 8, flow cell 50 including PEMC sensor casing 52 and central contacting chamber 51); wherein the housing encloses the PEMC sensor and connection electronics (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0056]-[0057] teaches the PEMC sensor casing 52 having a diameter which encloses at least a portion of the PEMC sensor 12 and leads 60; [0051] teaches portion 14 is within the base portion 20; therefore, at least a portion of the PEMC sensor 12 is enclosed by the casing), wherein the housing has an opening for the connection electronics (Fig. 8 shows leads 60 exiting the casing 52, therefore the casing has openings), and the housing has a measurement opening through which at least a deformable parts of the cantilever of the sensor protrude from the housing (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0056] teaches the piezoelectric layer 14 protrudes from the casing 52, therefore the casing has a measurement opening for the piezoelectric layer 14; paragraph [0048] teaches bending stress in the sensing piezoelectric layer, therefore the sensing piezoelectric layer is deformable). Mutharasan teaches wherein the housing (Fig. 8, PEMC sensor casing 52 and central contacting chamber 51) has a protective cap for the deformable parts of the PEMC sensor (Fig. 8, central contacting chamber 51, which is functionally a protective cap for the PEMC sensor 12), wherein the protective cap is configured to channel the sample to the deformable parts in a defined manner (Fig. 8 teaches central contacting chamber 51 includes inlets and outlets that provides a sample flow direction, which channels a sample to the PEMC sensor 12 in a defined manner). Mutharasan teaches flow characteristics resulting from the flow cell configurations enhance the ability of the piezoelectric cantilever sensor positioned therein to detect changes in mass accumulated on the sensing surface of the sensor (paragraph [0005]). Mutharasan teaches the arrangement of the housing and PEMC sensor (Fig. 8) allows for enhanced control of fluid flow to the PEMC sensor, resulting in improved detection performance (paragraphs [0036],[0058]). Mutharasan teaches the flow cell and PEMC sensor are separate and detachable, which allows for attachment of desired PEMC sensors and reusable or disposable components (paragraph [0064]).
Since Mutharasan teaches a cantilever sensor with a housing that provides sample flow to the sensor, similar to Baller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of Baller to incorporate Mutharasan’s teachings of a housing that includes a portion that encloses a cantilever sensor and connection electronics, and a protective cap the sensor that channels a sample to the sensor (Fig. 8; paragraphs [0005], [0036], [0048], [0051], [0056]-[0058], [0064]) to provide: wherein the housing encloses the sensor and the connection electronics, the housing has an opening for connecting the connection electronics, and the housing has a measurement opening through which at least the deformable parts of the cantilevers of the sensor protrude from the housing, and wherein the housing has a protective cap for the deformable parts of the reference and test cantilevers, wherein the protective cap is configured to channel the sample to the deformable parts in a defined manner. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving supporting and protection of the sensor and connection electronics while allowing for the sensor to interact and analyze with a sample flow as taught by Mutharasan (Fig. 8; paragraphs [0005],[0036],[0058],[0064]). Additionally, doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving attachment and communication of the sensor and connection electronics to the housing and sample, which allows for enhanced control of sample flow characteristics to the sensor, therefore improving detection performance of the sensor device as taught by Mutharasan (paragraphs [0005],[0036],[0058],[0064]).
PNG
media_image1.png
321
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4a of Baller.
Regarding claim 2, Baller further teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a passive test transducer arranged on the base of the test cantilever (see annotated Fig. 4a below; interpreted as the portion of the sensor 40 coupled to element 41 that is on the base) and an active test transducer arranged on the deformable part of the test cantilever (see annotated Fig. 4a below); and
a passive reference transducer arranged on the base of the reference cantilever (see annotated Fig. 4a below; interpreted as the portion of the sensor 40 coupled to element 42 that is on the base) and an active reference transducer arranged on the deformable part of the reference cantilever (see annotated Fig. 4a below),
wherein the respective active and passive reference transducers are configured to output an electrical signal corresponding to the at least one of the incidence, concentration and the amount of the analyte in the sample (column 5, lines 1-12 teaches a piezoresistive resistor is embedded at the end of the cantilever arm, where stress generates a signal that is measured; column 8, lines 61-64 teaches the sensor system monitors molecular recognition by static cantilever bending, where bending is dependent on concentration of oligonucleotides; column 10, lines 1-6 teaches changes in deflection of the cantilevers is detected which produces an output signal, i.e. photocurrents, which are analyzed to obtain information as to the amount of relative displacement of the cantilevers).
PNG
media_image2.png
395
569
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4a of Baller.
