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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 10 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 July 2026.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 requires “a thermo-responsive polymer”, however the metes and bounds of this term are unclear. Essentially any polymer is “thermo-responsive” and will melt, for example, at a predetermined temperature. It is understood that this term is intended to read on a limited subset of polymers, but it is not clear what characteristics distinguish a thermo-responsive material from those that are not.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the photo-thermal filler" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez (US 20180327832) in view of Sjong (US 20130299097) and Nakashima (US 20120329123).
With respect to claim 1, Ramirez discloses a flow cell comprising a substrate (Figure 3:12) having a plurality of reaction regions spatially separated from one another across the substrate. Each reaction region includes a hydrogel layer (Figure 5L:20) and a reactive entity (Figure 5L:22) attached to the polymeric hydrogel layer. A plurality of independently removeable coatings (Figure 3:24) are respectively positioned over each of the plurality of reactive regions. This is described in paragraphs [0191]-[0213] and throughout the reference. Ramirez, however, states that the removable coatings are water soluble, and therefore does not teach a thermo-responsive polymer and a photo-thermal additive.
Sjong discloses a substrate (Figure 1:101) covered by a removable coating (Figure 2:105) configured as a thermo-responsive polymer gel. This is taught in paragraphs [0038]-[0047]. Sjong indicates that a photothermal additive (Figure 2:103) comprising gold nanoparticles is heated by a laser to selectively detach the removable coating from the substrate (“The heat transfer agent may be, for example, a laser. In one example, supramolecular polymer interface layer 103 may include gold nanoparticles or other solids that become heated upon exposure to the laser”).
Nakashima discloses a substate (Figure 1:14) covered by a removable coating (Figure 1:15) configured as a thermo-responsive polymer gel. Nakashima indicates that the thermo-responsive polymer gel may be agar, which includes agarose. The thermo-responsive polymer gel includes carbon nanotubes that act as a photothermal conversion material. The removable coating is removed when heated by a laser (“upon the irradiation of the nanocarbon contained in the scaffold with the laser beams, the scaffold is destructed by itself by the heat produced by way of the photothermal conversion of the nanocarbon contained therein”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide the Ramirez flow cell with a removable coating formed from a thermo-responsive polymer and a photo-thermal additive. Sjong and Nakashima show that such removable coatings are individually addressable using a laser and may be independently removed. Those of ordinary skill would have understood that this would permit greater control over when specific coatings are removed relative to each other. It is prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claims 2-4, Ramirez, Sjong and Nakashima disclose the combination as described above. Ramirez further states that the reactive entities are primer sets and may be the same or different. See, for example, paragraph [0076].
With respect to claim 5, Ramirez, Sjong and Nakashima disclose the combination as described above. Ramirez further shows that the reactive regions are disposed within depressions (Figure 3:14), wherein each of the independently removable coatings 24 cover the reaction regions.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Ramirez, Sjong and Nakashima disclose the combination as described above. As previously discussed, Sjong indicates that the thermo-responsive polymer is an agar, which contains agarose, and that the photo-thermal additive includes carbon nanotubes. Nakashima discloses a photo-thermal additive comprising gold nanoparticles.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez (US 20180327832) in view of Sjong (US 20130299097) and Nakashima (US 20120329123) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Agrawal (US 20030148401).
Ramirez, Sjong and Nakashima disclose the combination as described above. Ramirez further indicates that the substrate includes a plurality of projections (Figure 3:16) disposed between adjacent depressions (Figure 3:14). The protective coating (Figure 3:24) is positioned over the projections. Ramirez, however, does not expressly state that the reactive regions are positioned at the protrusions.
Agrawal discloses a flow cell comprising a plurality of reactive regions spatially separated from each other across a substrate. The reactive regions may include primer sets and may be positioned across a plurality of protrusions (Figure 1B:20). This is described in paragraphs [0099] and [0229]-[0251].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to dispose the Ramirez reactive regions on the plurality of protrusions. Agrawal teaches that this may have the beneficial effect of increasing contact with the sample solution and thereby improve analyte detection (“the communication offers an improvement in fluid flow and allows the biomolecules (i.e., target or probe) to access the structural elements of the textured surface”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Yang (US 20200010735), Wang (US 20210403942) and Iida (US 20220226814) references teach the state of the art regarding the use of photo-thermal materials in an assay.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8613. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/NATHAN A BOWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights