DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3 and 5-8 in the reply filed on May 8, 2026, is acknowledged with appreciation. Claims 4 and 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[(a)(1) as being anticipated by Busnaina et al. (US-2009/0087622).
1. (Oinal) A particle-immobilized substrate comprising a substrate and a plurality of
Claim 1: Busnaina teaches particle-immobilized substrate comprising a substrate and a plurality of inorganic nanoparticles disposed on the substrate, the plurality of inorganic nanoparticles being disposed in contact with each other in a region, which is defined in Busnaina as “nanowell” or “nanotrench” (Busnaina, para. 0013, 0032 and 0044). The nanoparticles include inorganic nanoparticles, e.g. carbon nanoparticles (para. 0034); the nanowell or nanotrench has a width of at least 20 nm and up to 500 nm or 1000 nm (Busnaina, para. 0040); in particular, the nanotrench has a width of 50 nm to 350 nm (Page 6, Example III) which meets the claimed range of 1 µm or less on the substrate.
Claim 2: Busnaina does not report the zeta potential difference between the substrate and the nanoparticles; however, Busnaina teaches a substrate being oxidized silicon substrate and nanoparticles being carbon nanoparticles (See Pagaes 5-6, Examples I-III), and it is known in the art of dispersion stability is that the difference in Zeta potential between the substrate (Si) and the carbon nanoparticles should be at least 30mV for colloidal stability. Therefore, as the carbon nanoparticles are dispersed stability in the silicon substrate (Busnaina, Page 6, Example III), it is necessarily inherent that the zeta potential difference between the substrate and the dispersed nanoparticles is at least 30 mV.
Claim 3. Busnaina teaches a plurality of the regions (i.e. nanotrenches) having a width of 1 µm or less is regularly arranged on the substrate, and the inorganic nanoparticles are disposed in each of the plurality of the regions having a width of 1 µm or less. See Figure 12 C (paragraph 0044) and Page 6, Example III.
Claim 5: See claims 1 and 2 above.
Claims 6-7: Busnaina teaches forming the substrate and aligning the nanoparticles in the nanotrenches in the substrate by DC electrophoresis (Busnaina, para. 0018 and 0031). Electrophoresis works by applying an electric field to a sample containing charged molecules, causing them to migrate through a medium, toward the electrode with the opposite charge. Therefore, it is necessarily inherent that one region (i.e. nanotrench) is negatively charged, the other region (nanotrench) is positively charged.
Claim 8. Busnaina teaches a plurality of the regions (i.e. nanotrenches) having a width of 1 µm or less is regularly arranged on the substrate, and the inorganic nanoparticles are disposed in each of the plurality of the regions having a width of 1 µm or less. See Figure 12 C (paragraph 0044) and Page 6, Example III.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights