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 § 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a “first article”, which implies the presence of additional second, third, fourth, etc. articles. However, there is no “second article” set forth in claims 1-8. Therefore, it is unclear why the article of independent claim 1 is labeled as a first article.
Independent claim 9 is drawn to a “second article”, which strongly implies the presence of at least a “first article” and possibly additional third, fourth, etc. articles. However, there is no “first article” set forth in claims 9-13. Therefore, it is unclear why the article of independent claim 9 is labeled as a second article.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zengin “Preparation of molecularly imprinted PDMS elastomer for selective detection of folic acid in orange juice” (cited in the 6/26/2024 IDS) in view of Wu (WO 2017/201198).
Zengin discloses an article comprising a polymeric film, such as a PDMS elastomer. Surface activation of the polymeric film was achieved to obtain a silanol-decorated PDMS elastomer (PDMS-OH). See sections 2.1-2.2.3 and Scheme 1 on page 171. A plurality of compounds are covalently bonded to the modified PDSM elastomer through a condensation reaction with a silyl group. Zengin teaches that the compound is from the claimed Formula I and, more specifically, is 2,4-diamino-4-(phenylcarbonothioylthio)pentanoic acid, which is a RAFT agent. The CTA 3-aminopropyl trimethoxysilane derivative is synthesized, which is shown in Scheme 1. This molecule is identical to that shown as (I-H) in claim 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
80
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
122
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zengin, however, does not state that the polymeric film includes an array of structures with posts and wells, wherein the inorganic oxide coating is disposed on bottom surfaces of the wells and an anti-biofouling fluoropolymer is disposed where the oxide coating is not present.
Wu discloses an article comprising a polymeric film coated with an inorganic oxide coating. See, for example, paragraph [0121] (“silicon dioxide coated Si substrate”). The polymeric film is characterized by a plurality of posts and wells (Figure 2A:25a-d), and the inorganic oxide coating may be disposed on a top surface of the posts or a bottom surface of the wells. An anti-biofouling coating (Figure 2A:35a-e), such as a fluoropolymer, is applied to a surface where the oxide coating is not present. This is described in paragraph [0089].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to configure the PDMS substrate of Zengin as a flow cell characterized by wells and posts that define reaction regions. Wu indicates that this allows one to conduct effective and automated biochemical analysis operations (“Patterned flow cells that are useful in nucleic acid analysis methods include discrete wells having an active surface within inert interstitial regions”). Wu further indicates that fluoropolymers may be used as hydrophobic interstitial regions that separate patterned areas for independent analysis and synthesis of analytes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The prior art does not appear to disclose a polymer film having an inorganic oxide coating of thickness 1-500 nm disposed on an outer surface, wherein a plurality of polymeric groups of Formula II are covalently bonded to the coating through a condensation rection with a silyl group. In addition to Zengin, the Ng “Benchtop Preparation of Polymer Brushes by SI-PET-RAFT…” reference (cited in the 6/26/2024 IDS) is believed to be the next closest prior art. Although Ng described various polymeric groups covalently bonded to a metal oxide coating of a substrate, Ng does not teach a compound that falls into Formula II. The prior art does not appear to disclose, in the claimed environment, the POLY product of at least one monomer having an ethylenically unsaturated group (i.e., C=C) required by claim 9.
The Meagher (US 20120178165) and Jiang (US 20130244249) references disclose the state of the art regarding dithiocarbamates as photoiniferters.
The McGall (WO 2018169725) reference teaches the preparation of chain transfer agents, such as 2-(trimethoxysilanylethyl)benzyl dithiobenzoate (see Compound 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8613. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/NATHAN A BOWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights