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 .
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 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 office action with notification date 04/23/2026 is vacated by the instant office action in order to add the response to arguments below and titled as “6.2.SECOND Argument in support to Response number 6” above, which relative to the MPEP 2145", I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY.
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 03/10/2026.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are still pending.
II. Double Patenting
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
III. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and found not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
5. Pages 10-12, the Applicant(s) argues that “As explained further below, Applicant respectfully disagrees at least because (1) Maney in view of Kuramochi does not disclose at least "a shield, wherein: ... the shield at least partially surrounds the sense electrode and is coupled to an output of the amplifier," and (2) a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the disclosures of Maney and Kuramochi to arrive at claim 14 … Kuramochi does not disclose "a shield, wherein ... the shield at least partially surrounds the sense electrode and is coupled to an output of the amplifier." ... It does not disclose or suggest a shield that at least partially surrounds a nanopore sense electrode, nor does it disclose coupling such a shield to the output of the sensing amplifier as expressly required by claim 14 ... Kuramochi's cable-level shielding arrangement does not teach or suggest such integration ... Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Maney in view ofKuramochi does not disclose "a shield, wherein: ... the shield at least partially surrounds the sense electrode and is coupled to an output of the amplifier." Therefore, claim 14 is patentable over Maney in view of Kuramochi, and Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn ... Nothing in Kuramochi suggests applying this shield structure at the electrode level of a nanopore sensing device, nor does Kuramochi suggest coupling such a shield to the output of the sensing amplifier as claimed. ...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Maney in view of Kuramochi discloses “a shield at least partially surrounds the sense electrode and is coupled to an output of the amplifier” pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning (I), MPEP 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure, and MPEP 2111.03 Transitional Phrases.
5.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 5 above.
2111.01 Plain Meaning, I. THE WORDS OF A CLAIM MUST BE GIVEN THEIR "PLAIN MEANING" UNLESS SUCH MEANING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFICATION
“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention … the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term in the specification … During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow … This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” … “In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say””.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the case law, ordinary English words/terms must be given their plain meaning, unless the specification provide definitions for said words/terms in the form of glossary.
In the instant case, the claim limitation at issue broadly and ambiguously recites “... the shield at least partially surrounds the sense electrode ...” but does not explain how the claimed “shield” is partially surrounding the “sense electrode”.
Furthermore, the terms “partially” and “surrounding” are ordinary English words and could be reasonably interpreted by one ordinary skill in the art using any of their ordinary English meanings because the specifications do not provide any special definition for the aforesaid terms, which makes said terms consistent with the specifications of the Applicant(s).
Furthermore, the terms “partially” and “surrounding” are so broad and ambiguous that have many different definitions (see, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/draw; https://www.thefreedictionary.com/partially and https://www.thefreedictionary.com/draw; https://www.thefreedictionary.com/surrounding) and/or synonyms (see, https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/drawn; https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/about), thus, could be reasonably used and/or interpreted to describe many different relationships between the elements of the claim (e.g. “partially surrounding” and “sense electrode”) such as being surrounding only the front surface of the “sense electrode”, as it is reflected in Fig. 10 of Kuramochi (see marked Fig. 10 below), etc. Additionally, the Examiner’s interpretation is consistent with Fig. 7B of the instant application where the shield 310 only surrounds one surface of the sense electrode 18A. Consequently, the Examiner’s interpretation of the limitation regarding “... the shield at least partially surrounds the sense electrode ...” is reasonable and consistent with the specifications of the Applicant(s).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the claim language is so broad and ambiguous that do not exclude Kuramochi’s teachings.
In light of the foregoing, the combination of Maneyin view of Kuramochi properly and obviously teaches all the limitations of claim(s) 14.
5.2. SECOND Argument in support to response number 5 above.
MPEP 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure, “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) …; In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) (Reference disclosure of a compound where the R-S-R¢ portion has "at least one methylene group attached to the sulfur atom" implies that the other R group attached to the sulfur atom can be other than methylene and therefore suggests asymmetric dialkyl moieties.).”.
MPEP 2112 Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof, “The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103..”.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the case law, the rejection must be based on express, implicit and inherent disclosure of the prior art references. In addition to the specific teachings of the reference, inferences are expected to be drawn from the reference-teachings by one ordinary skilled in the art are drawn.
In the instant case and with regards to the express-explicit and implicit disclosure of Kuramochi, the claim limitation at issue broadly and ambiguously recites “the sense electrode and the counter electrode are configured to sense a current through the nanopore”. In contrast, paragraphs [0089], “DUT 200 is configured as a chip including the electrode pair 310, a nanopore structure 312”, which a second modification of Kuramochi. Therefore, one ordinary skilled in the art like the Examiner implies/infers that such a modification includes the circuit reflected in Fig. 10 that includes the shield because the modification is only relative to the DUT 200 of Kuramochi and vice-versa, or, at least it would have been an obvious embodiment modification, as set forth by Kuramochi in paragraph [0094] that the embodiments are for illustrative purpose only and could be understood by one ordinary skilled in the art that changes and variations may be made.
Similar to the instant case but in a general way, the Federal Circuit recently issued an opinion affirming the findings of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning obviousness based on implicit disclosures in a prior art reference (See IXI IP, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 17-1665, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25533 (Fed Cir. Sept. 10, 2018) (Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Reyna, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the court, Reyna, Circuit Judge) in which the configuration of physical structures, which are not explicitly expressed in the prior art used for rejection but required by the invention of the prior art, were implied from said prior art by an ordinary skilled in the art such as it is implied by the Examiner.
Regarding applicant’s allegation relative to “nor does it disclose coupling such a shield to the output of the sensing amplifier as expressly required by claim 14”, the Examiner considers such an allegation incorrect because Fig. 10 of Kuramochi clearly disclose the shield 180 connected to the output of amplifier 150.
In light of the foregoing, Maneyin view of Kuramochi discloses the aforesaid claim limitation(s).
5.3. THIRD Argument in support to Response number 5 above.
MPEP 2111.03 Transitional Phrases,
“The transitional phrases "comprising", "consisting essentially of" and "consisting of" define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim … The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., … Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Comprising" is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 803 (CCPA 1981); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) ("comprising" leaves "the claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts"). In Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371-73, 74 USPQ2d 1586, 1589-91 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that a claim to "a safety razor blade unit comprising a guard, a cap, and a group of first, second, and third blades" encompasses razors with more than three blades because the transitional phrase "comprising" in the preamble and the phrase "group of" are presumptively open-ended. "The word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended."”.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the case law, the transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps, which means that other elements could be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim, thus, meeting the claim language.
In the instant case, the independent claim(s) is/are fully open ended because it/they use the transitional phrase “comprising” in its/their preamble that leaves open the inclusion or addition of more elements other than the elements claimed and still form a construct within the scope of the claim. Therefore, the transitional phrase “comprising” allows broader reasonable interpretation(s) including additional elements such as components and/or nodes in between the connection of the shield 180 to the output of amplifier 150. Consequently, the claim does not exclude additional elements such as the nodes of the prior art, which are unrecited elements and/or method steps. However, Kuramochi does not disclose components in between but only nodes that are simply connection points between components of a circuit.
Furthermore, the Examiner should not interpret the limitations of a claim upon the close-end theory as if using the transitional phrase “consisting of” in the preamble, which would have excluded additional elements from the scope of the claim.
In light of the foregoing, Kuramochi properly discloses the aforesaid claim limitation(s).
6. Pages 11-13, the Applicant(s) argues that “Second and the Office has not identified any specific reason why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Maney's nanopore structure
in this particular manner. As explained further in the following section, Applicant respectfully
submits that Maney's generic boilerplate language in paragraph [0148] is insufficient to support
the proposed modification … A person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
combine Maney and Kuramochi as suggested by the Office … Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Office's motivation-to-combine rationale is flawed because it relies on a generalized statement of benefit of Kuramochi' s architecture (improving bandwidth and reducing noise) without identifying a teaching in Maney or Kuramochi that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maney's nanopore system in the specific manner required by claim 14 ... That is precisely the type of hindsight-driven reasoning that KSR prohibits. KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A factfinder
should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of
arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning ... Moreover, Maney does not identify electrode-level parasitic capacitance or bandwidth narrowing as a problem to be solved, much less by modifying the sense electrode. Absent a recognition in Maney of a problem that would be addressed by surrounding the sense electrode with a shield, there is no articulated reason why a skilled artisan would have altered Maney's nanopore structure to incorporate Kuramochi's cable-level shield arrangement. A proper motivation to combine must be grounded in the teachings of the references themselves, not in the Applicant's disclosure. The Office's reasoning does not explain why a skilled artisan would move Kuramochi's shield from a transmission path context into the nanoscale electrode region of a nanopore device, nor why the artisan would specifically couple that shield to the output of the amplifier rather than implement Kuramochi's disclosed guard amplifier architecture. Thus, the Office's proposed modification relies on knowledge of Applicant's solution as a roadmap, rather than on teachings of the cited references. But a claimed invention cannot be used as a template for modifying prior art ... Finally, the Office's reliance on Maney's boilerplate statement at paragraph [0148] that "many modifications and variations are possible" is legally insufficient to supply the required motivation. Such generic language does not identify any particular modification, much less the specific structural configuration recited in claim 14. If such statements were enough to justify any structural alteration, the requirement for an articulated reason to combine the references' disclosures would be rendered meaningless. In the absence of a specific teaching, suggestion, or reason grounded in the prior art to surround a nanopore sense electrode with a shield coupled to the amplifier output, the proposed combination does not support a conclusion of obviousness. Absent hindsight reconstruction, there is no basis in Maney or Kuramochi for implementing a shield that at least partially surrounds a nanopore sense electrode and is coupled to the output of the amplifier as recited in claim 14. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date would not have been motivated to combine Maney and Kuramochi as suggested by the Office, and claim 14 is patentable over Maney in view of Kuramochi for this additional reason. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because it is not required that the modification to combine the prior art be pursuant to the MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness, I. EXEMPLARY RATIONALES, and MPEP 2145, I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY.
