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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding the amendment filed 12/18/2025: Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Objection to the Specification
Applicant's arguments regarding the objection of claim 4 have been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 USC 102
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Golovchenko et al (US 20150060276 A1, cited in IDS heretofore referred to as Golovchenko) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However a new rejection has been formed in view of Wang et al (Wang, Junrong, et al. "Effects of access resistance on the resistive-pulse caused by translocating of a nanoparticle through a nanopore." RSC advances 4.15 (2014): 7601-7610., cited in IDS, heretofore referred to as Wang)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Golovchenko in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Golovchenko teaches a pore chip (Golovchenko; Fig 1, Element 10) comprising a membrane (Golovchenko; Fig 1, Element 14 and Par 0082; Golovchenko teaches a support structure as a solid state membrane) having a pore (Golovchenko; Fig 1, Element 12), wherein, with a diameter of the pore as d (Golovchenko; Par 0084; Golovchenko teaches a pore diameter of preferably 10-20nm), and a thickness of the membrane as t (Golovchenko; Par 0084; Golovchenko teaches a pore diameter of preferably 20-100nm), a relation 1 ≤ t/d < 2 is satisfied (Golovchenko; Par 0084; Golovchenko teaches at least half of the preferred embodiments would cover the relation claimed).
Golovchenko is silent on wherein d and t are designed such that, during use, when a voltage is applied between two electrodes provided across the pore, a radial distribution of electric-field intensity within the pore becomes uniform.
Wang teaches wherein d and t are designed such that, during use, when a voltage is applied between two electrodes provided across the pore, a radial distribution of electric-field intensity within the pore becomes uniform (Wang; Fig 3a, Pg 7604, Sec “The particle and nanopore surfaces are uncharged”; Wang teaches the current streamline, i.e. radial distribution of the electric field, is uniform across the pore until the particle disrupts it when the relation is at least t/d=1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the apparatus of Golovchenko with the pore size design of Wang in order to increase accuracy based on pore size choice (Wang; Pg 7609, Sec Conclusions).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Golovchenko and Wang teaches the pore chip according to claim 1. Wang further teaches wherein the membrane has a multi-layer structure (Golovchenko; Par 0082; Golovchenko teaches using multi layers).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Golovchenko and Wang teaches the pore chip according to claim 2. Wang further teaches wherein the membrane has a multi-layer structure of different insulating materials (Golovchenko; Par 0095; Golovchenko teaches using a SiO2 layer on top of a SiN layer, which have different insulations).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Golovchenko and Wang teaches the pore chip according to claim 3. Wang further teaches wherein the membrane comprises a lower silicon nitride (SiN) layer and an upper silicon dioxide SiO2 layer (Golovchenko; Par 0095; Golovchenko teaches using a SiO2 layer on top of a SiN layer).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Golovchenko and Wang teaches the pore chip according to claim 3. Wang further teaches wherein the membrane has the layered structure comprising two layers, i.e., a first insulating layer structured as a lower layer and a second insulating layer structured as an upper layer (Golovchenko; Par 0095; Golovchenko teaches using a SiO2 layer on top of an SiN layer, which have different insulations), and wherein the first insulating layer has a Young’s modulus that is higher than that of the second insulating layer (Golovchenko; Par 0105; Golovchenko teaches using a SiO2 layer on top of an SiN layer, so the lower layer has a higher Young’s modulus than the upper layer).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Golovchenko and Wang teaches the pore chip according to claim 1. Wang further teaches further comprising a support member structured to support the membrane and having an opening in a region that corresponds to the pore (Golovchenko; Fig 1, Element 14 and Par 0082; Golovchenko teaches a support frame may be used for the membrane).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Golovchenko and Wang teaches a microparticle measurement system comprising: a pore device (Golovchenko; Fig 1, Element 10) comprising the pore chip according to claim 1. Golovchenko further teaches a case (Golovchenko; Fig 1, Element 15) having two chambers separated by the pore chip (Golovchenko; Element 16 and Element 19; Golovchenko teaches and upper and lower reservoir in a fluidic cell, with the pore chip separating the upper and lower reservoir); and a measurement apparatus structured to apply an electronic signal to the pore device (Golovchenko; Fig 1, Element 24), and to measure an electrical signal that occurs in the pore device (Golovchenko; Par 0047; Golovchenko teaches an electrode measuring system).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Golovchenko and Wang teaches the pore chip according to claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein d and t are designed such that, during use, when a voltage is applied between two electrodes provided across the pore, a radial distribution of electric-field intensity within the pore becomes uniform (Wang; Fig 3a, Pg 7604, Sec “The particle and nanopore surfaces are uncharged”; Wang teaches the current streamline, i.e. radial distribution of the electric field, is uniform across the pore until the particle disrupts it when the relation is at least t/d=1).
But Wang does not explicitly teach for “wherein d and t are designed such that the radial distribution of relative electric-field intensity within the pore is 95% or greater.”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the radial distribution, 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Golovchenko and Wang teaches the pore chip according to claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein d and t are designed such that, during use, when a voltage is applied between two electrodes provided across the pore, a radial distribution of electric-field intensity within the pore becomes uniform (Wang; Fig 3a, Pg 7604, Sec “The particle and nanopore surfaces are uncharged”; Wang teaches the current streamline, i.e. radial distribution of the electric field, is uniform across the pore until the particle disrupts it when the relation is at least t/d=1).
But Wang does not explicitly teach for “wherein d and t are determined such that a radial distribution of relative electric-field intensity within the pore is 97% or greater.”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the radial distribution, 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Golovchenko and Wang teaches a pore device (Golovchenko; Fig 1, Element 10) comprising: the pore chip according to claim 1. Golovchenko further teaches a case (Golovchenko; Fig 1, Element 15) having two chambers that are separated by the pore chip (Golovchenko; Element 16 and Element 19; Golovchenko teaches and upper and lower reservoir in a fluidic cell, with the pore chip separating the upper and lower reservoir) and two electrodes respectively provided in the respective chambers Golovchenko; Fig 1, Element 24 and Par 0047; Golovchenko teaches an electrode measuring system, with two electrodes, one electrode provided in each chamber).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Lin et al teaches a pore membrane measurement system.
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 ADAM S CLARKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/ADAM S CLARKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858