DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 55, 57-61, 63-75 and 81-87 are pending.
Claims 1-54, 56, 62 and 76-80 are cancelled.
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 Objections and Rejections
The previous objections to claims 68 and 83 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 75 and 85 under 35 U.S.C. 112b is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All other rejections from the previous Office action stand.
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 (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.
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) 55, 57-61, 63-67, 70-74, 81-83 and 86-87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haynes et al. (US 2014/0342128).
Regarding claim 55, Haynes discloses a method of applying current at a selectively functionalized surface on a microelectrode array using an electrolytic solution (title, abstract, [0151]) (= a method of focusing charge density at a functional surface on an electrode array an electrochemically modifying an active species in a conductive solution exposed to the electrode array),
The microarray structure comprising (abstract) (= the electrode array comprising):
A substrate material (2) [0108] (= a support substrate); and
A plurality of protruding areas (Figure 1) including a coating layer (3) [0107] (= a plurality of surface structures protruding from an upper surface of the support substrate, wherein the plurality of surface structures includes an electrode layer),
Each of the array structures includes an apex or tip (Figure 1, [0043]) (= wherein each of the surface structures is tapered or rounded to an apex),
The method comprising the steps of
Exposing the microarray to a target species of the electrolytic solution [0151]
(= the method comprising the steps of:
Exposing the plurality of surface structures to the conductive solution comprising the active species); and
Current is allowed to flow through the electrolytic solution [0151], target species in the electrolytic solution bind to functionalized areas of the microarray and therefore aid or impede current flow [0151], current distribution is shown in Figure 9, concentration of the target analyte is related to the level of current passed through the conductive, continuous 3D array surface [0099], [0196]-[0197], the microarray structure is functionalized to be a micro-electrode sensor array and/or a micro catalyst [0032], including tips (6) protruding from the inert material (7) [0042], and wherein a counter electrode is used [0099], [0134].
(= establishing a current or voltage between the electrode layer and a counter electrode in the conductive solution such that a charge density is focused to selectively functionalize an upper portion at or about the apex of each of the plurality of surface structures,
Wherein the upper portions of each of the plurality of surface structures are configured to contact the active species in the conductive solution, wherein the upper portions of each of the plurality of surface structures electrically connected via the electrode layer to form a functional grouping, and
Wherein the active species is electrochemically modified following contact with the selectively functionalized upper portion of each of the plurality of surface structures).
Regarding claims 57-58, Haynes discloses a current distribution based on the magnitude of the current applied (Figures 9, 34) therefore a size of the functional area is controlled by the current and charge density applied. Since functionalization occurs at the isolated area, the kinetic rate of attachment would be higher compared to areas that are not the isolated areas (abstract) [0027].
Regarding claim 59, Haynes discloses wherein the microarray tips are between nanometer and micrometer size [0102] including 10 nm to about 1 micron for the functionalized area [0104]. Figure 23 depicts the width of the bottom of the shape is approximately 100 microns, the width of the tip is less than the width of the bottom of the surface structure.
Regarding claim 60, Haynes discloses wherein the width between tips is approximately 100 microns (Figure 23).
Regarding claim 61, Haynes discloses wherein the plurality of surface structures are pyramidical or conical (Figures 1, 3-4, 8, etc.).
Regarding claim 63, the charge density or current is differentiated between the isolated functionalized portions of Haynes and the portion that is not functionalized. This is intrinsically occurring in order to provide the microarray as a sensor for example.
Regarding claims 64 and 66, Haynes discloses the method including a microcatalyst [0001] including catalytic electrochemical modification [0099], [0155], [0162].
Regarding claims 65 and 67, Haynes discloses the use of platinum [0108], [0162].
Regarding claims 70-71, Haynes discloses metal in an ionically conductive medium is a charged particle [0003], [0099].
Regarding claim 72, Haynes discloses the use of SAM located between each of the surface structures [0093], [0114].
Regarding claim 73, Haynes discloses alternating working electrode and counter electrode position (Figure 34, [0171]).
Regarding claim 74, Haynes discloses precisely aligning arrays working as working electrode and counter electrode ([0163], Figure 8).
Regarding claim 81, Haynes discloses the microarray as a microsensor and/or microcatalyst and therefore satisfies the claimed language since the microarray uses the isolated functionalization areas to attach the species.
Regarding claim 82, Haynes discloses wherein the surface structures are uniformly arranged on the support structure (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 83, Haynes discloses the presence of gold tracks (20) between structures [0183].
Regarding claim 86, Haynes discloses the method as described above. Haynes discloses depositing metal [0099], [0162].
Regarding claim 87, Haynes discloses the method as described above. Haynes discloses wherein the active species are a catalyst [0116], [0155], [0159], [0162].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 68-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes et al. (US 2014/0342128) in view of Li et al. (US 2015/0011421).
Regarding claims 68-69, Haynes discloses a catalyst including metal [0162]. Haynes does not disclose the catalyst comprising an organometallic is selected as claimed.
In the same or similar field of electrochemical detection, Li discloses a redox moiety including ferrocene (= iron) which can be linked to ends of nanostructures (abstract). Li teaches that an increase in the amount of ferrocene increases the redox potentials and in turn enhances the detection sensitivity [0035].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising a catalyst including an organometallic material as claimed such as ferrocene because Li teaches that an increase amount of ferrocene as a redox moiety results in enhanced detection sensitivity.
Claim(s) 75 and 84-85 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes et al. (US 2014/0342128) in view of Chou et al. (US 2005/0139492).
Regarding claims 75 and 85, Haynes does not disclose pulsing current or voltage as claimed.
Chou discloses in the same or similar field of electrochemical detection a method including pulsing the voltage in order to deposit the active species and reversing the voltage to strip the active species (= stops electrochemical modification). Chou discloses that the pulse method allows for the number of chemicals detected to be increased and therefore the accuracy is improved (abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising pulsing the current or voltage because Chou teaches that using a pulse voltammetry method increases the number of chemicals detected and therefore enhances the accuracy. The frequency and/or duty cycle of the method of Chou controls the deposition (e.g. attachment) of the active species.
Regarding claim 84, Chou discloses a potential in the range of -0.5 ~ 1.3 V [0032].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 10-12 the argument states that Haynes discloses a non-conductive or inert layer to provide the selective functionalization and therefore does not disclose the claimed establishing a current or voltage…such that a charged density is focused to selectively functionalise an upper portion at or about the apex of each of the plurality of surface structures. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims do not exclude the presence of an inert or non-conductive layer or material. Hayes unambiguously discloses that the charge density is selectively focused on the top portion of the structures. The Examiner acknowledges the remarks on pages 10-12 regarding the specification not including an inert or non-conductive to provide the selectivity, however, as stated, the instant claims do not exclude a layer being present to provide the selectivity.
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 STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 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 at (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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795