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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (US 2019/0049847) in view of Smirnov (Structural modification of titanium surface…) in view of Oke (Atomic layer deposition and other thin film deposition techniques…).
Claims 1-3:
Cha teaches the claimed method for fabricating calcite channels in a nanofluidic device (Fig. 4) [0003] except using ALD to deposit calcite (step 410).
Cha does not teach using pulsed laser deposition to deposit calcite.
However, Smirnov teaches the use of PLD to deposit calcite (i.e., calcium carbonate) (sec. 2.2).
Additionally, Oke teaches ALD and PLD including a comparison of the techniques (Table 4). In particular, PLD offers a better deposition rate compared to ALD (Id.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Cha substituting a PLD process for the ALD process. Smirnov establishes PLD of calcium carbonate is known and Oke explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select from the different deposition methods.
Claim 4:
Cha teaches the photoresist is PDMS or SU-8 [0015].
Claims 5-6:
Cha teaches the developing solvents are PGMEA, etc. [0017].
Claims 7-8:
Cha teaches the structure of the device (Fig. 2A).
Claim 9:
Oke teaches a schematic of a conventional PLD system (Fig. 7) including where the substrate faces the target.
Claims 10-11:
Smirnov teaches the laser source operates at a wavelength of 532 nm, pulse width of 7nm, and frequency of 10 Hz (sec 2.2).
Claim 12:
Oke teaches the PLD process occurs in a vacuum chamber (Fig. 7). The range of 100 Pa or less is the normal range for the vacuum.
Claims 13-15:
Cha teaches the critical dimensions of the calcite structures are 50-100 nm [0019].
Claim 16:
Cha teaches a window made of SiN (Fig. 2A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the references individually (Cha does not teach PLD, Smirnov does not teach the channel pattern, Oke does not teach the channel pattern) when the rejection is based on the combination of the references. The examiner maintains it would have been obvious to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention for the stated reasons. In particular, Cha does teach the channel pattern and it would have been obvious to form these channel patterns by any suitable method including ALD, PLD, etc. Smirnov is relevant prior art because it establishes that calcite is known to be deposited by PLD. The question of “How to deposit calcite?” is reasonably pertinent to the problem at hand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759