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 Note that dependent claims will have the deficiencies of base and intervening claims . 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. Claims 1-1 9 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) c laim 1 requires “ a conductive material layer on the substrate; an insulating layer comprising an electrode layer on the conductive material layer; . . . .” This limitation is ambiguous as it could be interpreted to mean either -- a conductive material layer on the substrate; an insulating layer comprising an electrode layer , wherein the insulating layer is on the conductive material layer; . . . . -- or -- a conductive material layer on the substrate; an insulating layer comprising an electrode layer, wherein the electrode layer is on the conductive material layer; . . . . -- Applicant’s Figure 1 supports the former interpretation , especially as the conductive material layer is apparently intended to function as a distinct electrode itself (see Applicant’s originally filed specification paragraph [00 8 1] ). b) claim 11 requires “. . . . a plurality of electrode layers , wherein the plurality of electrode layers comprises the electrode layer and an insulating material region between the plurality of electrode layers , and wherein at least one of a first length and a first thickness of the electrode layer . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner] ” It is not clear which elect rode layer of the plurality of electrode layers is being referred to in this claim as “the electrode layer” . c) claim 16 requires “ a conductive material layer on the substrate; an insulating layer comprising an electrode layer on the conductive material layer; . . . .” This limitation is ambiguous as it could be interpreted to mean either -- a conductive material layer on the substrate; an insulating layer comprising an electrode layer , wherein the insulating layer is on the conductive material layer; . . . . -- or -- a conductive material layer on the substrate; an insulating layer comprising an electrode layer, wherein the electrode layer is on the conductive material layer; . . . . -- Applicant’s Figure 1 supports the former interpretation , especially as the conductive material layer is apparently intended to function as a distinct electrode itself (see Applicant’s originally filed specification paragraph [00 8 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. Claim s 1 , 3 , 4 , and 9 - 1 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Brischwein et al. EP 3943924 A1 (hereafter “ Brischwein ”) . Addressing claim 1, Brischwein discloses a n electrode (see the title, Abstract, and Figure 1a) comprising: a substrate (First note the following,“ [0059] In the example of Fig. 1 a, 1 b, the substrate 104 is a flexible printed circuit board formed of one or more dielectric materials. The substrate 104 may comprise a plurality of dielectric layers as indicated by the thin dotted lines in Fig. 1a, for example a lower cover layer arranged below the first conductive layer, a polyimide layer arranged between the first and second conductive layers, . . . .” Although Brischwein refers to 104 as a substrate the Examiner is construing the bottommost layer in Figure 1a as the claimed substrate . See annotated Figure 1 a at the end of this claim rejection. ) ; a conductive material layer on the substrate (first electrode 110 in Figure 1a) ; an insulating layer comprising an electrode layer on the conductive material layer (the Examiner is construing the dielectric layer in Figure 1a between first electrode 110 and second electrode 112 as this insulating layer . See annotated Figure 1a below. Note, “Each of these substrates 104 comprises a number of conductive layers embedded in one or more dielectric layers, e.g. at least one dielectric layer between each pair of adjacent conductive layers. [italicizing by the Examiner]“ See paragraph [0069]. ) ; and a groove region in at least a portion of the insulating layer (the Examiner is construing recess 108a as this groove region) , wherein the electrode layer is extended into the groove region (note the dashed portion of first electrode 110 in Figure 1a and the following,“ The first and second electrodes 110, 112 extend below at least a part of the opening formed in the upper surface 104A by the recess 108A, in some examples below the entire opening or the entire upper portion 108B . [italicizing by the Examiner] ” See paragraph [0058]. ) , and wherein the conductive material layer is exposed to the groove region (note the dashed portion of second electrode 11 2 in Figure 1a and the following, “The first and second electrodes 110, 112 extend below at least a part of the opening formed in the upper surface 104A by the recess 108A, in some examples below the entire opening or the entire upper portion 108B .” See paragraph [0058]. ) . Addressing claim 3, the additional limitation of this claim may be clearly seen in Brischwein Figure 1a. Also, “Furthermore, the recess is tapered such that a width of the recess parallel to the upper surface of the substrate decreases from a plane between the first and second electrodes to the first first [sic] conductive layer.” See the Abstract. Addressing claim 4 , the additional limitation of this claim may be clearly seen in Brischwein annotated Figure 1a at the end of the rejection of claim 1 above . Addressing claim 9 , that Brischwein discloses that the insulating layer has a planar structure may be clearly seen in Brischwein annotated Figure 1a at the end of the rejection of claim 1 above . Addressing claim 10 , the additional limitation s of this claim may be in ferred Brischwein annotated Figure 1a at the end of the rejection of claim 1 above in light of the following , (paragraph [0027]), and Also see Figure 2c, noting therein electrode layers 110-1, 110-2, ... 110-n, 112-1, 112-2, ... 112-n , and Figure 2d, noting therein electrode pairs 110-1/110-2, 112-1/112-2, 114-1/114-2 . Addressing claim 11 , as for the claim limitations “ a plurality of electrode layers, wherein the plurality of electrode layers comprises the electrode layer and an insulating material region between the plurality of electrode layers, . . . .” they may be in ferred Brischwein annotated Figure 1a at the end of the rejection of claim 1 above in light of the following , (paragraph [0027]), and Also see Figure 2c, noting therein electrode layers 110-1, 110-2, ... 110-n, 112-1, 112-2, ... 112-n , and Figure 2d, noting therein electrode pairs 110-1/110-2, 112-1/112-2, 114-1/114-2. As for the claim 11 limitation s “ in the groove region, a first gap is provided between the electrode layer and the conductive material layer, and wherein, in the groove region, a second gap is provided between the electrode layer and a second electrode layer of the plurality of electrode layers … ”, see again Figure 1a in light of Figures 2c and 2d. Also note the following, Addressing claim 12 , as for the claim limitations “. . . . a plurality of electrode layers, wherein the plurality of electrode layers comprise the electrode layer, . . . .” it may be in ferred Brischwein annotated Figure 1a at the end of the rejection of claim 1 above in light of the following , (paragraph [0027]), and Also see Figure 2c, noting therein stacked electrode layers 110-1, 110-2, ... 110-n, 112-1, 112-2, ... 112-n , and Figure 2d, noting therein electrode pairs 110-1/110-2, 112-1/112-2, 114-1/114-2. As for the claim 12 limitation s “. . . ., along the stack, at least one of lengths and thicknesses of the plurality of electrode layers are either constant or decrease relative to each other …”, see again Figure 1a in light of Figures 2c and 2d. Also note the following, Addressing claim 13 , as for the claim limitation “. . . ., a plurality of electrode layers, wherein the plurality of electrode layers comprise the electrode layer, . . . .”, it may be in ferred Brischwein annotated Figure 1a at the end of the rejection of claim 1 above in light of the following , (paragraph [0027]), and Also see Figure 2c, noting therein stacked electrode layers 110-1, 110-2, ... 110-n, 112-1, 112-2, ... 112-n , and Figure 2d, noting therein electrode pairs 110-1/110-2, 112-1/112-2, 114-1/114-2. As for the claim 1 3 limitation “. . . ., wherein at least one of the plurality of electrode layers has a thickness greater than or equal to an atomic layer thickness …”, note the following Addressing claim 14 , as for the claim limitation “. . . . , in the insulating layer, an insulating material region is provided between the electrode layer and the conductive material layer, . . . . “, see Brischwein annotated Figure 1a at the end of the rejection of claim 1 above and note the following As for the claim 1 4 limitation “. . . ., and wherein the insulating material region has a thickness greater than or equal to an atomic layer thickness …”, note the following Addressing claim 15 , for the claim limitation note the following 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brischwein . Addressing claim 2, as a first matter note that Brischwei n meets all of the limitations of underlying claim 1. See the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 102(a0(1) above. A s for the claim 2 limitation “. . . ., wherein at least a portion of the electrode layer comprises a protrusion region extending toward a center of the groove region, . . . .”, it is implied by the following, “,“The first and second electrodes 110, 112 extend below at least a part of the opening formed in the upper surface 104A by the recess 108A, . . . . [underling and italicizing by the Examiner] ” See paragraph [0058]. As for the claim 2 limitation “. . . ., wherein the protrusion region has a shape surrounding an inside of the groove region, . . . .”, the protrusion region formed when a porti0o of the electrode layer extend s into at least a part of the opening formed in the upper surface 104A by the recess 108A will inherently have a shape. Although not need to meet this limitation as the shape is not specified, this shape will presumably mimic the shape of the opening. In any event, barring a contrary showing such as unexpected results, the choice of what this shape may be is prima facie obvious as a change in shape with no material effect on the functioning of the electrode layer. As for the claim 2 limitation “. . . ., and wherein a length at which the protrusion region is extended toward the center of the groove region is 20% to 80% of a radius of the groove region …”, recall again the following in Brischwein ,“The first and second electrodes 110, 112 extend below at least a part of the opening formed in the upper surface 104A by the recess 108A, in some examples below the entire opening or the entire upper portion 108B.” See paragraph [0058]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to mean that a length at which the protrusion region is extended toward the center of the groove region may be from 1 % to 10 0% of a radius of the groove region . “ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists .” See MPEP 2144.05(I). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claim s 5 - 8 and 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection s under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: a) in claim 5 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined limitation s An example of such “penetration” may be seen in Applicant’s Figure 1. In contrast, as best understood by the Examiner, in Brischwein no insulating pattern region penetrates the electrode layer; the electrode layer is uniformly made of conducting material. Even if somehow the Brischwein could be construed as allowing insulating pattern region to penetrate the electrode layer, as Brischwein discloses “The second electrode comprises or consists of a conductive material, in particular a metal… [italicizing by the Examiner]” (see paragraph [0011]) and “ In some embodiments, a sideface of the recess comprises a cell-repellent coating. The sideface of the recess may e.g. comprise one or more dielectric surfaces and/or an exposed surface of the first electrode. The cell-repellent coating may be arranged on the exposed surface of the first electrode . . . .” (see paragraph [0018]), the insulating layer would not comprise “ a plurality of electrode regions that are electrically separated from each other in the electrode layer, . . . .” as Brischwein different electrode regions are in different layers separated from each other by one or more dielectric layers. b) claim 6 depends from allowable claim 5. c) in claim 7 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined limitation In contrast, from annotated Brischwein Figure 1a in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 102(a0(1) above, it does not seem possible to form a groove pattern on an upper end of the insulating layer in the electrode of Brischwein , as it is covered by either another insulating layer or by the electrode layer. A groove pattern , such as a line pattern, though, may be formed on inner side end (facing recess 108A) of the insulating layer . d) in claim 8 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined limitation In contrast, while in Brischwein Figure 1a a nanocavity region ha ving a height of 1 nm to 1000 nm, and wherein the nanocavity region extends into the groove region and is open , would be expected at the bottom of the groove, as it tapers to a point and t he groove is a micro well, such a nanocavity region would not be “in at least a portion of the electrode layer” as Brischwein discloses, e) in claim 1 6 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined limitation s In contrast, Brischwein discloses f) claims 17-19 each depend from allowable claim 16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1343 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM 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 Luan Van can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571 272-8521 . 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. /ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795