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 filed 1/20/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Additionally, references that were previously cited by the Examiner on 9/19/2025 were duplicated and have been removed from consideration on the IDS.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-21 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 15 recites the limitation "the structure" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation was copied from claim 2, which is dependent upon claim 1 that does contain a reference to “a structure”. However, claim 15 lacks a “structure” upon which the method of manufacturing limitation can further limit. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim to require that the movable islands and supporting beams are manufactured using two-photon polymerization.
Claims 16-21 are rejected based on their dependency upon claim 15.
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.
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2011/0317157 A1) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Considering claim 15, Kang discloses an apparatus for performing a displacement-controlled tensile test of a sample, the apparatus comprising:
- a first movable island 62 supported by a first supporting beam 64 having a first defined stiffness (Figures 1-2B; [0057-69]); and
- a second movable island 66 supported by a second supporting beam 68 having a second defined stiffness, the first moveable island and the second moveable island defining a junction 76 therebetween having an initial length (Figures 1-2; [0057-69]).
The invention by Kang discloses that the movable islands and the supporting beams are based on microfabrication/nanofabrication techniques ([0055], [0057]; [0050]), but fails to explicitly disclose that any structure is developed based on a nanofabricated polymeric structure using two-photon polymerization. Kang does not specifically require a method of manufacturing, and thus is not limited to the techniques disclosed therein.
AAPA states in [0003] of the published application (US 2023/0393170 A1) that “[t]wo-photon polymerization has been used to create micro- and nanoscale structures”, which indicates that Applicant admits the claimed technique was known at the time of filing (See MPEP 2129).
The invention by Kang features micro- and nanoscale fabrication of structures for use in performing a displacement-controlled tensile test of a sample, but lacks the claimed use of two-photon polymerization to develop the structures thereof. The invention by AAPA discloses that complex structures can be fabricated by two-photo polymerization, and, while not explicitly the same structure as Kang, AAPA utilizes the same manufacturing technique as that which is claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique of two-photon polymerization to nanofabricate the structure of Kang, as suggested by AAPA, and the results would have been predictable and repeatable. Furthermore, the use of two-photon polymerization allows structures to be customized with “tailored properties including stiffness, porosity, roughness, adhesion propensity” (AAPA; [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize two-photon polymerization in the invention by Kang, as taught by AAPA.
Considering claim 16, Kang discloses a first sample anchoring structure 80 attached to the first moveable island and a second sample anchoring structure 82 attached to the second movable island (Figures 2A-2B; [0061-62]).
Considering claim 17, Kang discloses a sample 84 coupled to the first sample anchoring structure and the second sample anchoring structure (Figure 2B), wherein the sample comprises a printed microfiber. In accordance with MPEP 2115, the material worked upon, in this case, the printed microfiber, is immaterial to the structure of the apparatus claim. Accordingly, while the limitation has been considered, it does not add patentability to the claim.
Considering claim 20, Kang discloses that the apparatus is configured to stretch the junction at a controlled strain rate by applying force to the second moveable island using a nanopositioner ([0057-58]; [0096-97]; [0100]; nanoscale).
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2011/0317157 A1) in view of AAPA, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kikuhara et al. (US 2016/0195458 A1).
Considering claim 21, Kang, as modified by AAPA, fails to discloses that at least a portion of the structure is made using a low autofluorescence resin.
However, Kikuhara suggests utilizing low autofluorescence resin as structural elements ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize low autofluorescence resin, as taught by Kikuhara, in at least a portion of the structure of Kang, as modified by AAPA. The motivation for doing so is so that the material itself does not emit light at the same time that it is irradiated with fluorescent light during fluorescence observation, as suggested by Kikuhara.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 15 (16-17, 19-21) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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:
Considering claim 18, the prior art fails to disclose that the first moveable island and the second moveable island are attached to an optically transparent substrate, and wherein the optically transparent substrate is optically coupled to an inverted microscope configured to monitor movement of the first moveable island and the second moveable island using digital image correlation.
Claims 1, 3-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Considering claim 1, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of a method of measuring a stress-strain curve in a sample having the steps of providing a structure including a first and second movable island each supported by a respective first and second beam and a gap therebetween connected by the sample, moving the second movable island using atomic force microscopy, calculating a force on the sample based on a displacement of the first movable island, calculating a stress on the sample based on the force, and determining the stress-strain curve of the sample by plotting the calculated stress against the applied strain, in combination with the remainder of the elements of claim 1.
Considering claim 13, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of a method of measuring a stress-strain curve in a sample having the steps of providing a structure including a first and second movable island each supported by a respective first and second beam and a gap therebetween connected by the sample, the sample provided in a liquid environment, moving the second island, calculating a force on the sample based on a displacement of the first movable island, calculating a stress on the sample based on the force, and determining the stress-strain curve of the sample by plotting the calculated stress against the applied strain, in combination with the remainder of the elements of claim 13.
The closest prior art of record is to Kang, which fails to disclose that the sample is contained within a liquid environment and the use of AFM to move the second island to thereby displace the sample and the first island.
The IDS submitted on 1/20/2026 fails to provide a prior art reference that anticipates or otherwise renders the above mentioned subject matter obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 February 6, 2026