Regarding claim 3, Baller further teaches the sensor device according to claim 2, wherein the selective reception of the analyte by the receptor layer and the selective non-reception of the analyte by the reference layer causes at least one of a deformation and a change in a surface stress of the test cantilever with respect to the reference cantilever (interpreted as functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Figs. 4a-4b; column 5, lines 1-12 teaches a piezoresistive resistor is embedded at the end of the cantilever arm, where stress generates a signal that is measured; column 8, lines 61-64 teaches the sensor system monitors molecular recognition by static cantilever bending, where bending is dependent on concentration of oligonucleotides), and the at least one of the incidence, the concentration and the amount of the analyte is inferred by comparing forces detected by the respective transducers or by comparing surface stresses detected by the respective transducers (interpreted as an intended use of the sensor device see MPEP 2114; column 8, lines 4-12, lines 30-34, and lines 40-45 teaches determining the difference in deflection of the measurement and reference cantilever in order to allow for recognition of molecules).
Regarding claim 8, Baller further teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein:
the receptor layer comprises single-strand DNA (ssDNA) and/or other DNA fragments that bind specifically to DNA fragments in the sample (column 7, lines 56-64) and the reference layer comprises single-strand DNA and/or other DNA fragments that do not bind to any chemical and/or biochemical and/or physical species in the sample (column 7, lines 64-67; Fig. 4b teaches the reference layer of reference cantilever 42 does not bind to any species in the sample while the receptor layer of test cantilever binds to species), but correspond to the receptor layer in terms of characteristic parameters (column 7, line 65 - column 8, line 21; Figs. 4a-4b).
Regarding claim 14, modified Baller fails to teach the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the housing comprises two parts that are connected to one another by a snap-in connection.
Baller teaches the invention also concerns a container comprising a lid that is connected to the container, such that the container is open if the lid is bent (column 2, lines 56-62).
Mutharasan teaches a flow cell and sensor are separate and detachable, wherein the flow can and sensor can be attached via any appropriate means, such as a threaded insertion, snap and lock insertion, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0064]), wherein the unit can be reusable and/or disposable (paragraph [0064])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of modified Baller to incorporate the teachings of a device comprising multiple parts (Baller, column 2, lines 56-62; Mutharasan, paragraph [0064]) and the teachings of attachment of components via snap and lock insertion of Mutharasan (paragraph [0064]) to provide: the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the housing comprises two parts that are connected to one another by a snap-in connection. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully providing detachable components as taught by Mutharasan, therefore improving connection and separation of components of the housing for reuse or disposal (Mutharasan, paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Baller fails to teach the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the measurement opening is surrounded by a thread that corresponds to a thread of a sample vial.
Mutharasan teaches flow cells configured for piezoelectric cantilever sensors for direct, sensitive detection of analytes in fluid media (abstract). Mutharasan teaches a flow cell and sensor are separate and detachable, wherein the flow can and sensor can be attached via any appropriate means, such as a threaded insertion, snap and lock insertion, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0064]), wherein the unit can be reusable and/or disposable (paragraph [0064]). Mutharasan teaches the sensor connected to a sample vial (Fig. 8 shows sensor casing 52 connected to a flow cell, i.e. sample vial; Figs. 10-11 teaches the sensor casing 52 connected to a vial of a flow cell 48, i.e. sample vial).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement opening of modified Baller the teachings of attaching a sensor to a sample vial and attachment via a threaded insertion of Mutharasan (paragraph [0064]; Figs. 8,10-11) to provide: the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the measurement opening is surrounded by a thread that corresponds to a thread of a sample vial. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully providing detachable components as taught by Mutharasan, therefore improving connection and separation of the sensor device with a sample vial for analysis (Mutharasan, paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Baller further teaches wherein the protective cap (see above claim 1; Baller in combination with Mutharasan provides the claimed protective cap; i.e. Mutharasan, Fig. 8, teaches a central contacting chamber 51, which is functionally a protective cap for the PEMC sensor 12) is configured to protect the deformable parts of the reference and the test cantilevers against any direct mechanical action of the sample (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; the structural protective cap of Baller in view of Mutharasan, i.e. Mutharasan’s central contacting chamber 51, is structurally capable of protecting the deformable parts of the cantilevers against any direct mechanical actions of the sample at a later time since the central contacting chamber 51 provides structural walls or a casing).
Note that “any direct mechanical action of the sample” is not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (“any direct mechanical action of the sample”) worked upon by a structure (protective cap) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Note that a functional recitation or intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. The apparatus of modified Baller is identical to the presently claimed structure. Modified Baller discloses the claimed protective cap (see above claim 1) and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functional limitation or intended use (i.e. protecting the deformable parts of the cantilevers against any direct mechanical actions of the sample) recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 20, Baller further teaches the sensor device according to claim 3, wherein at least one of the deformation and the change in the surface stress is achieved in a longitudinal direction of at least one of the test cantilever and the reference cantilever (Figs. 4a-4c), wherein the longitudinal direction runs perpendicular to the base of the test cantilever and/or the reference cantilever (Figs. 4a-4c).
Regarding claim 21, modified Baller further teaches wherein the protective cap (see above claim 1; Baller in combination with Mutharasan provides the claimed protective cap; i.e. Mutharasan, Fig. 8, teaches a central contacting chamber 51, which is functionally a protective cap for the PEMC sensor 12) extends over the cantilevers (see above claim 1; Baller in combination with Mutharasan provides the claimed protective cap which would extend and cover the cantilevers of the sensor; i.e. Mutharasan, Fig. 8, teaches a central contacting chamber 51 extends over the sensor 12) in a manner of a shield such that the sample is braked before impacting the cantilevers (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; the structural protective cap of Baller in view of Mutharasan, i.e. Mutharasan’s central contacting chamber 51, extends over and surrounds the sensor, therefore is structurally capable of functioning as a shield such that the sample is braked before impacting the cantilevers at a later time since the central contacting chamber 51 provides structural walls or a casing).
Note that “the sample” is not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (“the sample”) worked upon by a structure (protective cap) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Note that a functional recitation or intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. The apparatus of modified Baller is identical to the presently claimed structure. Modified Baller discloses the claimed protective cap (see above claim 1) and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functional limitation or intended use (i.e. …shield such that the sample is braked before impacting the cantilevers) recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller in view of Mutharasan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thaysen (US 20050034542 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Baller teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the deformable parts of the reference and test cantilevers (Baller; see above annotated Fig. 4) have identical geometric dimensions (Baller, column 8, lines 4-5), and wherein the bases of the reference and test cantilevers are arranged on a same overall base and the bases are formed in one piece with one another (see above annotated Fig. 4a, the bases of each cantilever are arranged on a same overall base and formed in one piece with one another).
Modified Baller fails to teach: wherein a width of the deformable parts of the reference and test cantilevers corresponds to a length of the deformable parts of the reference and test cantilevers.
Thaysen teaches a sensor comprising sensor units in the form of a poly-cantilever structure (abstract). Thaysen teaches the cantilever structures can be square formed or rectangular formed (paragraphs [0023],[0034]). Thaysen teaches the cantilever-like structures may in principle have any shape as long as they are linked to each other and that they are relatively flexible (paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference and test cantilevers of modified Baller to incorporate the teachings of known shapes of cantilevers, such as a square, of Thaysen (paragraphs [0023],[0034]) to provide: wherein a width of the deformable parts of the reference and test cantilevers corresponds to a length of the deformable parts of the reference and test cantilevers. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a cantilever structure that are flexible (Thaysen, paragraphs [0020],[0023],[0034]). Additionally, doing so would have been an obvious change of shape in view of Thaysen (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B); In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller in view of Mutharasan as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Roukes et al. (US 7959873 B1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Baller fails to teach: the sensor device according to claim 2, wherein the respective transducers are electrically interconnected in a full bridge that is configured to build up a transverse bridge voltage (VB) based on electrical properties of the respective transducers.
Baller teaches: teaches detection circuitry and appropriate wiring for the cantilever (column 5, lines 24-38).
Roukes teaches a biosensor comprised of free and biofunctionalized recognition self-sensing nanocantilever (abstract). Roukes teaches differential signal detection is employed to reduce common-mode signal due to the environment in which the sensor resides (column 2, lines 15-18). Roukes teaches in order to compensate the large environmental background noise and provide a differential signal between the reference cantilever and recognition cantilever, the two cantilevers are incorporated into two arms of a Wheatstone bridge, i.e. full bridge (note that the instant application, paragraph [0110] discusses a full bridge is also known by the names of Wheatstone measuring bridge, therefore Rouke’s Wheatstone bridge is interpreted as a full bridge); and their difference is measured through another differential amplifier to remove background noise and obtain high gain (column 6, lines 52-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor device of modified Baller to incorporate the teachings of a biosensor comprising reference and recognition cantilevers connected in a Wheatstone bridge of Roukes (column 2, lines 15-18; column 6, lines 52-62) to provide: the sensor device according to claim 2, wherein the respective transducers are electrically interconnected in a full bridge that is configured to build up a transverse bridge voltage (VB) based on electrical properties of the respective transducers. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improve electronic signal measurement by reducing noise and obtain high gain as discussed by Roukes.
