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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/22/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim(s).
The rejections under 101 and 112 are withdrawn in view Applicant’s amended claims. Examiner thanks Applicant for the clarification regarding the priority document.
In regards to the differences between the Ndukaife prior art and the invention, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not explicitly recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s). It is also noted (though the rejection does not currently rely upon) that the claims are also broad enough to read on an arrangement of nanoholes used in a plurality of separate traps on a shared substrate.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 6-9, 15-19 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-14, 20 is/are rejected.
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_image1.png
281
1244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-14, 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 a nanotweezer including:
a first electrode (see e.g. fig 3: 322) including a first substantially planar structure (see fig 3);
a second electrode (see e.g. 312) including a second substantially planar structure (see fig 3), the second substantially planar structure including a plurality of nanoholes arranged in a regular pattern (see e.g. grid pattern in fig 7: 721; alternately read as a portion of the outermost nanoholes in 721) surrounding a central region (see annotated fig 7), the central region including an area (e.g. center of the central region, or some subpart of the central region) enclosed by and extending inwardly from the regular pattern to a centroid of the area (natural result of arbitrarily defining an area inside the central region), wherein the central region does not include nanoholes arranged in a regular pattern (see example regions in fig 7);
a fluidic chamber (see 330) between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
a voltage source (see 340) configured to generate an electric field between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. claim 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
2510
974
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Examples of what “central region” may read on, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox ((annotated))][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 2, Ndukaife teaches the plurality of nanoholes includes a circular array of nanoholes surrounding the central region (see Ndukaife, fig 7).
Regarding claim 3, Ndukaife teaches the circular array of nanoholes includes nanoholes arranged in concentric circles around the central region (see Ndukaife, fig 7).
Regarding claim 4, Ndukaife teaches the plurality of nanoholes includes a square array of nanoholes surrounding the circular array of nanoholes (see Ndukaife, fig 7, outmost selection of nanoholes (read as the square array) are formed of a square array of nanoholes that surround circular subregions (circular arrays); alternately they can be read to surround parts of 722).
Regarding claim 5, Ndukaife teaches a plasmonic nanocavity (see 313) formed through the central region (see Ndukaife, fig 3); and a light source (see claim 1) configured to illuminate the plasmonic nanocavity with a coherent focused light beam (see laser, e.g. [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Ndukaife teaches the second electrode includes a plurality of central regions (see e.g. any of the annotated regions in fig 7, and/or analogous additional regions at different positions) surrounded by a plurality of nanoholes (see fig 7); each central region is surrounded by a first plurality of nanoholes arranged in concentric circles (note concentric circles may be constructively defined regions) around each central region (see fig 7; note could be the same concentric circles as long as they enclose the defined central region); and a second plurality of nanoholes is arranged in a square array around the first plurality of nanoholes (see fig 7).
Regarding claim 11, Ndukaife teaches a method of operating a nanotweezer including:
generating an electric field (see e.g. claim 1) between a first electrode (see e.g. fig 3: 322) and a second electrode (see e.g. 312);
wherein the first electrode includes a first substantially planar structure (see fig 3);
wherein the second electrode includes a second substantially planar structure (see fig 3), the second substantially planar structure including a plurality of nanoholes arranged in a regular pattern (see e.g. grid pattern in fig 7: 721; alternately read as a portion of the outermost nanoholes in 721) surrounding a central region (see annotated fig 7), the central region including an area (e.g. center of the central region, or some subpart of the central region) enclosed by and extending inwardly from the regular pattern to a centroid of the area (natural result of arbitrarily defining an area inside the central region), wherein the central region does not include nanoholes arranged in a regular pattern (see example regions in fig 7); and
wherein a fluidic chamber (see 330) is defined between the first electrode and the second electrode (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 12, Ndukaife teaches the plurality of nanoholes includes a circular array of nanoholes surrounding the central region (see Ndukaife, fig 7).
Regarding claim 13, Ndukaife teaches the circular array of nanoholes includes nanoholes arranged in concentric circles around the central region (see Ndukaife, fig 7).
Regarding claim 14, Ndukaife teaches the plurality of nanoholes includes a square array of nanoholes surrounding the circular array of nanoholes (see Ndukaife, fig 7, outmost selection of nanoholes (read as the square array) are formed of a square array of nanoholes that surround circular subregions (circular arrays); alternately they can be read to surround parts of 722).
Regarding claim 20, Ndukaife teaches the second electrode includes a plurality of central regions (see e.g. any of the annotated regions in fig 7, and/or analogous additional regions at different positions) surrounded by a plurality of nanoholes (see fig 7); each central region is surrounded by a first plurality of nanoholes arranged in concentric circles (note concentric circles may be constructively defined regions) around each central region (see fig 7; note could be the same concentric circles as long as they enclose the defined central region); and a second plurality of nanoholes is arranged in a square array around the first plurality of nanoholes (see fig 7).
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 extension fee 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 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 2878
Prosecution Insights