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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 & 16-19, in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/19/2026.
Status of Application
3. This application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/072707, which was filed on 12/02/2021, which has Provisional of 63121035 (filed on 12/03/2020), which has Provisional of 63121050 (filed on 12/02/2020), which has Provisional of 63121071 (filed on 12/03/2020).
Claims 1-19 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending in this application for examination.
Specification
4. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1-8, 11, & 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. In claim 1, line 1-2, “comprising” should change to “, comprising:”.
B. In claim 2, line 1, --,-- should be inserted before “wherein”.
C. In claim 3, line 1, --,-- should be inserted before “wherein”.
D. In claim 4, line 1, --,-- should be inserted before “wherein”.
E. In claim 5, line 1, --,-- should be inserted before “wherein”.
F. In claim 6, line 1, --,-- should be inserted before “wherein”.
G. In claim 7, line 1, --,-- should be inserted before “wherein”.
H. In claim 7, line 2, --:-- should be inserted after “comprises”.
I. In claim 8, line 1, --,-- should be inserted before “wherein”.
J. In claim 11, line 5, “precoating” should change to --pre-coating-- (for consistency with claim 1).
K. In claim 11, last line, “precoating” should change to --pre-coating-- (for consistency with claim 1).
L. In claim 16, line 1, --,-- should be inserted before “wherein”.
M. In claim 17, line 1-2, “comprising” should change to “, comprising:”.
N. In claim 17, line 14, one of “a binder” should be deleted.
O. In claim 17, last line, --and-- should be inserted before “polymeric resins”.
P. In claim 18, line 1, --,-- should be inserted before “wherein”.
Q. In claim 19, line 1, --,-- should be inserted before “wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)(Second Paragraph)
6. 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 1, 4-11, & 16-19 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.
A. Regarding claim 1, the term “plastic” used in claim 1 is considered vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. The term “plastic” is used for a wide range of synthetic or semi-synthetic materials that use polymers as a main ingredient. However, the compounds falling under this name should be clearly identified, i.e., by incorporating the list of possible (suitable) polymers used as substrates, such as those in claim 2.
B. Regarding claims 5, 6, 17, & 19, the term “X18” in the claims appear to be a registered trademark, which renders the claims unclear and indefinite because it is not a standard descriptive term. The description of “X18” from [0035] of the instant specification as being a proprietary, low viscosity, one component primer available from Master Bond, Inc., Hackensack, NJ 07601 does not help or improve the clarity of the “X18” being recited in the claim. Thus, the term “X18” does not particularly point out and define specific compound or material for the claimed pre-coating layer.
C. Claim 6 recites the limitation "particles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
*Claims 4, 7-11, 16, & 18 are rejected because they depend on the rejected claims 1, 5-6, 17, & 19 and they do not cure the indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
7. 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) 1-3 & 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neng N R et al. (“Adsorptive micro-extraction techniques-Novel analytical tools for trace levels of polar solutes in aqueous media”, Journal of Chromatography A, Vol. 1217 (2010) (pages 7303-7310), hereinafter “Neng N R et al.”
The claimed invention relates to a device for solid phase microextraction (SPME) comprising:
a plastic substrate,
a pre-coating layer on the plastic substrate, and
a SPME coating on the pre-coating layer (as recited in the instant claim 1).
Neng N R et al. discloses µ-extraction devices, which contain polyethylene hollow cylindrical tubes which are coated with adhesive films coating with powdered sorbents (see page 7304, right-hand column, 2.1. “Chemicals and samples” and 2.2.1 “Preparation of the µ-extraction devices”). The powdered sorbents are octadecylsilane, octylsilane, zeolites, laponite, polystyrene divinylbenzene co-polymers, silica, alumina, SCX (strong cation exchange), etc. (see page 7304, 2.1, “Chemicals and samples”, upper right-hand column).
Regarding claim 1, Neng N R et al. teaches the claimed device for solid phase microextraction (SPME) comprising a plastic substrate, a pre-coating layer on the plastic substrate, and a SPME coating on the pre-coating layer (see page 7304, right-hand column, 2.1. “Chemicals and samples” and 2.2.1 “Preparation of the µ-extraction devices”).
Regarding claims 2 & 3, “polyethylene” is used as a substrate in Neng N R et al. (see page 7304, right-hand column, 2.1. “Chemicals and samples” and 2.2.1 “Preparation of the µ-extraction devices”).
Regarding claims 7 & 8, the claimed SPME coating compounds, such as polystyrene divinylbenzene co-polymers, and silica are disclosed in the reference (see page 7304, 2.1, “Chemicals and samples”, upper right-hand column).
Regarding claims 9 & 10, it is considered the disclosed plastic substrates would also have the same feature as claimed, which comprises “a pin or a plurality pins” in view of the same plastic substrates disclosed and claimed.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitations on “the plastic substrate has a first surface energy” and “the SPME coating has a second surface energy that is higher than the surface energy of the plastic substrate” are noted. Since Neng N R et al. teaches the same device comprising the same plastic substrate, pre-coating layer, and SPEM coating materials, thus physically and structurally the plastic substrate and the SPME coating of the disclosed device would have the same first and second surface energy levels as claimed.
The claimed device for solid phase microextraction (SPME) is disclosed by Neng N R et al. thus the instant claims are anticipated by the reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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) 4 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neng N R et al. (“Adsorptive micro-extraction techniques-Novel analytical tools for trace levels of polar solutes in aqueous media”, Journal of Chromatography A, Vol. 1217 (2010) (pages 7303-7310), hereinafter “Neng N R et al.” as applied to claims 1-3 & 7-11 above, and further in view of Pawliszyn (US 11,092,522 B2), hereinafter “Pawliszyn ‘522) and Wirth et al. (US 2020/0261887 A1), hereinafter “Wirth et al.”
Neng N R et al., is considered the most relevant state of the art, teaches the claimed solid phase microextraction (SPME) device as set forth in the precedent paragraph (see page 7304, right-hand column, 2.1. “Chemicals and samples” and 2.2.1 “Preparation of the µ-extraction devices”).
However, Neng N R et al. does not teach a device comprising “polyacrylonitrile (PAN)” as a pre-coating layer and “polyacrylonitrile (PAN) and C18 silica” as a SPME coating.
Pawliszyn ‘522 is in a related field of art, teaches a device for solid phase microextraction comprising a plastic substrate having coated thereon with a thin film extraction coating (polyacrylonitrile or PAN) (see col. 21, claim 3).
Wirth et al. is also in a related field of art, teaches a solid phase microextraction substrate comprising a sorbent coating on at least part of a surface of a plastic substrate (see p. 11, claim 1; p. 3, [0052]), wherein the sorbent coating material are sorbent particles of C-18/silica (see p. 3, [0057]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of skilled in the art (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) to utilize the “PAN and C-18/silica” as the sources of materials for the pre-coating layer and the SPEM coating layer in Neng N R et al. because these materials are available and useful as the sorbent materials for coating the plastic substrate, as evidenced by Pawliszyn ‘522 and Wirth et al.
Accordingly, claims 4 & 18 are obvious over the combination of Neng N R et al., Pawliszyn ‘522, and Wirth et al.
Citations
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
US 11,896,953 and US 2021/0213418 (relate to a solid phase extraction device)
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-11 & 16-19 are rejected. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
June 06, 2026
Prosecution Insights