DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species A1,B1 and C2 corresponds to claims 1,7-10, 25-26 and 28 in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 2-6 and 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The term “orthogonally etchable” in the claims has been interpreted below in view of [0073] of the publication.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Khurana (US 2020/0238276 – of record).
Regarding claim 25, Khurana teaches a method (see Fig. 1; [0064]), comprising:
defining an initial depression in a first resin layer (i.e. mask material (28)) of a multi-layer stack including the first resin layer over a second resin layer (22) over a base support (12) (see annotated Fig. 1 (iii) below; [0138-0139]), the first resin layer including a first functional group that is non-reactive (i.e. the mask layer (28) has a negative photoresist material includes exposed region becomes insoluble) with sequencing surface chemistry (silanization) (see annotated Fig. 1 below; [0138]) and the second resin layer (22) including a second functional group (hydrophobic material layer) that is reactive with the sequencing surface chemistry (silanization) (see Fig. 1;[0139-0142]);
anisotropically etching, using air or 02 plasma, through a remaining portion of the first resin layer at the initial depression to expose a surface of the second resin layer and form a depression, whereby the second functional group remains reactive (see annotated Fig. 1 (V) below; [0140] and [0157-0159]); and
exposing the multi-layer stack to the surface chemistry, thereby attaching the sequencing surface chemistry to the second functional group (see [0140-0144]).
PNG
media_image1.png
777
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khurana (US 2020/0238276 – of record) in view of Hargreaves (US 6,660,338).
Regarding claim 1, Khurana teaches a method (see Fig. 1; [0064]), comprising:
defining an initial depression in a first resin layer (28) of a multi-layer stack including the first resin layer over a second resin layer or a base support (12) (see annotated Fig. 1(iii) above; [0139]), the first resin layer being resistant to silanization in a developer solution .. (see [0138]), the second resin layer or the base support being reactive toward silanization in the .. (see [0140-0144]), and the first resin layer and the second resin layer or the base support being orthogonally etchable (i.e. the material layer 28 have different etching rates than the hydrophobic material layer (22)) (see [0140]);
Khurana does not explicitly teach that the first resin layer being resistant to silanization in an organic solvent and the second resin layer or the base support being reactive toward silanization in the organic solvent.
In analogous art, Hargreaves teaches a methods of functionalization of a substrate surfaces with silane mixtures having reactive moieties on its surface (Abstract), the process comprises contacting a substrate having reactive moieties on the surface thereof with a derivatizing composition comprising a first silane and a second silane, wherein a salinization is carried out in a medium that includes organic solvent (see column 2, lines 21-30 and lines 41-50); selectively functionalizing of surfaces having reactive moieties, while other material/surfaces remain relatively inert under the same solvent /silane condition (see column 2, lines 27-40; and column 7, lines 46-57). Hargreaves teaches that the process yield a functionalized surface with low surface energy and tailored wettability, using organic solvent as the salinization medium (Abstract; column 6, lines 1-10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date upon reading of Khurana would reasonably look to general salinization practice as taught by Hargreaves with the salinization is conventionally performed in organic-solvent media as such is known in the art of salinization process for improving functionalized surfaces given the discussion of Hargreaves above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for yielding a functionalized surface with low surface energy and tailored wettability, using organic solvent as the salinization medium (Abstract; column 6, lines 1-10 of Hargreaves).
Khurana in view of Hargreaves further teaches anisotropically etching, using air or 02 plasma, through a remaining portion of the first resin layer at the initial depression to expose a surface of the second resin layer or the base support and to form a depression (see Fig. 1 (V); [0140] of Khurana); and
exposing the multi-layer stack to a silane in the organic solvent, thereby selectively salinizing the surface of the second resin layer or the base support at the depression (see [0140-0144] of Khurana).
Regarding claim 8, Khurana in view of Hargreaves the method, wherein: the multi-layer stack includes the first resin layer (28) over the base support (12); the first resin layer is selected from the group consisting of a photocured acrylate resin composition, a photocured fluorinated resin composition and a photocured organic epoxy resin composition; and the base support is glass (see [0115], [0131] and [0154]).
Regarding claim 9, Khurana in view of Hargreaves further teaches the method, further comprising applying a polymeric hydrogel to the silanized surface of the second resin layer or the base support (12) at the depression (see Fig. 1(vi); [0141] of Khurana).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khurana (US 2020/0238276 – of record) in view of Hargreaves (US 6,660,338) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinkel (Role of Solvent and Base In Silanization Reaction Of Silicas For Reversed-phase High-performance Liquid Chromatography, 1984).
Regarding claim 7, Khurana in view of Hargreaves the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Khurana further teaches wherein the silane is norbornene silane (see [0142]). However, Khurana in view of Hargreaves does not explicitly teach that the organic solvent is acetonitrile.
In analogous art, Kinkel teaches a study for role of solvent and base in a silanization reaction, wherein the study suggests that using acetonitrile as solvent found to exert a noticeable influence on the kinetics of the silanization reaction, which can be interpreted in terms of three cooperative effects (see page 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Khurana and Hargreaves in view of Kinkel with the organic solvent is acetonitrile as such is known in the art of salinization process given the discussion of Kinkel above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would exert a noticeable influence on the kinetics of the silanization reaction, which can be interpreted in terms of three cooperative effects (see [pages 1-2 of Kinkel).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 26 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the primary reason why the claimed invention is deemed novel and non-
obvious over the prior art of record to the method as instantly claimed is that the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest prior to exposing the multi- layer stack to the silane, the method further comprises anisotropically etching, using fluorinated plasma, the second resin layer or the base support at the depression to extend the depression a predetermined distance into the second resin layer or the base support.
Therefore, claim 10 is deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 26, the primary reason why the claimed invention is deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record to the method as instantly claimed is that the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest prior to defining the initial depression, the method further comprises forming the multi-layer stack by:
depositing a thiol-ene resin composition on the base support, the thiol-ene resin composition including:
from greater than 0 mass% to less than 50 mass%, based on a total monomer content of the thiol-ene resin composition, of an acrylate monomer;
from greater than 50 mass% to less than 100 mass% based on the total monomer content of the thiol-ene resin composition, of a thiol monomer selected from the group consisting of pentaerythritol tetrakis (3- mercaptopropionate), 1,4-bis(3-mercaptobutyryloxy)butane, and trimethylolpropane tris(3-mercaptopropionate); a radical photoinitiator;
an acidic stabilizer,
a radical stabilizer, or combinations thereof;
an optional surface additive; and
a solvent; photocuring the thiol-ene resin composition, thereby forming the second resin layer; and depositing an acrylate resin composition, a fluorinated resin composition, or an organic epoxy resin composition on the second resin layer; and
defining the initial depression includes:
imprinting the acrylate resin composition, the fluorinated resin composition, or the organic epoxy resin composition with a working stamp having a negative replica of the initial depression; and
photocuring the acrylate resin composition, the fluorinated resin composition, or the organic epoxy resin composition while the working stamp is in place, thereby forming the first resin layer having the initial depression defined therein.
Therefore, claim 26 is deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 28, the primary reason why the claimed invention is deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record to the method as instantly claimed is that the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest, wherein prior to exposing the multi- layer stack to the sequencing surface chemistry, the method further comprises anisotropically etching, using fluorinated plasma, the second resin layer at the depression to extend the depression a predetermined distance into the second resin layer.
Therefore, claim 28 is deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The following priors art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DeSimone (US 2009/0281250) teaches a method, comprises defining an initial depression in a first resin layer (200) of a multi-layer stack (208) including the first resin layer over a second resin layer over a base support (206) (see Fig. 2A-2D; [0276-0278]).
DeSimone (US 2012/0256354) teaches a method for fabricating microfluidic devices, comprises providing materials include low surface energy fluoropolymer compositions having multiple cure functional groups (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights