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 .
Status of the Objections and Rejections pending
since the non-final Office Action mailed on February 11, 2026
All of the claim objections are withdrawn.
All of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
All of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) are withdrawn.
4. All of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are withdrawn.
4. All of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed August 11, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under one or more of 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),
35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made as presented below.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 13, lines 4 and 7, “the each” should be replaced with – each – (the word “the” deleted);
b) in claim 18, lines 4 and 7, “the each” should be replaced with – each – (the word “the” deleted; and
c) in claim 18, line 9, the article – a – should be inserted between “of” and “source”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Note that dependent claims will have the deficiencies of base and intervening claims.
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 13-16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 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) claim 13 now requires “wherein the each of the plurality devices produces an electrical in response to detecting the . . . .[italicizing by the Examiner]” It is not clear what noun the adjective “electrical;” is modifying.
b) claim 13 now requires “wherein the each of the plurality devices produces an electrical in response to detecting the one or more atoms or molecules or particles traveling through the nanopore, . . . .” However, this claim previously recites “detecting one or one or more ions, atoms, molecules, or particles traveling through the nanopore, . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” Should the word -- ions -- be inserted between “more” and “atoms” in line 8?
c) in claim 13 it is not clear how the limitation “wherein the each of the plurality devices produces a signal in response to detecting one or one or more ions, atoms, molecules, or particles traveling through the nanopore, . . . .” is supposed to be different from the limitation “wherein the each of the plurality devices produces an electrical in response to detecting the one or more atoms or molecules or particles traveling through the nanopore, . . . .”
d) claim 18 now requires “wherein the each of the plurality devices produces an electrical in response to detecting the . . . .[italicizing by the Examiner]” It is not clear what noun the adjective “electrical;” is modifying.
e) claim 18 now requires “wherein the each of the plurality devices produces an electrical in response to detecting the one or more atoms or molecules or particles traveling through the nanopore, . . . .” However, this claim previously recites “detecting one or one or more ions, atoms, molecules, or particles traveling through the nanopore, . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” Should the word -- ions -- be inserted between “more” and “atoms” in line 8?
f) in claim 18 it is not clear how the limitation “wherein the each of the plurality devices produces a signal in response to detecting one or one or more ions, atoms, molecules, or particles traveling through the nanopore, . . . .” is supposed to be different from the limitation “wherein the each of the plurality devices produces an electrical in response to detecting the one or more atoms or molecules or particles traveling through the nanopore, . . . .”
Final Rejection
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and 4-12 are allowed.
Claims 13 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 14-16, 19, 21, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: see pages 20-24 (Allowable Subject Matter) of the non-final Office Action mailed on February 11, 2026 and see the Remarks secti9 of Applicant’s Amendment of August 11, 2026.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights