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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 19 February, 2026 has been fully considered and entered. In view of the claim amendments, some of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) raised in the office action mailed on 21 November, 2025 are withdrawn. However, the amendment fails to overcome all of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) made in the previous office action and raises new issues. The outstanding rejections are repeated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 February, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the “aspect ratio” as claimed in claim 1, is clear because paragraph [0041] specifies that the aspect ratio is determined in the XY plane, specifically as a ratio between maximum X and Y dimensions of arm 22 in the XY plane. Examiner disagrees. Paragraph [0041] discusses the aspect ratio and the dimensions of the arm in the XY plane but fails to explicitly state that the ratio of the maximum X and Y dimensions defines the term “aspect ratio”, let alone explicitly state that it is a special definition throughout the disclosure, such that it should limit the interpretation of the claims. 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). Therefore, it would be improper to read limitations from paragraph [0041] as further limiting the claimed aspect ratio. As detailed below, an aspect ratio can be computed in multiple ways relating to the claimed structure, so without further information, the term is indefinite.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3,and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1: “or both adsorption or desorption” should be “or both adsorption and desorption”.
Regarding claim 3: “the adjacent sensitive surfaces” lacks proper antecedent basis. This is the first instance of adjacent sensitive surfaces in claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 10: the colon after “a step of depositing microdrops containing receptors” makes the claim grammatically incorrect/does not make sense. It should be removed. Additionally, the dimension is referred to as “dg” and “dg”. This should be corrected for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 recites an “aspect ratio equal to 1 +/- 20%”, but it is unclear what physical structure defines the aspect ratio. Does it mean that the waveguides forming the arms have equal height and width? Does it mean that the spirals or serpentine shapes have maximum dimensions that are equal? An aspect ratio could be computed from any physical dimensions of the device. From the specification, paragraph 0041 describes two lengths in the device as being equal within a margin of 20%, although it is not explicitly stated that the aspect ratio refers to the ratio of the dimensions described in paragraph 0041. The relevant dimensions that give the aspect ratio of 1 +/- 20% should be made clear in the claim since multiple different aspect ratios can be defined for the claimed structure.
Also regarding claim 1: Claim 1 also recites “the respective side of the sensitive surfaces alternates between the transverse axis to another transverse axis.” It is unclear what this means. Does it mean that along a longitudinal axis, the respective side of the sensitive surfaces alternates, or another way of putting it, the rectangular array comprises rows and columns of interferometers, with the respective side of the sensitive surfaces being constant within each row and alternating along each column? Or does this limitation just require that the respective side of the sensitive surfaces changes somewhere in the array, from one transverse axis to any other transverse axis?
Regarding claim 2: “the transverse axis” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 defines a transverse axis and another transverse axis. Which transverse axis is the transverse axis?
Regarding claim 4: “the transverse axis between each interferometer line” is unclear because the transverse axis lacks proper antecedent basis and also because “each interferometer line” is unclear. What is an interferometer line?
Regarding claim 5: “the transverse axis” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 defines a transverse axis and another transverse axis. Which transverse axis is the transverse axis?
Regarding claim 8: “the thin adhesion layer being located in the indentation” is confusing because each sensitive arm is stated to have an indentation. Therefore, claim 6 requires a plurality of indentations, so “the indentation” lacks proper antecedent basis. Is there one adhesion layer spanning the layer, including within the indentations? Or does each arm have an adhesion layer in each indentation?
Regarding claims 2-10: Claims 2-10 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
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 Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874