6.1. FIRST Argument in support to response number 6 above.
MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness, G. Some Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation in the Prior Art That Would Have Led One of Ordinary Skill To Modify the Prior Art Reference or To Combine Prior Art Reference Teachings To Arrive at the Claimed Invention “The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible ... Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649. "[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations …”.
In the instant case, the explicit and/or implicit modifications are “preventing the bandwidth from narrowing (Kuramochi, Paragraph [0082]), and also by providing a current measurement circuit which provides reduced noise and/or a widened bandwidth (Kuramochi, Paragraph [0025])”, which are situations where “universal-and even common-sensical” motivations exist that result in a more desirable product, for example, cheaper, more efficient, faster, lighter, etc. Therefore, the improvements are “technology-independent” and do not require any direct motivation, thus, the configuration/teachings of Kuramochi provide an improvement for Maney.
Furthermore, with regards to allegation relative to “That is precisely the type of hindsight-driven reasoning that KSR prohibits. KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because there is no hindsight in the motivation to combine that is clearly set forth by Kuramochi in Paragraph [0025].
In light of the foregoing, the combination of Maney and Kuramochi properly and obviously teaches all the limitations of claims 14 with a proper motivation.
6.2.SECOND Argument in support to Response number 10 above.
MPEP 2145, I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art.
The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the case law, Attorney’s arguments are not evidence unless it is an admission, therefore, the aforesaid arguments are not factual evidence.
In the instant application, all the arguments regarding the “motivation” to combine Maney and Kuramochi alleged by the Applicant(s) are simply Attorneys’ arguments that cannot take the place of evidence because it lacks of appropriate supporting evidence to be proven. On the other hand, there is objective evidence supporting the “motivation” to combine the “motivation” to combine Maney and Kuramochi, as it is disclosed in the rejection below and from the previous rejection.
In light of the foregoing, said arguments with respect the “motivation” to combine Maney and Kuramochi are simply an attorneys’ argument that cannot be given the same weight as to “factual evidence” supported by objective evidence.
Examiner’s Note
7. All the words in the language of the claims of which the specifications do not provide a definition in the form stated in the MPEP, the examiner has interpreted them by their plain meanings, pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” and MPEP 2173.01.
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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim(s) 14-18 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maney, JR. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0148886 hereinafter mentioned as “Maney”, which was used in the previous office action) in view of KURAMOCHI (Pub. No.: US 2016/0154032 hereinafter mentioned as “Kuramochi”, which was used in the previous office action).
As per claim 14, Maney, in the embodiment of Fig. 9 that includes Fig. 4 that includes Fig. 2, discloses:
A system for detecting molecules (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see Fig. 9), the system comprising:
an amplifier (Fig. 9, see the amplifier with ADC circuit 960. Also see [0109]);
a nanopore (Fig. 4, see either nanopore cell 915 or nanopore cell 925. Also see [0109]);
a sense electrode situated on a first side of the nanopore (Fig. 2, see the working electrode 202 positioned on one side of the nanopore 216. Also see [0048]);
a counter electrode situated on a second side of the nanopore (Fig. 2, see the counter electrode CE 210 positioned on another side of the nanopore 216. Also see [0048]); and
wherein: the sense electrode and the counter electrode are configured to sense a current through the nanopore (Fig. 2, see the working electrode 202 and counter electrode CE 210 that sense the current flow thorough the lipid bilayer on which the nanopore 216 is formed. Also see [0048]).
Maney does not explicitly disclose a shield at least partially surrounds the sense electrode and is coupled to an output of the amplifier.
