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 with traverse of Group II, claims 20-30, drawn to a system in the reply filed on January 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, drawn to a method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 16, 2026.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art Bormashenko does not teach the "probe" feature in the claims. Applicant argues Bormashendo teaches a plasma-forming “jet head” instead of a “probe.” This is not found persuasive because neither the claims or the specification discloses the detailed structure of the probe. The specification merely discloses a sharp, conductive probe (PGpub ¶51), and the claim merely recites a “probe.” Thus, it is valid to read the “jet head” of Bormashenko as a probe under broadest reasonable interpretation.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, line 8: “in first medium” suggested to be “in a first medium”
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.
Claim(s) 23 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the second medium" and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to make claim 23 to be depend on claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bormashenko (U.S. 10,475,625).
Regarding claim 20, Bormashenko teaches a system, comprising:
a probe (Fig. 2; col. 8, l. 17: a jet head; ll. 11-15: the plasma jet technology involves the use of a high-voltage discharge to create a pulsed electric charge in an enclosed chamber; a gas is then allowed to flow through the discharge section for form the plasma);
a voltage source (col. 8, line 26: an electric power source), the voltage source being in electronic communication with the probe (col. 9, ll. 5-6: the plasma treatment is effected upon generating the plasma by application of a high voltage);
a target electrode (Fig. 4B: Aluminium foil; also see Fig. 2: sample 25; col. 8, ll. 34-35: sample 25 is a liquid placed in a porous substrate; col. 9, l. 66: an exemplary porous substrate is depicted in Fig. 4B);
a dielectric substrate disposed between the probe and the target electrode (Fig. 4B: PC porous film; as evidenced by Fig. 2, the film must be between the jet head and the Aluminium foil),
the system being configured such that the voltage source is operable to give rise to ions in first medium surrounding the probe (col. 7, ll. 11-15: plasma is considered to consist of a mixture of neutral atoms, atomic ions, electrons, molecular ions, and molecules in excited and ground states and carrying a high amount of internal energy) that are encouraged away from the probe and toward the target electrode (Fig. 2: see the direction of plasma 23) while the probe is free of physical contact with a droplet (Fig. 5: water droplet) that has a density and is disposed between (1) the probe and (2) the dielectric substrate (Fig. 2: plasma 23, as evidenced by Fig. 4b, the plasma must be between the jet head 27 and the PC porous film on the Aluminium foil),
the system being further configured such that the ions are sufficient to effect a decrease in a contact angle of the droplet relative to the substrate (Fig. 6A-B; Table 1, col. 25, ll. 41-45: the initial apparent water contact angle (APCA) of liquid silicon oil (PDMS) following cold air plasma treatment was considerably lower than the initial APCA of the untreated silicone oil).
Here, the limitations “the system being configured such that the voltage source is operable to give rise to ions in first medium surrounding the probe that are encouraged away from the probe and toward the target electrode while the probe is free of physical contact with a droplet that has a density and is disposed between (1) the probe and (2) the dielectric substrate” and “the system being further configured such that the ions are sufficient to effect a decrease in a contact angle of the droplet relative to the substrate” are deemed to be functional limitations in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, Bormashenko teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed system and thus it is capable of operating the voltage source to give rise to ions in first medium surrounding the probe that are encouraged away from the probe and toward the target electrode while the probe is free of physical contact with a droplet that has a density and is disposed between (1) the probe and (2) the dielectric substrate and thus the ions are sufficient to effect a decrease in a contact angle of the droplet relative to the substrate.
Regarding claim 21, Bormashenko teaches a second medium (Fig. 5: silicon oil; col. 26, ll. 7-8: the silicon oil is PDMS liquid), the second medium being disposed so as to enclose the droplet (Fig. 5: indicating the silicon oil enclosing the water droplet).
Regarding claim 22, Bormashenko teaches wherein the second medium has a density lower than the density of the droplet (the density of silicon oil is lower than the density of water because oil forms on top of the water droplet).
Regarding claim 23, Bormashenko teaches wherein the second medium is an oil (Fig. 5: silicon oil).
Regarding claim 24, Bormashenko teaches the system further comprising a material disposed on the substrate (Fig. 4B: liquid PDMS on the dielectric substrate, i.e., PC porous film).
Regarding claim 25, Bormashenko teaches wherein the material is positioned such that the decrease in the contact angle of the droplet relative to the substrate effects contact between the droplet and the material (Fig. 5, 6A-B; Table 1; col. 25, ll. 45-46: the surface of silicon oils was hydrophilized by the plasma treatment).
Regarding claim 26, Bormashenko teaches wherein the material is indicative of a position of the droplet, a composition of the droplet, or both (Fig. 5; col. 25, l. 1: the water droplet engulfed by the silicon oil).
Regarding claim 27, Bormashenko teaches wherein the material is reactive with a component of the droplet (Fig. 5, 6A-B; Table 1; col. 25, ll. 45-46: the surface of silicon oils was hydrophilized by the plasma treatment; ll. 59-60: the plasma treatment significantly increases surface energies of organic liquids; thus the hydrophilized silicon oil would be more reactive with the water droplet).
Regarding claim 28, Bormashenko teaches wherein the voltage source is operable according to a programmed schedule (col. 9, ll. 8-10: the application of high voltage may be continuous or comprises repeated brief discharges).
Further, the limitation “operable according to a programmed schedule” is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 29, Bormashenko teaches wherein the voltage source is operable to vary a voltage applied to the probe (col. 9, 8-12: the application of high voltage may be continuous or comprises repeated brief discharges, for example, at a rate of at least 1 kHz and optionally in a range of from 10 to 100 kHz).
Further, the limitation “operable to vary a voltage applied to the probe” is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 30, Bormashenko teaches wherein the dielectric substrate defines at least one depression (Fig. 4B: PC porous film with a plurality of depressions), the at least one depression being configured to accommodate the droplet (Fig. 5, 7A-B).
Further, the limitation “being configured to accommodate the droplet” is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795