DETAILED ACTION
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 Group III, in the reply filed on 1/16/26 is acknowledged.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 3-6, 8-12, 15-17 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 13-14, 18-20 is/are rejected.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig 1a: 118.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d) If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
PNG
media_image1.png
148
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
PNG
media_image2.png
151
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 19-20 recite “the electric field is selected to reduce a trapping time” and “the electric field is selected to produce a dielectrophoretic force”. These limitations refer to a desired result (reducing trapping time or producing a dielectrophoretic force) without clarifying how or what fields are selected in sufficient detail to recognize what is claimed. MPEP 2163.03 states “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).”
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 –
PNG
media_image3.png
281
1244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 13-14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ndukaife (US 20200241177 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ndukaife teaches an optical tweezer apparatus, comprising:
a shaped nanoaperture (see e.g. fig 3: 313) defined in a conductive layer (see 312, [0040]); and
an electrode (e.g. 313 along with 322) situated to produce a fringe field that attracts nanoparticles to the shaped nanoaperture (natural result of electrode geometry to have a fringe field that attracts positive or negative nanoparticles to the center nanoaperture; see generally fig 7; note also polarization in [0052] and AC voltages in [0021]).
Regarding claim 2, Ndukaife teaches a voltage source (see Ndukaife, fig 3: 340) coupled to electrode and the conductive layer defining the shaped nanoaperture to produce the fringe field (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 7, Ndukaife teaches the voltage source is operable to provide one or both of a DC voltage and an AC voltage (see Ndukaife, e.g. [0021]).
Regarding claim 13, Ndukaife teaches a method, comprising:
situating a fluid specimen (see e.g. [0023]) at a shaped nanoaperture (see e.g. fig 3: 313);
applying an electric field (see via 340, [0040]) to attract nanoparticles in the fluid specimen to the shaped nanoaperture (natural result of applying voltage to attract or repulse nanoparticles) (alternately see generated electromagnetic field, [0022]); and
trapping at least one nanoparticle at the shaped nanoaperture with an optical beam (see optical tweezing, e.g. [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Ndukaife teaches the applied electric field is a fringe electric field (fringe field is natural result of the fields generated by the electrode geometries of the system; see generally Ndukaife, fig 7).
Regarding claim 18, Ndukaife teaches the electric field at the shaped nanoaperture has a field gradient having a magnitude that increases towards the shaped nanoaperture (see e.g. Ndukaife, [0053]; alternately note natural result of geometries of electrodes in fig 3).
Regarding claim 19, Ndukaife teaches the electric field is selected to reduce a trapping time (compared with different configuration of fields, voltages, system statuses, etc).
Regarding claim 20, Ndukaife teaches the electric field is selected to produce a dielectrophoretic force (natural result of application of e.g. AC field, see e.g. Ndukaife, [0021]) that reduces a trapping time (compared with different configuration of fields, voltages, system statuses, etc).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Medoro (US 20030047456 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Medoro teaches an optical tweezer apparatus, comprising:
a shaped nanoaperture (see fig 21: WI) defined in a conductive layer (see LIJ, [0090]); and
an electrode (WI along with e.g. M2 serve as an electrode) situated to produce a fringe field that attracts nanoparticles to the shaped nanoaperture (natural result of electrode geometry to produce a fringe field that attracts nanoparticles toward the center nanoaperture).
Furthermore, it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, Medoro teaches a voltage source (see e.g. Medoro, fig 21: VRE) coupled to electrode and the conductive layer (see fig 21: LIJ, M1, M2) defining the shaped nanoaperture to produce the fringe field (see fig 21).
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 13-14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Verschueren et al., Nano-Optical Tweezing of Single Proteins in Plasmonic Nanopores, Small Methods 3, 1800465 (2019).
Regarding claim 1, Verschueren teaches an optical tweezer apparatus, comprising:
a shaped nanoaperture (see p2, fig 1a-c) defined in a conductive layer (see fig 1a, p2, col 2, last para); and
an electrode (see e.g. in combination with electrodes, p8, col 1, last para) situated to produce a fringe field that attracts nanoparticles to the shaped nanoaperture (see p2, col 1, para 1; also note natural result of electrode geometry to produce some fringe field that attracts nanoparticles towards a nanoaperture).
Regarding claim 2, Verschueren teaches a voltage source (required for operation of system, see e.g. Verschueren, p8, col 1, last para) coupled to electrode and the conductive layer defining the shaped nanoaperture to produce the fringe field (see fig 1a).
Regarding claim 7, Verschueren teaches the voltage source is operable to provide one or both of a DC voltage and an AC voltage (see e.g. Verschueren, fig 5 caption).
Regarding claim 13, Verschueren teaches a method, comprising:
situating a fluid specimen (see e.g. p2, col 2, para 2) at a shaped nanoaperture (see e.g. p2, figs 1a-c);
applying an electric field (see p2, col 2, para 2) to attract nanoparticles in the fluid specimen to the shaped nanoaperture (see p2, col 1, para 1; also note natural result of electrode geometry to produce some fringe field that attracts nanoparticles towards a nanoaperture); and
trapping at least one nanoparticle at the shaped nanoaperture with an optical beam (see fig 1a, e.g. p2, col 1, para 1).
Regarding claim 14, Verschueren teaches the applied electric field is a fringe electric field (see p2, col 1, para 1; also note natural result of electrode geometry to produce some fringe field that attracts nanoparticles towards a nanoaperture).
Regarding claim 18, Verschueren teaches the electric field at the shaped nanoaperture has a field gradient having a magnitude that increases towards the shaped nanoaperture (see e.g. Verschueren, fig 1c; see also p1, col 2, last para).
Regarding claim 19, Verschueren teaches the electric field is selected to reduce a trapping time (compared with different configuration of fields, voltages, system statuses, etc).
Regarding claim 20, Verschueren teaches the electric field is selected to produce a dielectrophoretic force (natural result of application of field and geometries, especially during voltage changes) that reduces a trapping time (compared with different configuration of fields, voltages, system statuses, etc).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881