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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested to recite “a forces” as “a force” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, claims 9 and 11 recites “the respective transducers”. It is unclear which transducers are being referred to. Are all of the transducers established in claim 1 being referred to? For examination purposes, the respective transducers are interpreted as all of the transducers established in claim 1. Claims 12-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites “a distance (A) between the active reference transducer or test transducer and the passive reference transducer or test transducer”. Due to the “or” term in addition to the “and” term, it is unclear of the scope of which elements are being referred to and if applicant intends for the distance to be between the active and test cantilever elements. The BRI includes the combinations of distances between: the active reference transducer and the passive reference transducer; the active reference transducer and the passive test transducer; the active test transducer and the passive reference transducer; and the active test transducer and the passive test transducer.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites “a multiplicity of cantilever pairs” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if “cantilever pairs” are the same or different, or if they are associated or comprise, the test cantilever and reference cantilever established in claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11, 16, 18, 20, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baller et al. (US 7560070 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Baller teaches a sensor (abstract; Figs. 4a-4d) for converting at least one of chemical and biochemical information about 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), the sensor comprising
a test cantilever (Figs. 4a-4c, measurement cantilever 41) having 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) on which a receptor layer for selective reception of the analyte is applied (see below annotated Fig. 4a; column 7, lines 59-64 teaches a first coating that is sensitive to a particular complementary DNA strand), where a passive test transducer is arranged on the base (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 is arranged on the deformable part (see annotated Fig. 4a below) ;
a reference cantilever (Figs. 4a-4c, reference cantilever 42) having 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) on which a reference layer for selective non-reception of the analyte is applied (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), where a passive reference transducer is arranged on the base (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 is arranged on the deformable part (see annotated Fig. 4a below),
wherein the active and passive reference transducers and the active and passive test transducers are configured to output an electrical signal corresponding to at least one of an incidence, a concentration and an 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_image1.png
395
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4a of Baller
Regarding claim 2, Baller further teaches wherein the transducers are each configured to determine an alteration in a surface stress of the reference cantilever and of the test cantilever (interpreted as a functional limitations of the transducers, MPEP 2114; 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 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; 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; therefore, the transducers are configured to determine a change in surface stress of each cantilever).
Regarding claim 3, Baller further teaches wherein the transducers are each configured to determine at least one of a deformation and an alteration in a surface stress of the respective deformable parts of the reference cantilever and of the test cantilever (interpreted as a functional limitations of the transducers, MPEP 2114; 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 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; 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; therefore, the transducers are configured to determine deformation and alternation of surface stress of the cantilevers), and
wherein the changes in at least one of the surface stress and a forces exerted during deformation on each respective base and the deformable parts the reference cantilever and of the test cantilever are detected (interpreted as an intended use, MPEP 2114; 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 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; 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).
Regarding claim 4, Baller further teaches wherein the force to be detected is at least one of a bending force, a stretching force, a shearing force and a surface stress, or is due to an elasticity modulus of the reference and test cantilevers (interpreted as an intended use, MPEP 2114; 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 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; column 8, lines 61-64 teaches the sensor system monitors molecular recognition by static cantilever bending, where bending is dependent on concentration of oligonucleotides).
Regarding claim 5, Baller further teaches wherein an effect on the test cantilever caused by the selective reception of the analyte is concluded through a comparison of the deformations, forces and/or surface stresses detected by the transducers (interpreted as an intended use, 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 7, Baller further teaches wherein the respective bases of each of the reference and test cantilevers are arranged as a single base (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).
Regarding claim 8, Baller further teaches wherein the reference and test cantilevers comprise at least one of Si3N4, SiO2, Si3N4/SiO2, SiC, Si or comprise a polymer (column 4, lines 57-62 teaches cantilevers can be fabricated with silicon nitride; column 5, lines 60-65 teaches the cantilevers may include polymeric layers; column 8, lines 46-47 teaches a silicon cantilever array, therefore the cantilevers comprise at least Si).
Regarding claim 11, Baller further teaches the sensor according to claim 1, further comprising electrodes (Fig. 5 and column 8, line 53, metal layer 44) that are configured to electrically contact the respective transducers (Figs. 4A and 5 teach the metal layer 44 contacts the top surface of the cantilever, therefore is configured to electrically contact the respective transducers).
Regarding claim 16, Baller further teaches the sensor according to claim 1, further comprising: an activation layer configured to activate 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 to allow for oligonucleotides to link to the cantilevers, i.e. configured to activate the upper surfaces of the cantilevers; 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), wherein the activation layer is configured to provide a greater surface stress in comparison to a non-activated lower surface of the reference and test cantilevers (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 5 shows the gold layer is on the upper surface of the cantilevers and the lower surface does not have the gold layer; the activation layer of Baller is identical to the claimed activation layer, and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functions recited in the claim, see MPEP 2112.01), and wherein the activation layer comprises gold (Fig. 5 and column 8, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 18, Baller further teaches wherein the reference and test cantilevers each comprise a self-assembling monolayer (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; 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 and test cantilevers each comprise self-assembling monolayers).
Regarding claim 20, Baller further teaches wherein: the receptor layer comprises single-strand DNA (ssDNA) and/or other DNA fragments which binds 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 which does 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 in characteristic parameters coincides with the receptor layer (column 7, line 65 - column 8, line 21; Figs. 4a-4b).
Regarding claim 22, Baller further teaches wherein at least one of the deformation and the alteration 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), where the longitudinal direction runs perpendicular to the base of at least one of the test cantilever and of the reference cantilever (Figs. 4a-4c).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thaysen (US 20050034542 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Baller further teaches wherein the deformable parts of the reference and test cantilevers (see above annotated Fig. 4) have identical geometric dimensions (Fig. 4; column 8, lines 4-5).
Baller fails to teach: respective widths of the deformable part of the reference and test cantilevers corresponds to respective lengths of the deformable part 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 Baller to incorporate the teachings of known shapes of cantilevers, such as a square, of Thaysen (paragraphs [0023],[0034]) to provide: respective widths of the deformable part of the reference and test cantilevers corresponds to respective lengths of the deformable part 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)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muller et al. (US 4361026 A).
Regarding claim 9, Baller fails to explicitly teach: wherein the respective transducers have identical intrinsic physical properties and are configured to adapt electrical properties in accordance with forces acting on the reference and test cantilevers.
Muller teaches an apparatus for sensing the presence of gases, vapors, and liquids (abstract). Muller teaches an embodiment to eliminate any error due to variations in temperature, which includes a duplicate of a sensing member that includes transducers, where the transducers are identical (column 5, lines 39-49). Muller teaches an embodiment that determines the presence of a specific fluid by vibrating a sensitive member using a cantilever (column 9, lines 15-32).
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 transducers of Baller to incorporate the teachings of sensing members having identical transducers of Muller (column 5, lines 39-49) to provide: wherein the respective transducers have identical intrinsic physical properties and are configured to adapt electrical properties in accordance with forces acting on the reference and test cantilevers. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully reducing variations between the cantilevers, therefore improving accuracy of sensing.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boisen et al. (US 20060075803 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Baller fails to teach: wherein a distance (A) between the active reference transducer or test transducer and the passive reference transducer or test transducer is less than 100 um.
Boisen teaches a cantilever array for a biochemical sensor (abstract). Boisen teaches individual cantilevers are typically separated along a side of the platform by a distance 7 of 50 to 100 micrometers (paragraph [0054]).
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 active reference transducer or test transducer and the passive reference transducer or test transducer of Baller to incorporate the teachings of separation distances between cantilevers of Boisen (paragraph [0054]) to provide: wherein a distance (A) between the active reference transducer or test transducer and the passive reference transducer or test transducer is less than 100 um. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully ensuring and optimizing separation distances between the cantilevers comprising the transducers.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller as applied to claims 11 and 1 above, and further in view of Roukes et al. (US 7959873 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Baller fails to teach: wherein the transducers are electrically interconnected in a full bridge that is configured to develop a transverse bridge voltage (VB) based on the electrical properties of the 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 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: wherein the transducers are electrically interconnected in a full bridge that is configured to develop a transverse bridge voltage (VB) based on the electrical properties of the 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 13, modified Baller fails to teach: the sensor according to claim 12, further comprising a transverse bridge voltage detector that is configured to detect the transverse bridge voltage (VB) of the full bridge, wherein an incidence of the analyte selectively received by the receptor layer is concluded through the detected transverse bridge voltage (VB).
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). Baller teaches: teaches detection circuitry and appropriate wiring for the cantilever (column 5, lines 24-38). Baller teaches the sensor system monitors molecular recognition by static cantilever bending, where bending is dependent on concentration of oligonucleotides (column 8, lines 61-64).
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). Roukes teaches a differential detector coupled to sensing cantilevers to provide an output signal (column 3, lines 15-21).
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 Baller to incorporate Roukes’ teachings of a biosensor comprising reference and recognition cantilevers connected in a Wheatstone bridge and differential detector (column 2, lines 15-18; column 3, lines 15-21; column 6, lines 52-62) and Baller’s of generating and forwarding a signal to a computer for processing (column 10, lines 38-45), appropriate detection circuitry (column 5, lines 24-38) and monitoring molecular recognition via the cantilevers (column 8, lines 61-64) to provide: the sensor according to claim 12, further comprising a transverse bridge voltage detector that is configured to detect the transverse bridge voltage (VB) of the full bridge, wherein an incidence of the analyte selectively received by the receptor layer is concluded through the detected transverse bridge voltage (VB). Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully providing appropriate circuitry to improve electronic signal measurement by reducing noise and obtain high gain as discussed by Roukes.
Regarding claim 14, Baller fails to teach: wherein electrical properties of the transducers are output via an A/D converter, and an A/D converter logic unit is configured to provide at least one of a differential measurement and an absolute measurement of bending states.
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: wherein electrical properties of the transducers are output via an A/D converter, and an A/D converter logic unit is configured to provide at least one of a differential measurement and an absolute measurement of bending states. 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.
Regarding claim 15, modified Baller fails to teach: wherein the sensor is embodied on a chip and a multiplicity of cantilever pairs are arranged on the chip, wherein the A/D converter logic unit is configured to provide signal multiplexing of the measurement signals.
Baller teaches the use of an array of cantilever sensors allows some of the cantilevers to serve as reference sensors, therefore a small sensor response can be extracted in noisy environments (column 2, lines 1-5). Baller teaches an embodiment comprising a multiplicity of cantilever pairs are arranged on the chip (Fig. 6). Baller teaches each cantilever of the cantilever pairs comprises a piezoelectric detector which provides a read-out signal to a detection circuitry (column 9, lines 43-57). 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 an integrated cantilever array, wherein the magnitude of the signal can be enhanced by the size of the array, such as the number of pairs of cantilevers, and the surface area for accessing biological targets is enhanced, which is essential for detection low concentration of biomolecules (column 7, lines 29-44).
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 of modified Baller to incorporate Baller’s teachings of the use of an array of cantilevers pairs and an A/D converter and Rouke’s teachings of an integrated cantilever array to provide: wherein the sensor is embodied on a chip and a multiplicity of cantilever pairs are arranged on the chip, wherein the A/D converter logic unit is configured to provide signal multiplexing of the measurement signals. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully enhancing detection of an analyte as taught by Roukes (column 7, lines 29-44).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ndieyira (US 20200215537 A1; cited in the IDS filed 03/07/2024).
Regarding claim 17, Baller fails to teach the sensor according to claim 1, further comprising: a passivation layer that passivates lower surfaces of the reference and test cantilevers, wherein the passivation layer is configured to minimize an unspecific protein adhesion on the reference and test cantilevers, and wherein the passivation layer comprises at least one of trimethoxysilane and a blocking substance.
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. lower surface, with a PEG-silane coating, i.e. blocking substance (paragraph [0050]), 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]).
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 to incorporate Ndieyira’s teachings of the lower side of cantilevers coated with a passivation layer (paragraphs [0013],[0050]) to provide: the sensor according to claim 1, further comprising: a passivation layer that passivates lower surfaces of the reference and test cantilevers, wherein the passivation layer is configured to minimize an unspecific protein adhesion on the reference and test cantilevers, and wherein the passivation layer comprises at least one of trimethoxysilane and a blocking substance. 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ndieyira (US 20200215537 A1; cited in the IDS filed 03/07/2024) and Nawana et al. (US 20210293816 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Baller fails to teach: 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 reference 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 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 a probe molecule as an antibody (paragraphs [0046]-[0047]) to provide: 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.
Modified Baller fails to teach: the reference layer comprises an antigen-specific isotype control antibody according to the antibody of the reference 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 reference 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baller as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Thaysen (US 20060060003 A1; herein “US ‘003”).
Regarding claim 21, Baller fails to teach: wherein at least one of the deformation and the alteration in the surface stress is achieved in a transverse direction of at least one of the test cantilever and the reference cantilever, wherein the transverse direction runs parallel to the base of at least one of the test cantilever and 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 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: wherein at least one of the deformation and the alteration in the surface stress is achieved in a transverse direction of at least one of the test cantilever and the reference cantilever, wherein the transverse direction runs parallel to the base of at least one of the test cantilever and 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]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 14, and 18-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-8, and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/133,096 (reference application) (herein, “App ‘096”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim.
Regarding claim 1, App ‘096 recites a sensor for converting at least one of chemical and biochemical information about an analyte in a sample into an electrical signal (claim 1), the sensor comprising
a test cantilever (claim 1) having a base (claim 1) and a deformable part (claim 1) on which a receptor layer for selective reception of the analyte is applied (claim 1), where a passive test transducer is arranged on the base (claim 2) and an active test transducer is arranged on the deformable part (claim 2);
a reference cantilever (claim 1) having a base (claim 1) and a deformable part (claim 1) on which a reference layer for selective non-reception of the analyte is applied (claim 1), where a passive reference transducer is arranged on the base (claim 2) and an active reference transducer is arranged on the deformable part (claim 2),
wherein the active and passive reference transducers and the active and passive test transducers are configured to output an electrical signal corresponding to at least one of an incidence, a concentration and an amount of the analyte in the sample (claim 2).
Regarding claim 2, App ‘096 recites wherein the transducers are each configured to determine an alteration in a surface stress of the reference cantilever and of the test cantilever (claim 3 recites 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, therefore the transducers are configured to determine change or alteration in surface stress of the cantilevers).
Regarding claim 3, App ‘096 recites wherein the transducers are each configured to determine at least one of a deformation and an alteration in a surface stress of the respective deformable parts of the reference cantilever and of the test cantilever, and wherein the changes in at least one of the surface stress and a forces (F) exerted during deformation on each respective base and the deformable parts the reference cantilever and of the test cantilever are detected (claim 3 recites 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, therefore the transducers are configured to determine and detect deformation and an alteration in a surface stress of the deformable parts of the cantilevers).
Regarding claim 4, App ‘096 recites wherein the force (F) to be detected is at least one of a bending force, a stretching force, a shearing force and a surface stress, or is due to an elasticity modulus of the reference and test cantilevers (claim 3, surface stress).
Regarding claim 5, App ‘096 recites wherein an effect on the test cantilever caused by the selective reception of the analyte is concluded through a comparison of the deformations, forces and/or surface stresses detected by the transducers (claim 3).
Regarding claim 6, App ‘096 recites wherein the deformable parts of the reference and test cantilevers have identical geometric dimensions (claim 4), and respective widths of the deformable part of the reference and test cantilevers corresponds to respective lengths of the deformable part of the reference and test cantilevers (claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, App ‘096 recites wherein the respective bases of each of the reference and test cantilevers are arranged as a single base (claim 4).
Regarding claim 14, App ‘096 recites wherein electrical properties of the transducers are output via an A/D converter, and an A/D converter logic unit is configured to provide at least one of a differential measurement and an absolute measurement of bending states (claim 6).
Regarding claim 18, App ‘096 recites wherein the reference and test cantilevers each comprise a self-assembling monolayer (claim 7).
Regarding claim 19, App ‘096 recites 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 reference layer (claim 7).
Regarding claim 20, App ‘096 recites sensor according to claim 1, wherein:
the receptor layer provides molecule-specific binding forces and the reference layer provides no binding forces molecule-specifically, or the receptor layer comprises single-strand DNA (ssDNA) and/or other DNA fragments which binds specifically to DNA fragments in the sample, and the reference layer comprises single-strand DNA and/or other DNA fragments which does not bind to any chemical and/or biochemical and/or physical species in the sample but in characteristic parameters coincides with the receptor layer (claim 8), or
the receptor layer comprises single-strand RNA and/or other RNA fragments which binds specifically to RNA fragments in the sample, and the reference layer comprises single-strand RNA and/or other RNA fragments which does not bind to any chemical and/or biochemical and/or physical species in the sample but in characteristic parameters coincides with the receptor layer (claim 8), or
the receptor layer comprises antibodies and/or other and/or further proteins which are able to specifically bind target proteins, and the reference layer comprises specific isotype control antibodies and/or other and/or further proteins which do not bind to any chemical and/or biochemical and/or physical species in the sample (claim 8), or
the receptor layer comprises scFv antibodies and the reference layer comprises scFV antibody-specific isotype control antibodies (claim 8); or
the receptor layer comprises Sars-CoV2 antibodies and the reference layer comprises Sars-CoV2 specific isotype control antibodies (claim 8); or
the receptor layer and the reference layer comprise hydrogels (claim 8).
Regarding claim 21, App ‘096 recites wherein at least one of the deformation and the alteration in the surface stress is achieved in a transverse direction of at least one of the test cantilever and the reference cantilever, wherein the transverse direction runs parallel to the base of at least one of the test cantilever and the reference cantilever (claim 19).
Regarding claim 22, App ‘096 recites wherein at least one of the deformation and the alteration in the surface stress is achieved in a longitudinal direction of at least one of the test cantilever and the reference cantilever, where the longitudinal direction runs perpendicular to the base of at least one of the test cantilever and of the reference cantilever (claim 20).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 10-11 of copending Application No. 18/236,684 (reference application) (herein, “App ‘684”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim.
Regarding claim 1, App ‘684 recites a sensor for converting at least one of chemical and biochemical information about an analyte in a sample into an electrical signal (claim 1), the sensor comprising
a test cantilever (claim 1) having a base (claim 1) and a deformable part (claim 1) on which a receptor layer for selective reception of the analyte is applied (claim 1), where a passive test transducer is arranged on the base (claim 1)and an active test transducer is arranged on the deformable part (claim 1);
a reference cantilever (claim 1) having a base (claim 1) and a deformable part (claim 1) on which a reference layer for selective non-reception of the analyte is applied (claim 1), where a passive reference transducer is arranged on the base (claim 1) and an active reference transducer is arranged on the deformable part (claim 1),
wherein the active and passive reference transducers and the active and passive test transducers are configured to output an electrical signal corresponding to at least one of an incidence, a concentration and an amount of the analyte in the sample (claim 2).
Regarding claim 2, App ‘684 recites wherein the transducers are each configured to determine an alteration in a surface stress of the reference cantilever and of the test cantilever (claims 1-2 teaches deformations in the transducers and the transducers output electrical signal corresponding to the analyte, therefore the transducers are configured to determine a change in surface stress of the cantilevers).
Regarding claim 3, App ‘684 recites wherein the transducers are each configured to determine at least one of a deformation and an alteration in a surface stress of the respective deformable parts of the reference cantilever and of the test cantilever (claims 1-2 teaches deformations in the transducers and the transducers output electrical signal corresponding to the analyte, therefore the transducers are configured to determine a change in surface stress of the deformable parts of the cantilevers), and wherein the changes in at least one of the surface stress and a forces (F) exerted during deformation on each respective base and the deformable parts the reference cantilever and of the test cantilever are detected (claims 1-2 teaches deformations in the transducers and the transducers output electrical signal corresponding to the analyte, therefore at least one of the surface stress and a forces (F) exerted during deformation is detected).
Regarding claim 4, App ‘684 recites wherein the force (F) to be detected is at least one of a bending force, a stretching force, a shearing force and a surface stress, or is due to an elasticity modulus of the reference and test cantilevers (claims 1-2 teaches deformations in the transducers and modulus of elasticity).
Regarding claim 11, App ‘684 recites the sensor according to claim 1, further comprising electrodes that are configured to electrically contact the respective transducers (claims 10-11).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-13, 16-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 20-26 of copending Application No. 18/236,709 (reference application) (herein, “App ‘709”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim.
Regarding claim 1, App ‘709 recites a sensor for converting at least one of chemical and biochemical information about an analyte in a sample into an electrical signal (claim 1), the sensor comprising
a test cantilever (claim 1) having a base (claim 1) and a deformable part (claim 1) on which a receptor layer for selective reception of the analyte is applied (claim 1), where a passive test transducer is arranged on the base (claim 1)and an active test transducer is arranged on the deformable part (claim 1);
a reference cantilever (claim 1) having a base (claim 1) and a deformable part (claim 1) on which a reference layer for selective non-reception of the analyte is applied (claim 1), where a passive reference transducer is arranged on the base (claim 1) and an active reference transducer is arranged on the deformable part (claim 1),
wherein the active and passive reference transducers and the active and passive test transducers are configured to output an electrical signal corresponding to at least one of an incidence, a concentration and an amount of the analyte in the sample (claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, App ‘709 recites wherein the transducers are each configured to determine an alteration in a surface stress of the reference cantilever and of the test cantilever (claim 2 recites the transducers ascertain a change in surface tension, therefore is configured to determine an alteration in surface stress).
Regarding claim 3, App ‘709 recites wherein the transducers are each configured to determine at least one of a deformation and an alteration in a surface stress of the respective deformable parts of the reference cantilever and of the test cantilever (claim 3 recites detecting a bending force, extension force, shear force, surface tension, or bending stiffness of the cantilevers, therefore the transducers are configured as claimed), and wherein the changes in at least one of the surface stress and a forces (F) exerted during deformation on each respective base and the deformable parts the reference cantilever and of the test cantilever are detected (claim 3 recites detecting a bending force, extension force, shear force, surface tension, or bending stiffness of the cantilevers).
Regarding claim 4, App ‘709 recites wherein the force (F) to be detected is at least one of a bending force, a stretching force, a shearing force and a surface stress, or is due to an elasticity modulus of the reference and test cantilevers (claim 3 recites detecting a bending force, extension force, shear force, surface tension, or bending stiffness of the cantilevers).
Regarding claim 5, App ‘709 recites wherein an effect on the test cantilever caused by the selective reception of the analyte is concluded through a comparison of the deformations, forces and/or surface stresses detected by the transducers (claim 1 recites interaction with analyte with the test cantilevers and outputting a signal based on the analyte, therefore the effect on the test cantilever caused by the analyte can be detected by the transducers as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, App ‘709 recites wherein the deformable parts of the reference and test cantilevers have identical geometric dimensions (claim 5), and respective widths of the deformable part of the reference and test cantilevers corresponds to respective lengths of the deformable part of the reference and test cantilevers (claim 5).
Regarding claim 8, App ‘709 recites wherein the reference and test cantilevers comprise at least one of Si3N4, SiO2, Si3N4/SiO2, SiC, Si or comprise a polymer (claim 6).
Regarding claim 9, App ‘709 recites wherein the respective transducers have identical intrinsic physical properties and are configured to adapt electrical properties in accordance with forces acting on the reference and test cantilevers (claim 7).
Regarding claim 11, App ‘709 recites the sensor according to claim 1, further comprising electrodes that are configured to electrically contact the respective transducers (claim 9).
Regarding claim 12, App ‘709 recites wherein the transducers are electrically interconnected in a full bridge that is configured to develop a transverse bridge voltage (VB) based on the electrical properties of the transducers (claim 9).
Regarding claim 13, App ‘709 recites the sensor according to claim 12, further comprising a transverse bridge voltage detector that is configured to detect the transverse bridge voltage (VB) of the full bridge (claim 10), wherein an incidence of the analyte selectively received by the receptor layer is concluded through the detected transverse bridge voltage (VB) (claim 10).
Regarding claim 16, App ‘709 recites the sensor according to claim 1, further comprising: an activation layer configured to activate upper surfaces of the reference and test cantilevers (claim 20), wherein the activation layer is configured to provide a greater surface stress in comparison to a non-activated lower surface of the reference and test cantilevers (claim 20), and wherein the activation layer comprises gold (claim 20).
Regarding claim 17, App ‘709 recites the sensor according to claim 1, further comprising: a passivation layer that passivates lower surfaces of the reference and test cantilevers (claim 21), wherein the passivation layer is configured to minimize an unspecific protein adhesion on the reference and test cantilevers (claim 21), and wherein the passivation layer comprises at least one of trimethoxysilane and a blocking substance (claim 21).
Regarding claim 18, App ‘709 recites wherein the reference and test cantilevers each comprise a self-assembling monolayer (claim 22).
Regarding claim 19, App ‘709 recites wherein the receptor layer comprises antibodies for an antigen (claim 23), and the reference layer comprises an antigen-specific isotype control antibody according to the antibody of the reference layer (claim 23).
Regarding claim 20, App ‘709 recites sensor according to claim 1, wherein:
the receptor layer provides molecule-specific binding forces and the reference layer provides no binding forces molecule-specifically, or the receptor layer comprises single-strand DNA (ssDNA) and/or other DNA fragments which binds specifically to DNA fragments in the sample, and the reference layer comprises single-strand DNA and/or other DNA fragments which does not bind to any chemical and/or biochemical and/or physical species in the sample but in characteristic parameters coincides with the receptor layer (claim 24), or
the receptor layer comprises single-strand RNA and/or other RNA fragments which binds specifically to RNA fragments in the sample, and the reference layer comprises single-strand RNA and/or other RNA fragments which does not bind to any chemical and/or biochemical and/or physical species in the sample but in characteristic parameters coincides with the receptor layer (claim 24), or
the receptor layer comprises antibodies and/or other and/or further proteins which are able to specifically bind target proteins, and the reference layer comprises specific isotype control antibodies and/or other and/or further proteins which do not bind to any chemical and/or biochemical and/or physical species in the sample (claim 24), or
the receptor layer comprises scFv antibodies and the reference layer comprises scFV antibody-specific isotype control antibodies (claim 24); or
the receptor layer comprises Sars-CoV2 antibodies and the reference layer comprises Sars-CoV2 specific isotype control antibodies (claim 24); or
the receptor layer and the reference layer comprise hydrogels (claim 24).
Regarding claim 21, App ‘709 recites wherein at least one of the deformation and the alteration in the surface stress is achieved in a transverse direction of at least one of the test cantilever and the reference cantilever, wherein the transverse direction runs parallel to the base of at least one of the test cantilever and the reference cantilever (claim 25).
Regarding claim 22, App ‘709 recites wherein at least one of the deformation and the alteration in the surface stress is achieved in a longitudinal direction of at least one of the test cantilever and the reference cantilever, where the longitudinal direction runs perpendicular to the base of at least one of the test cantilever and of the reference cantilever (claim 26).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Porter et al. (US 20030010097 A1) teaches an apparatus for sensing chemical and biological analytes including a deflectable arm of a microcantilever formed over and contacting a sensing element (abstract; Fig. 1). Porter teaches the microcantilever (Fig. 1) comprises a deflectable arm (10), base (16), and substrate (18), wherein the microcantilever may be formed of silicon nitride, silicon, or other suitable materials (paragraph [0017]).
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