However, Kuramochi further discloses:
a shield (Fig. 10, see the shield 180. Also see [0080]), wherein the shield at least partially surrounds the sense electrode (Fig. 10, see any of the electrode E1 and/or electrode E1 that form feedback resistor Rf. Also see [0080] and [0082]) and is coupled to an output of the amplifier (Fig. 10, see the amplifier 150. Also see [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “shield at least partially surrounds the sense electrode and is coupled to an output of the amplifier” disclosed by Kuramochi into Maney, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by preventing the bandwidth from narrowing (Kuramochi, Paragraph [0082]), and also by providing a current measurement circuit which provides reduced noise and/or a widened bandwidth (Kuramochi, Paragraph [0025]).
Furthermore, Maney states that “The above description of example embodiments of the invention has been presented for the purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form described, and many modifications and variations are possible in light of the teaching above” (Maney, Paragraph [0148]).
As per claim 15, the combination of Maney and Kuramochi discloses the system of claim 14 as described above.
Maney further discloses:
a digitizer coupled to the output of the amplifier (Fig. 9, see the amplifier with digitizer/ADC circuit 960. Also see [0109]).
As per claim 16, the combination of Maney and Kuramochi discloses the system of claim 14 as described above.
Maney further discloses:
a processor (Fig. 4, see the digital processor 430. Also see [0068]-[0069] and/or [0140]) coupled to an output of the digitizer (Fig. 4, see the digitizer/ADC 410. Also see [0068]-[0069] and/or [0140]).
As per claim 17, the combination of Maney and Kuramochi discloses the system of claim 14 as described above.
Maney in view of Kuramochi, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim 14, further discloses:
wherein the nanopore comprises a hole (Maney, Fig. 2, see the unnumbered hole/path of the nanopore 216. Also see [0047]-[0048]), and wherein the shield (Kuramochi, Fig. 10, see the shield 180. Also see [0080]) is recessed from the hole (Maney teaches the nanopore comprising a hole and Kuramochi teaches the shield, therefore, the hole comes from the combination of Maney and Kuramochi).
As per claim 18, the combination of Maney and Kuramochi discloses the system of claim 14 as described above.
Maney in view of Kuramochi, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim 14, further discloses:
wherein the amplifier comprises a transistor (Maney, Fig. 9, see the amplifier and ADC circuit 960 comprising a read-out transistor 950. Also see [0109]), and
wherein the shield (Kuramochi, Fig. 10, see the shield 180. Also see [0080]) is coupled to a source of the transistor (Washizu, see [0070]. Washizu teaches the transistor and Kuramochi teaches the shield, therefore, the hole comes from the combination of Washizu and Kuramochi), and
the sense electrode (Washizu, Fig. 7, see the electrode 106. Also see [0039]) is coupled to a gate of the transistor (Washizu, Fig. 7, see the electrode 106 coupled OA1 that configured as a FET transistor or JFET transistor, which form amplifier 212. Also see [0074]).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim(s) 19-20 would be allowable if overcoming the “Double Patenting" Rejection above, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the objection:
9. Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein:
wherein the transistor and the nanopore are integrated onto a same substrate.
10. Claim(s) 20 depends and also further limits claim 19, therefore, it would also be allowable.
Reasons for Allowability / Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 1-6 and 7-13 are allowed.
12. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
13. Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein:
control logic coupled to the drive circuitry, the multiplexer, and to the digitizer, wherein the control logic is configured to:
control at least one of the drive circuitry or the multiplexer to select at least one of the first sense electrode or the first counter electrode, and
obtain a digitized signal from the digitizer, the digitized signal representing a current through the first nanopore.
14. Claims 2-6 are allowed due to the fact that they further limit and depend on claim 1.
15. Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein:
a multiplexer, wherein a first input of the multiplexer is coupled to the first read amplifier and a second input of the multiplexer is coupled to the second read amplifier, and an output of the multiplexer is coupled to a digitizer; and
control logic coupled to the drive circuitry, to the digitizer, and to the multiplexer, wherein the control logic is configured to: control at least one of the drive circuitry or the multiplexer to select at least one of the first sense electrode or the first counter electrode, and obtain a digitized signal from the digitizer, the digitized signal representing a current through the first nanopore.
16. Claims 8-13 are allowed due to the fact that they further limit and depend on claim 7.
17. The prior art of record does not anticipate the limitations of the independent claims.
Furthermore, there is not any obvious motivation for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine some and/or all of the features of the prior art of record to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter. In addition, it will further require substantial structural modification of the components that will also require substantial modification of the measurements, signal processing and configurations to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon thru Fri from 8:00am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. 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.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights