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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 06/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/05/2026.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (hereinafter Suzuki) WO 2020/235253 A1 in view Liang et al. (hereafter Liang) CN 109085224 A.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a cell culture device (sorting device 100) comprising: a substrate (substrate 11); a wire (reference wiring 23, measurement contact 31 and measurement wiring 33) disposed on a main surface of the substrate as shown in Fig.1; an insulating film (insulating film 13) disposed on the main surface of the substrate and having a part that overlaps the wire as shown in Figs. 1 and 3; and an electrode (measurement electrode 30) disposed on the insulating film and having a part that overlaps the wire, wherein: the insulating film has a contact hole (hole 43a) at a position overlapping the wire and the electrode, as shown in at least Figs.1 and 4 and discussed in at least paragraphs [0040-0056]. Also see whole document.
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a plurality of grooves formed on at least a surface of a part of the electrode that overlaps the contact hole.
Liang discloses a sensitive microelectrode comprising an insulating layer 1, a wire 22, a second conductive layer 4 fixed on electrode 21, the second conductive layer 4 is a conductive base layer 41, and the upper surface of the second conductive layer 4 is embedded with a pit array (plurality of grooves), as discussed on pages 3-4. Also see whole document.
Therefore, Liang discloses a plurality of grooves formed on at least a surface of a part of the electrode that overlaps the contact hole.
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki with the pit array as taught by Liang to provide a plurality of grooves formed on at least a surface of a part of the electrode that overlaps the contact hole in order to efficiently collect and measure activity at a single cell level while enabling highly sensitive detection.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses wherein the substrate is made of glass [0041] and the insulating film is made of a photosensitive acrylic resin [0049].
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose the wire is made of a light-shielding conducting material, and the electrode is made of a light-transmissive conducting material.
Suzuki discloses in paragraph [0161] that the present disclosure also includes a mode obtained by applying various modifications conceived by a person skilled in the art to the embodiment and the like, or a form realized by arbitrarily combining the constituent elements and functions in the embodiments and the like without departing from the gist of the present disclosure.
Therefore, absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a wire made of a light-shielding conducting material, and an electrode is made of a light-transmissive conducting material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 7 of Liang shows that the plurality of grooves (nano-hole array structure /pit arrays 5) has a depth smaller than a thickness of the electrode.
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 7 (reproduced below) of Liang shows an electrode (second conductive layer 4 is a conductive base layer 41) that includes a plurality of island portions divided by the plurality of grooves.
PNG
media_image1.png
426
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Liang does not expressly disclose that the plurality of grooves (nano-hole array structure /pit arrays 5) has depth equal to a thickness of the electrode.
Suzuki discloses in paragraph [0161] that the present disclosure also includes a mode obtained by applying various modifications conceived by a person skilled in the art to the embodiment and the like, or a form realized by arbitrarily combining the constituent elements and functions in the embodiments and the like without departing from the gist of the present disclosure. Similarly Liang discloses on page 5 The above embodiments are only a preferred solution of the present disclosure, but are not intended to limit the present disclosure. Those skilled in the art can make various changes and modifications without departing from the spirit and scope of the present disclosure. Therefore, all technical solutions obtained by equivalent replacement or equivalent transformation fall within the protection scope of the present disclosure.
Therefore, absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of grooves having a depth equal to a thickness of the electrode, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding claim 5, Fig. 7 of Liang shows that the plurality of grooves (nano-hole array structure /pit arrays 5) are formed over an entirety of a surface of the electrode.
Regarding claim 6, Fig. 7 of Liang shows that the plurality of grooves (nano-hole array structure /pit arrays 5) are capable of communicating with each other.
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 7 of Liang shows that the plurality of grooves (nano-hole array structure /pit arrays 5) are arranged on a surface of the electrode in a mesh manner.
Regarding claim 8, Liang discloses wherein a groove width of the plurality of grooves is greater than 10 nm and less than 10 µm (the pit array structure, the size of each pit is hundreds of nanometers). See pages 2-3.
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki in view of Liang does not expressly disclose a width of the contact hole. Suzuki discloses in paragraph [0161] that the present disclosure also includes a mode obtained by applying various modifications conceived by a person skilled in the art to the embodiment and the like, or a form realized by arbitrarily combining the constituent elements and functions in the embodiments and the like without departing from the gist of the present disclosure. Similarly Liang discloses on page 5 The above embodiments are only a preferred solution of the present disclosure, but are not intended to limit the present disclosure. Those skilled in the art can make various changes and modifications without departing from the spirit and scope of the present disclosure. Therefore, all technical solutions obtained by equivalent replacement or equivalent transformation fall within the protection scope of the present disclosure.
Therefore, absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a groove width of the plurality of grooves that is equal to or less than 1/10 of a width of the contact hole, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYDIA EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-3242. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Wednesday 08:00-18:00 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 571-272-1234. 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.
/LYDIA EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights