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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-20 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. Claim 1 is rejected due to the recitation of “wherein at least one of bottom surface and the side surface comprises a textured feature” in Lines 8-9. It is unclear as to what the bottom surface is in reference to as a “bottom surface” is referenced in relation to a well structure and a first membrane. Claims 2-15 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1. Claim 2 is rejected as a “microstructure” is referenced with no respective microunit listed. It is unclear whether the structure is in microinches or micrometers. Claim 3 is rejected as a “nanostructure” is referenced with no respective nanounit listed. It is unclear whether the structure is in nanoinches or nanometers. Claim 9 is rejected due to its reference of an “outward depression.” It is understood that depressions are an inward indentation, and it is unclear as to how the depression would appear outward. Claim 16 is rejected due to the recitation of “wherein at least one of bottom surface and the side surface comprises a textured feature” in Lines 9-10. It is unclear as to what the bottom surface is in reference to as a “bottom surface” is referenced in relation to a well structure and a first membrane. Claim 17 is rejected for being indefinite as “microstructure” is referenced with no respective microunit listed. It is unclear whether the structure is in microinches or micrometers. In addition, “nanostructure” is referenced with no respective nano unit listed. It is unclear whether the structure is in nano inches or nanometers. Claims 18-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 17. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 14 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Coulon et al. ( US 20120036921 ) , and further in view of Hoss et al. ( US 20170363564 ) . Regarding claim 1, De Coulon teaches biosensor structure ( electrochemical biosensor, see [0008]) comprising: a well structure having a bottom surface (6) , a side surface (12) , and an open top (area between polymer 12 is open, see Fig. 4) a first membrane having a top surface and a bottom surface ( first polymer 10 , see Fig s . 3- 4 ) ; and an electrode configured to sense an analyte in a solution in the well structure, wherein the electrode is disposed on the bottom surface of the well structure (electrode 3 located on layer 6 , see Fig. 4 and [0055]) , wherein the bottom surface of the membrane is disposed on the electrode and on the bottom surface of the well structure (the bottom of polymer 10 is located on electrode 3 and at the bottom of layer 6 , see Figs. 3- 4 and [0055] and [0060]) , but does not teach wherein at least one of bottom surface and the side surface comprises a textured feature . However, in the analogous art of electrochemical sensors, Hoss et al. teaches a device where the non-conductive material is printed with a textured surface so as to increase the adhesion of the conductive layer to the non-conductive layer, see [0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the non-conductive silicon insulative layer of De Coulon et al. to incorporate the texture of Hoss et al. for the benefit of prevent the need for an adhesive layer between a substrate and an electrode for improved analyte sensing, see [0037] in Hoss. Further, the modification of the silicon layer of De Coulon et al. to incorporate the textured etching of Hoss et al. would have had the reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are drawn to the etching of non-conductive materials to generate electrochemical sensors. Regarding claim 2, modified De Coulon teaches the biosensor structure of claim 1, wherein the textured feature is a microstructure ( the texture has a depth of less than .1mm, which is 1 µ m, and is therefore a microstructure, see [0037]) Regarding claim 3, modified De Coulon teaches the biosensor structure of claim 1, wherein the textured feature is a nanostructure ( the texture has a depth of less than .001mm, which is 1000nm, and is therefore a nanostructure, see [0037]) Regarding claim 4, De Coulon teaches the biosensor structure of claim 1, wherein the textured feature has a non-circular edge (the texture has peaks and valleys and are therefore non-circular, see [0037]) . Regarding claim 5, De Coulon teaches the biosensor structure of claim 1, wherein the textured feature is included in a periodic pattern of textured features (see Fig. 3 and [0079]) . Regarding claim 6, De Coulon teaches the biosensor structure of claim 1, wherein the textured feature decreases surface adhesion of the solution to the well structure ( textured features inherently decrease adhesion and increase hydrophobicity of a structure, see [0072] in the Instant Specification) . Regarding claim 8, De Coulon teaches the biosensor structure of claim 1, wherein the bottom surface of the well structure comprises the textured feature (layer 6 contains texture, see [0037] and the rejection of claim 1) . Regarding claim 11 , De Coulon teaches the biosensor structure of claim 1, wherein the well structure is a multi-well structure ( 2 wells located between each insulative layer 8, see annotated Fig. 4). Annotated Fig. 4 Regarding claim 14, modified De Coulon teaches the biosensor structure of claim 11, wherein the multi-well structure comprises: a first well (outlined in annotated Fig. 4) ; a second well (defined by electrode 4, surrounded by insulating layer 8 in annotated Fig. 4) ; and a pillar disposed between the first well and the second well (insulating layer 8 between 3 and 4, see Fig. 4) ; wherein the second well has a different diameter than the first well (electrode 3 is smaller than 4, see Fig. 4) . Regarding claim 15, modified De Coulon teaches the biosensor structure of claim 14, wherein a height of the pillar (8) is less than a total depth of the well structure (the insulating layer 8 is shorter than sidewall 12, see Figs. 1 and 4) . Regarding claim 16, De Coulon teaches a biosensor structure (biosensor 1, see Figs. 1 and 4) comprising: a multi-well structure having a bottom surface (6) , a side surface (12) , and an open top (area between polymer 12 is open, see Fig. 4) the multi-well structure comprising a first well and a second well (2 wells located between each insulative layer 8, see annotated Fig. 4) ; a first membrane having a top surface and a bottom surface (first polymer 10, see Figs. 3-4) ; and an electrode configured to sense an analyte in a solution in the well structure, wherein the electrode is disposed on the bottom surface of the well structure (electrode 3 located on layer 6, see Fig. 4 and [0055]) , wherein the bottom surface of the membrane is disposed on the electrode and on the bottom surface of the well structure (the bottom of polymer 10 is located on electrode 3 and at the bottom of layer 6, see Figs. 3-4 and [0055] and [0060]) , but does not teach wherein at least one of bottom surface and the side surface comprises a textured feature. However, in the analogous art of electrochemical sensors, Hoss et al. teaches a device where the non-conductive material is printed with a textured surface so as to increase the adhesion of the conductive layer to the non-conductive layer, see [0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the non-conductive silicon insulative layer of De Coulon et al. to incorporate the texture of Hoss et al. for the benefit of prevent the need for an adhesive layer between a substrate and an electrode for improved analyte sensing, see [0037] in Hoss. Further, the modification of the silicon layer of De Coulon et al. to incorporate the textured etching of Hoss et al. would have had the reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are drawn to the etching of non-conductive materials to generate electrochemical sensors. Regarding claim 17, De Coulon teaches a method of sensing an analyte using a biosensor (analyzing sample using sensor 1, see [0090]) , the method comprising: dispensing a solution into a well structure of the biosensor via an open top of the well structure (fluid to be measured is placed in well, see [0002]) , and sensing the analyte in the solution in the well structure with an electrode of the biosensor, wherein a membrane of the biosensor is over the electrode (the first polymer layer 10 is located over electrode 3 , where electrode senses analyte in fluid sample , see Fig. 4 and Abstract) . However, De Coulon does not teach that wherein a surface of the well structure comprises at least one of a nanostructure or a microstructure. However, in the analogous art of electrochemical sensors, Hoss et al. teaches a device where the non-conductive material is printed with a microstructure (0.001mm or 1 µ m) textured surface so as to increase the adhesion of the conductive layer to the non-conductive layer, see [0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the non-conductive silicon insulative layer of De Coulon et al. to incorporate the microstructure texture of Hoss et al. for the benefit of prevent the need for an adhesive layer between a substrate and an electrode for improved analyte sensing, see [0037] in Hoss. Further, the modification of the silicon layer of De Coulon et al. to incorporate the textured etching of Hoss et al. would have had the reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are drawn to the etching of non-conductive materials to generate electrochemical sensors. Regarding claim 18, De Coulon teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the well structure is a multi-well structure biosensor structure of claim 1, wherein the well structure is a multi-well structure (2 wells located between each insulative layer 8, see annotated Fig. 4). Regarding claim 19, modified De Coulon teaches the method of Claim 18, wherein the multi-well structure comprises concentric wells (see Figs. 1 and 4) . Regarding claim 20, modified De Coulon teaches the method of Claim 17, wherein sensing the analyte in the solution comprises detecting at least one of a potential or a current (current is read by sensor, see Abstract and [0080]) . Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Coulon et al. ( US 20120036921 ) , in view of Hoss et al. ( US 20170363564 ) , and further in view of Miyazaki et al. ( US 20040016642 ). Regarding claim 7, modified De Coulon teaches biosensor structure of claim 1, where the well structure comprises the textured feature, but does not teach wherein the side surface comprises the feature. However, in the analogous art of biosensors, Miyazaki et al. teaches that the sidewalls of a cavity can contain peaks and valleys, called asperities, to alter the hydrophilicity of a fluid cavity of a biosensor. Therefore, the modification of a biosensor to include textured sidewalls was known before the effective filing date of the instant invention. It would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the polymeric sidewalls of De Coulon to incorporate the asperities of Miyazaki et al. for the benefit of making a cavity more hydrophilic to a bodily sample of interest, see [0068] – [0071]. The modification of a biosensor to roughen the sidewalls of the polymeric spacer layer would have had the reasonable expectation of successfully facilitating the collection of a biofluid within the cavity of a biosensor for electrochemical analysis. Regarding claim 9, modified De Coulon teaches the biosensor structure of claim 1, wherein the side surface of the well structure comprises a plurality of outward depressions, wherein the plurality of outward depressions comprise the textured feature (the second polymer 12 of De Coulon comprises the textured feature, where the “outward depression” is considered the wall of the side surface, see the rejection of Claim 7). Regarding claim 10, modified De Coulon teaches the biosensor structure of claim 9, wherein a side surface of the first membrane is partially exposed at or near the outward depressions (the second polymer 12 of De Coulon comprises the textured feature, where the “outward depression” is considered the wall of the side surface, see the rejection of Claim 7, where the wall would necessarily be exposed to fluid). Claim s 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Coulon et al. ( US 20120036921 ) , in view of Hoss et al. ( US 20170363564 ) , and further in view of and further in view of Tsukahara et al. ( US 20140054170 ). Regarding claim 12, modified De Coulon teaches the biosensor structure of claim 1, wherein the well structure has multiple areas (area defined by first polymer 10, second defined by polymer 12), but does not teach that the well structure is a multi-well structure comprising stepped concentric wells. However, in the analogous art of electrochemical biosensors, Tsukahara et al. teaches a biosensor with concentric electrode platforms, analogous to 10 and 12 in De Coulon, where the electrode platforms stepped from each other to allow for separate compositions to be tested using the electrodes of the system, see Abstract. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the invention of De Coulon et al. to incorporate the steps between wells as shown by Tsukahara et al. for the benefit of controlling outflow from each well, see [0006] – [0007 and [0015]. Modifying De Coulon et al. to include the stepped walls of Tsukahara et al. would have facilitated the expected result of separating fluid volumes as the modification is substituting one electrode on a biochip for another for electrochemical sensing and simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143(I)(B). Regarding claim 13, modified De Coulon fails to teach wherein a first well of the stepped concentric wells comprises a tapered sidewall. Tsukahara teaches straight walls orthogonal to the bottom surface. Generally, differences in change of shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date to have chosen a tapered wall shape for Modified De Coulon because it would further facilitate in preventing outflow and it would have been a matter of choice to use a tapered shape to which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEA MARTIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5283 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10AM-5:00PM (EST) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maris Kessel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /A.N.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 1758 /MARIS R KESSEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758