DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/548,618 application filed 1 September 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 18-19, 22, 25-26, 28, 30, 35, 51, 54, 56-57, 59, and 73 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 35, 59, and 73 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation the uniform porous sorptive polymer coatinq layer comprises particles havinq a particle size of from about from about 1 nm to about 1000 nm, and the claim also recites about 10 nm to about 900 nm, about 50 nm to about 800 nm, about 50 nm to about 700 nm or about 100 nm to about 650 nm, which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 59 depends from claim 55, which has been cancelled. Since the limitations of claim 55 are unknown, it is not clear how the limitations of 59 further limit the claim. Obviously, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined; consequently, the limitations have not been further examined in relation to prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 35, 51, 54, and 56-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandy et al in Analytical Chemistry (2016, vol 88, pp 1760-1767).
With respect to claims 1-2, 54, and 56-57, Grandy et al discloses “a durable and easy to handle thin film microextraction (TFME) [also known as solid phase microextraction (SPME)—Examiner’s insertion—see 2nd paragraph on page 1760] device is reported. The membrane is comprised of poly(divinylbenzene) (DVB) resin particles suspended in a high-density polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) glue, which is spread on to a carbon fiber mesh…0.450 ± 0.005 g of DVB [divinylbenzene—Examiner’s insertion] particles were accurately weighed into a 20 mL headspace vial. A volume of 16 mL of hexane was then pipetted into this vial, and the mixture was vortexed for 1 min and then sonicated for 30 min. After mixing, 2.450 ± 0.02 g of the high-density PDMS prepolymer was weighed into the same vial and vortexed for an additional 2 min, followed by 1 h of sonication. Most of the hexane was then volatilized from the mixture by purging the vial with nitrogen gas. Optimal viscosity was chosen subjectively, when the mixture appeared to just barely flow when inverted in the vial…Following these steps, 120 μL of the peroxide-based catalyst was pipetted into the mixture and manually mixed using a spatula for approximately 1 min. Concurrently, a 25 cm × 60 cm (approx.) sheet of the carbon mesh was cut and secured to the Elcometer 4340 motorized film applicator. The coating mixture was then manually placed in a thin strip along the top of the carbon mesh sheet. The coating bar gap was adjusted to the thinnest setting available and then used to slowly spread the sorbent mixture across the carbon mesh surface. The coating [mixture or, alternatively, sorbent mixture—Examiner’s insertion] was then cured inside a nitrogen-purged vacuum oven at a pressure of −15 mmHg (approximately), and at 190−200 °C for a period of at least 16 h. As the membranes are double sided, the entire process needed to be performed a second time to complete the membrane. Once both sides were cured, individual membranes were manually cut into two different, instrument-dependent sizes (2 cm × 4.85 mm for the Gerstel TDU and 4 cm × 4.85 mm for the prototype HVD module)…Membranes were conditioned under nitrogen at 250 °C for 4 h…Once cooled, these membranes were washed in a 25:25:25:25 water/methanol/isopropanol/acetonitrile v/v/v/v mixture for 2 h and then air dried on Kimwipes. Before use, all membranes were submitted to a final 30 min conditioning step at 250 °C inside the respective thermal desorption unit. In line with the standard SPME procedure, it is also recommended that this final conditioning step be reperformed whenever the membranes have been stored without use for long periods of time” [see abtract & paragraphs following the heading “Preparation of the Carbon Mesh Particle-Loaded Membranes”]. The aforementioned teaching that a coating mixture was then manually placed in a thin strip along the top of the carbon mesh sheet…and then used to slowly spread the sorbent mixture across the carbon mesh surface corresponds to the depositing step of instant claim 1. The curing taught by Grandy et al corresponds to the same in claim 1. Since the carbon mesh sheet comprises mesh, it is obvious that the cut membranes correspond to the plurality of porous sorptive SPME devices.
With respect to claim 35, Grandy et al discloses a coating thickness of “40±5 μm thick” [abstract; see also 1st paragraph on right hand side of page 1765].
With respect to claim 51, Grandy et al discloses that the “coupling of these TFME devices to hand-portable gas chromatography toroidial ion trap mass spectrometry (GC-TMS) instrumentation was shown to push detection limits for these pesticides down to the hundreds of ppt levels” [abstract]. The GC-TMS corresponds to the analytical instrument of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-7, 9, 18-19, 22, 25-26, 28, and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: with respect to claim 4, the carbon mesh sheet discussed above does not correspond to a metal alloy support sheet or a fiber-reinforced plastic support sheet. With respect to claim 6, Grandy et al does not disclose at least one or more porogens. With respect to claim 30, recall that Grandy et al teaches curing in a vacuum oven, not with UV radiation.
Rodil et al in the Journal of Chromatography A (2007, vol 1138, no 1–2, 9 pp) appears to be one of the next nearest prior art references. Rodil et al discloses “[a] formulation consisting of 3.500 g SR 335 [laurylacrylate—Examiner’s insertion—see paragraph under heading “2.1 Reagents and materials”], 3.025 g HEA [hydroxyethylacrylate], 3.011 g TMPTA [trimethylolpropanetriacrylate], 0.429 g SR 531 [cyclic trimethylolpropane formal acrylate] and 0.160 g DC 1173 [2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-propan-1-one] was prepared and thoroughly mixed. A piece of glass fiber fabric was placed on top of a sheet of poly(ethylene) foil (25 μm) and fixed by application of vacuum on an applicator table…The fabric was soaked with the formulation and a second sheet of poly(ethylene) foil placed on top. Excessive liquid was pressed out by using a steel rod. The sandwich was cured under inert conditions (<50 ppm O2) in a UV-curing conveyor tunnel…using multiple passes (1.3 kJ/m2 Hg-high pressure UV) on both sides to ensure complete depletion of the photoinitiator. Finally, the covering poly(ethylene) foils were peeled off the cured glass fiber composite. Coating weights were determined gravimetrically after cutting pieces of 10 cm × 10 cm from the cured sandwich and subtracting the fabric weight provided by the manufacturer. The finer fabric (25 g/m2) was thus found to require 33 g/m2 of poly(acrylate) to soak it completely while the coarse fabric (49 g/m2) required 44 g/m2. The glass fiber composite was then cut into pieces of 6 cm × 0.3 cm, unless noted otherwise” [see paragraph following the heading “2.2. Preparation of glass fiber strips coated with PA” on page 2]. Clearly, Rodil et al fails to teach “depositing a prepolymer composition on a surface of a solid support…” since the reference teaches “[t]he fabric was soaked with the formulation.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
24 March 2026
Prosecution Insights