Regarding claim 6, modified Baller fails to teach: the sensor device according to claim 5, further comprising an A/D converter configured to convert the transverse bridge voltage (VB) into a digital signal and that is configured to be operated in at least one of a differential measuring mode and in an absolute measuring mode using an A/D converter logic unit.
Baller teaches an acquisition and control unit that processes an amplifier’s output signal, and the acquisition and control unit comprises an analog-to-digital converter for generating an output signal that is forwarded to a computer to be processed and recorded (column 10, lines 38-45).
Roukes teaches differential signal detection is employed to reduce common-mode signal due to the environment in which the sensor resides (column 2, lines 15-18). Roukes teaches in order to compensate the large environmental background noise and provide a differential signal between the reference cantilever and recognition cantilever, the two cantilevers are incorporated into two arms of a Wheatstone bridge, i.e. full bridge (note that the instant application, paragraph [0110] discusses a full bridge is also known by the names of Wheatstone measuring bridge, therefore Rouke’s Wheatstone bridge is interpreted as a full bridge); and their difference is measured through another differential amplifier to remove background noise and obtain high gain (column 6, lines 52-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor device of modified Baller to incorporate the teachings of an A/D converter of Baller (column 10, lines 38-45) and the teachings of measuring differential signal from cantilevers of Roukes (column 2, lines 15-18; column 6, lines 52-62) to provide: the sensor device according to claim 5, further comprising an A/D converter configured to convert the transverse bridge voltage (VB) into a digital signal and that is configured to be operated in at least one of a differential measuring mode and in an absolute measuring mode using an A/D converter logic unit. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving analysis of output signals from the cantilevers while removing noise and obtaining a high gain.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller in view of Mutharasan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ndieyira (US 20200215537 A1; cited in the IDS filed 03/08/2024) and Nawana et al. (US 20210293816 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Baller further teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, further comprising: a self-assembling monolayer applied to the activation layer (column 5, lines 55-65 and column 7, lines 32-47 teach the surface of the cantilever is functionalized by self assembled monolayers, i.e. thiols);
an activation layer applied to upper surfaces of the reference and test cantilevers (Fig. 5 and column 8, lines 53-55 teaches a gold layer 44 applied to the upper surface of the cantilever; column 9, lines 8-13 teaches one side of the Si cantilever is covered by a gold layer; since Fig. 4 shows both cantilevers 41,42 with recognition molecules, it is implied that each cantilever comprises a gold layer the upper surfaces); and
at least one of the reference layer or the receptor layer applied to the self-assembling monolayer of the reference and test cantilever, respectively (column 8, lines 13-22 and lines 50-58 teach cantilevers are functionalized by oligonucleotides modified by a thiol group at their 5’ end; therefore, the reference or receptor layer is applied to the self assembling monolayer, i.e. thiols to the respective reference and test cantilevers).
Modified Baller fails to teach:
a passivation layer applied to lower surfaces of the reference and test cantilevers;
wherein the receptor layer comprises antibodies for an antigen and the reference layer comprises an antigen-specific isotype control antibody according to the antibody of the receptor layer.
Baller teaches one surface of the cantilever or membrane has to be functionalized individually according to the analyte of choice, e.g., by proteins (antigen--antibodies, receptor--ligands, enzymes), oligonucleotides, self assembled monolayers (thiols), polymeric layers, cells or microorganisms (column 5, lines 60-64; column 7, lines 32-38).
Ndieyira teaches a cantilever sensor (abstract). Ndieyira teaches the cantilever can be passivated on the side that is not coated with the SAM (paragraph [0013]). Ndieyira teaches the cantilever is passivated on the side opposite to the gold layer (i.e. bottom side), wherein the purpose of passivation of the bottom surface is to help in avoiding unwanted functionalization of the bottom surface with receptors or probe molecules, consequently preventing probe molecule (ligand) adsorption that would alter sensing results (paragraph [0050]). Ndieyira teaches a probe molecule to interact with specificity and sensitivity with another molecule, wherein the probe molecule is a receptor such as an antibody to provide antibody-antigen interaction (paragraphs [0046]-[0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference and test cantilevers of modified Baller to incorporate Baller’s teachings of the cantilever functionalized for antigen-antibodies (column 5, lines 60-64; column 7, lines 32-38) and Ndieyira’s teachings of the bottom side of cantilevers coated with a passivation layer (paragraphs [0013],[0050]) and a probe molecule as an antibody (paragraphs [0046]-[0047]) to provide: a passivation layer applied to lower surfaces of the reference and test cantilevers; and wherein the receptor layer comprises antibodies for an antigen. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving specificity and sensitivity to desired analytes and avoiding unwanted functionalization at the bottom surface of the cantilevers.
Modified Baller fails to teach: the reference layer comprises an antigen-specific isotype control antibody according to the antibody of the receptor layer.
Nawana teaches a sensor for detecting SARS-Cov-2 virus in a sample, which includes binding agents coupled to a graphene layer (abstract). Nawana teaches the graphene layer was functionalized with anti-spike protein antibodies and unfunctionalized portions were passivated (paragraph [0133]). Nawana teaches a control sensor was also fabricated, where the graphene layer was functionalized with isotype control antibodies; and the signals from the sensor and control sensor were compared (paragraph [0133]). Nawana teaches irrelevant protein bound to plates used as a negative control (paragraphs [0131],[0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference layer of modified Baller to incorporate the teachings of a control sensor comprising isotype control antibodies and the use of negative controls of Nawana (paragraphs [0131]-[0133]) to provide: the reference layer comprises an antigen-specific isotype control antibody according to the antibody of the receptor layer. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving comparison of the reference and test cantilevers for a desired analyte via use of a control such as a negative control.
Claim 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller in view of Mutharasan and Roukes as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Brancazio et al. (US 20080118402 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Baller fails to teach the sensor device according to claim 6, wherein the connection electronics comprise a printable circuit board that is configured to ensure the electrical communication between a connection socket and the sensor.
Baller teaches: teaches detection circuitry and appropriate wiring for the cantilever (column 5, lines 24-38).
Brancazio teaches a compact system that repeatably makes fluid, mechanical, and electrical contact enabling reliable sample analysis (paragraph [0059]). Brancazio teaches various electronic configurations employed in the system for connecting elements with a circuit, such as spring-loaded pins mounted in a socket that is screwed to a printed circuit board, wherein the printed circuit board has gold coated pads that contact the pins (paragraph [0120]). Brancazio teaches a socket containing complementary electrical contact points on the same printed circuit board as an analyzer circuitry (paragraph [0123]). Brancazio teaches a cover that includes a frame and a socket within the frame, wherein electrical connections are disposed on the socket and a plurality of magnets are disposed in an inner frame (paragraph [0139]; and electrical contact points on the socket can contact the electrical contact pads on the processing device and the plurality of magnets disposed in the socket can align with the processing device (paragraph [0140]). Brancazio teaches alignment of magnets with the processing device is ensured when registration features on the socket engage with registration features on the supporting surface, where the magnets are disposed on the socket (paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor device and the connection electronics of modified Baller to incorporate the teachings of a system for sample analysis that includes electronic configurations for connecting elements with a printed circuit board, such an electrical connection via a socket, of Brancazio (paragraphs [0016], [0059], [0120], [0123], [0139], [0140]) to provide: the sensor device according to claim 6, wherein the connection electronics comprise a printable circuit board that is configured to ensure the electrical communication between a connection socket and the sensor. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving transmission and analysis of data from the sensor device and ensuring proper electrical communication between electrical elements.
Regarding claim 10, modified Baller fails to teach the sensor device according to claim 9, wherein the connection socket and the printable circuit board are configured to perform at least one of: implementing a voltage supply for the full bridge, reading the transverse bridge voltage (VB), reading the output signal from the A/D converter, setting at least one of a differential measuring mode and in an absolute measuring mode of the A/D converter logic unit, and implementing electrostatic discharge protection.
Baller teaches: teaches detection circuitry and appropriate wiring for the cantilever (column 5, lines 24-38). Baller teaches an acquisition and control unit that processes an amplifier’s output signal, and the acquisition and control unit comprises an analog-to-digital converter for generating an output signal that is forwarded to a computer to be processed and recorded (column 10, lines 38-45).
Brancazio teaches a compact system that repeatably makes fluid, mechanical, and electrical contact enabling reliable sample analysis (paragraph [0059]). Brancazio teaches various electronic configurations employed in the system for connecting elements with a circuit, such as spring-loaded pins mounted in a socket that is screwed to a printed circuit board, wherein the printed circuit board has gold coated pads that contact the pins (paragraph [0120]). Brancazio teaches a socket containing complementary electrical contact points on the same printed circuit board as an analyzer circuitry (paragraph [0123]). Brancazio teaches a cover that includes a frame and a socket within the frame, wherein electrical connections are disposed on the socket and a plurality of magnets are disposed in an inner frame (paragraph [0139]; and electrical contact points on the socket can contact the electrical contact pads on the processing device and the plurality of magnets disposed in the socket can align with the processing device (paragraph [0140]). Brancazio teaches alignment of magnets with the processing device is ensured when registration features on the socket engage with registration features on the supporting surface, where the magnets are disposed on the socket (paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor device and the connection electronics of modified Baller to incorporate the teachings of reading the output signal from the A/D converter of Baller (column 10, lines 38-45), the teachings of a system for sample analysis that includes electronic configurations for connecting elements with a printed circuit board, such an electrical connection via a socket, of Brancazio (paragraphs [0016], [0059], [0120], [0123], [0139], [0140]) to provide: teach the sensor device according to claim 9, wherein the connection socket and the printable circuit board are configured to perform at least one of: implementing a voltage supply for the full bridge, reading the transverse bridge voltage (VB), reading the output signal from the A/D converter, setting at least one of a differential measuring mode and in an absolute measuring mode of the A/D converter logic unit, and implementing electrostatic discharge protection (i.e. reading the output signal from the A/D converter). Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving transmission, control, and analysis of data from the sensor device and ensuring proper electrical communication between electrical elements.
Regarding claim 11, modified Baller fails to teach the sensor device according to claim 9, wherein the connection socket is a magnetic connection socket.
Brancazio teaches a compact system that repeatably makes fluid, mechanical, and electrical contact enabling reliable sample analysis (paragraph [0059]). Brancazio teaches various electronic configurations employed in the system for connecting elements with a circuit, such as spring-loaded pins mounted in a socket that is screwed to a printed circuit board, wherein the printed circuit board has gold coated pads that contact the pins (paragraph [0120]). Brancazio teaches a socket containing complementary electrical contact points on the same printed circuit board as an analyzer circuitry (paragraph [0123]). Brancazio teaches a cover that includes a frame and a socket within the frame, wherein electrical connections are disposed on the socket and a plurality of magnets are disposed in an inner frame (paragraph [0139]; and electrical contact points on the socket can contact the electrical contact pads on the processing device and the plurality of magnets disposed in the socket can align with the processing device (paragraph [0140]). Brancazio teaches alignment of magnets with the processing device is ensured when registration features on the socket engage with registration features on the supporting surface, where the magnets are disposed on the socket (paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor device and the connection electronics of modified Baller to incorporate the teachings of a system for sample analysis that includes a socket with magnets for electrical connection, of Brancazio (paragraphs [0016], [0059], [0120], [0123], [0139], [0140]) to provide: the sensor device according to claim 9, wherein the connection socket is a magnetic connection socket. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving alignment of electrical components for proper electrical connections as taught by Brancazio.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller in view of Mutharasan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benam et al. (US 20190376950 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Baller fails to teach the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the opening for connecting the connection electronics and the measurement openings are sealed by rubber seals.
Mutharasan teaches seals, such as o-rings, or any suitable fittings can provide a seal to the flow cell and sensing casing (paragraph [0056]).
Benam teaches a system comprising a biochip (abstract). Benam teaches a chamber, where an opening is sealed using a rubber stopper that allows sealing of the opening while still permitting tubing to get into the chamber (paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the openings of modified Baller to incorporate the teachings of providing seals of Mutharasan (paragraph [0056]) and a rubber stopper of Benam (paragraph [0021]) to provide: the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the opening for connecting the connection electronics and the measurement openings are sealed by rubber seals. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving sealing of the openings while allowing for desired elements to enter or exit the sensor device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller in view of Mutharasan, Roukes, and Brancazio as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Dussault (US 5421189 A).
Regarding claim 17, modified Baller fails to teach the sensor device according to claim 9, wherein the printable circuit board has an ESD protection contact or grounding contact, at least part of the housing has a conductivity of less than 1GΩ and the at least one conductive housing part is electrically conductively connected to the printable circuit board.
Brancazio teaches various electronic configurations employed in the system, wherein the printed circuit board is connected to a spring side of a pogo, wherein other pogo pins connect chip, ground, RTD traces, and other electrical features (paragraph [0120]).
Dussault teaches an electrochemical/gas analyzer providing protection for high impedance input electronics against ESD damage (abstract). Dussault teaches a printed circuit board and housing (column 2, line 25), and diagnostic circuitry includes a path to electrical ground (column 2, lines 29-39), and static potential built up on the sensor body is drained to ground and the high impedance front-end electronics are protected from ESD damage (column 2, lines 39-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor device of modified Baller to incorporate the teachings of the printed circuit board connected to ground of Brancazio (paragraph [0120]) and the teachings of a printed board and housing, which includes a path to ground, and a sensor body is protected from ESD damage of Dussault (abstract; column 2, lines 25-42) to provide: the sensor device according to claim 9, wherein the printable circuit board has an ESD protection contact or grounding contact, at least part of the housing has a conductivity of less than 1GΩ and the at least one conductive housing part is electrically conductively connected to the printable circuit board. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving protection of the sensor device from ESD damage as discussed by Dussault.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller in view of Mutharasan and Roukes as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Su et al. (WO 2004029625 A2; cited in the IDS filed 05/03/2023).
Regarding claim 18, modified Baller fails to teach the sensor device according to claim 6, wherein: the sensor device is connected to an evaluation station that is configured to evaluate measured signals from at least one of the transverse bridge voltage detector and the A/D converter, and the evaluation station is configured to communicate with a computer system in a wired or wireless manner, wherein a display of the evaluation is displayed on the computer system.
Baller teaches an acquisition and control unit that processes an amplifier’s output signal, and the acquisition and control unit comprises an analog-to-digital converter for generating an output signal that is forwarded to a computer to be processed and recorded (column 10, lines 38-45).
Su teaches an apparatus for detection and/or identification of target analytes using probe molecules attached to cantilevers (abstract). Su teaches the cantilevers, detection unit, and other elements of the apparatus are interfaced with a data processing and control system for data analysis (paragraphs [0087]-[0088]). Su teaches the system incorporates a system comprising a bus or other communication means for communicating information, and a processor coupled with the bus for processing information (paragraph [0087]), wherein the computer includes a display (paragraph [0088]). Su teaches software, i.e. evaluation station, are used to analyze data obtained from the detection unit (paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor device of modified Baller to incorporate the teachings of evaluating measured signals with a computer of Baller (column 10, lines 38-45) and the teachings of a computer comprising a processor and software for analyzing data and a display of Su (paragraphs [0087]-[0088],[0092]) to provide: the sensor device according to claim 6, wherein: the sensor device is connected to an evaluation station that is configured to evaluate measured signals from at least one of the transverse bridge voltage detector and the A/D converter, and the evaluation station is configured to communicate with a computer system in a wired or wireless manner, wherein a display of the evaluation is displayed on the computer system. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving computational analysis of data obtained from the cantilevers and display of data to a user.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller in view of Mutharasan as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Thaysen (US 20060060003 A1; herein “US ‘003”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Baller fails to teach the sensor device according to claim 3, wherein at least one of the deformation and the change in the surface stress is achieved in a transverse direction of at least one of the test cantilever and the reference cantilever, with the transverse direction running parallel to the base of the test cantilever and/or of the reference cantilever.
US ‘003 teaches a sensor comprising a sensor unit, such as a cantilever, wherein the sensor unit comprises a capture surface area and a piezoresistive detection system for direct detection of stress change of the sensor (abstract); wherein the objective of the invention is to improve signal or signal/noise ratio of the sensor (paragraph [0007]). US ‘003 teaches the piezoresistive element has a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction along the length of the piezoresistive element when an electrical field is applied over the piezoresistive element and the piezoresistive element is subjected to a stress (paragraph [0026]). US ‘003 teaches since the surface stress changed is observed as a relative change in the resistance it has been found that both the transverse and longitudinal stress has to be considered, and furthermore, it has been found that they can be considered equally, irrespectively of the width and length of the piezoresistive material, when the cantilever is not subjected to other forces, such as a resistive force generated due to clamping (paragraph [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor device of modified Baller to incorporate the teachings of considering both transverse and longitudinal stress of piezoresistive elements of a detection system of US ‘003 (abstract; paragraphs [0007],[0026],[0070]) to provide: the sensor device according to claim 3, wherein at least one of the deformation and the change in the surface stress is achieved in a transverse direction of at least one of the test cantilever and the reference cantilever, with the transverse direction running parallel to the base of the test cantilever and/or of the reference cantilever. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving characterization and analysis of surface stress of the cantilevers, therefore improving signal or signal to noise ratio as taught by US ‘003 (abstract; paragraphs [0007],[0026],[0070]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 02/17/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 8, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102, specifically regarding amended claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Baller et al. (US 7560070 B1) in view of Mutharasan et al. (US 20080034840 A1; cited in the IDS filed 04/30/2025).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 13-15, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Mutharasan fails to teach or suggest the limitations of the housing and protective cap (Remarks, pages 13-15), the examiner disagrees.
Mutharasan teaches: Mutharasan teaches a piezoelectric-excited millimeter-sized cantilever (PEMC) sensor (paragraph [0056] and Fig. 8, PEMC sensor 12) in a housing (Fig. 8, flow cell 50 including PEMC sensor casing 52 and central contacting chamber 51); wherein the housing encloses the PEMC sensor and connection electronics (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0056]-[0057] teaches the PEMC sensor casing 52 having a diameter which encloses at least a portion of the PEMC sensor 12 and leads 60; [0051] teaches portion 14 is within the base portion 20, therefore at least a portion of the PEMC sensor 12 is enclosed by the casing), wherein the housing as an opening for the connection electronics (Fig. 8 shows leads 60 exiting the casing 52, therefore the casing has openings), and the housing has a measurement opening through which at least a deformable parts of the cantilever of the sensor protrude from the housing (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0056] teaches the piezoelectric layer 14 protrudes from the casing 52, therefore the casing has a measurement opening for the piezoelectric layer 14; paragraph [0048] teaches bending stress in the sensing piezoelectric layer, therefore the sensing piezoelectric layer is deformable). Mutharasan teaches wherein the housing (Fig. 8, PEMC sensor casing 52 and central contacting chamber 51) has a protective cap for the deformable parts of the PEMC sensor (Fig. 8, central contacting chamber 51, which is functionally a protective cap for the PEMC sensor 12), wherein the protective cap is configured to channel the sample to the deformable parts in a defined manner (Fig. 8 teaches central contacting chamber 51 includes inlets and outlets that provides a sample flow direction, which channels a sample to the PEMC sensor 12 in a defined manner). Therefore, Mutharasan teaches the housing and protective cap as claimed.
Additionally, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Mutharasan provides teaches the claimed housing and protective cap (see above). Mutharasan also provides motivation of: flow characteristics resulting from the flow cell configurations enhance the ability of the piezoelectric cantilever sensor positioned therein to detect changes in mass accumulated on the sensing surface of the sensor (paragraph [0005]); the arrangement of the housing and PEMC sensor (Fig. 8) allows for enhanced control of fluid flow to the PEMC sensor, resulting in improved detection performance (paragraphs [0036],[0058]); and the flow cell and PEMC sensor are separate and detachable, which allows for attachment of desired PEMC sensors and reusable or disposable components (paragraph [0064]).
In this case, since Mutharasan teaches a cantilever sensor with a housing that provides sample flow to the sensor, similar to Baller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the housing of Baller to incorporate Mutharasan’s teachings of a housing that includes a portion that encloses a cantilever sensor and connection electronics, and a protective cap the sensor that channels a sample to the sensor (Fig. 8; paragraphs [0005], [0036], [0048], [0051], [0056]-[0058], [0064]) to provide: wherein the housing encloses the sensor and the connection electronics, the housing has an opening for connecting the connection electronics, and the housing has a measurement opening through which at least the deformable parts of the cantilevers of the sensor protrude from the housing, and wherein the housing has a protective cap for the deformable parts of the reference and test cantilevers, wherein the protective cap is configured to channel the sample to the deformable parts in a defined manner. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving supporting and protection of the sensor and connection electronics while allowing for the sensor to interact and analyze with a sample flow as taught by Mutharasan (Fig. 8; paragraphs [0005],[0036],[0058],[0064]). Additionally, doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving attachment and communication of the sensor and connection electronics to the housing and sample, which allows for enhanced control of sample flow characteristics to the sensor, therefore improving detection performance of the sensor device as taught by Mutharasan (paragraphs [0005],[0036],[0058],[0064]).
Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding Fuhberger and the new limitations of “configured to channel the sample to the deformable parts in a defined manner” (Remarks, pages 14-15), the examiner finds the arguments persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amended claims is made in view of Baller et al. (US 7560070 B1) in view of Mutharasan et al. (US 20080034840 A1; cited in the IDS filed 04/30/2025).
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails to address “protecting protruding deformable cantilever parts from sample impact while also channeling sample to those parts in a defined manner” and “braking sample impact” (Remarks, pages 13-15), a recitation of the intended use or functional limitations of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or functional limitations, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. The apparatus of modified Baller is identical to the presently claimed structure. Modified Baller discloses the claimed protective cap (see above claim 1) and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functional limitation or intended use (i.e. protecting the deformable parts of the cantilevers against any direct mechanical actions of the sample; the sample is braked before impacting the cantilevers) recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Additionally, note that “the sample” is not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (“the sample”) worked upon by a structure (protective cap) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wright (US 20190128853 A1) teaches a piezoelectric mechanical microcantilever sensor that detects presence of a viral RNA in a blood sample (abstract; Figs. 1-2). Wright teaches a detachable test sensor head 7 may include test well 4, which is shown enclosed by cover 6 (Figs. 1-2; paragraph [0065], wherein cover 6 covers test well 4 and may be retracted or removed to allow a sample to be added to the well 4 (paragraph [0065]).
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 HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights