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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the following symbol (+) should be removed from line 1 of the previously mentioned claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “polyvynil chloride” in line of the claim is misspelled. The correct spelling is as follows: “polyvinyl chloride”.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0120626A1-Ross et al. (hereinafter Ross), and further in view of Vlăsceanu et al. (2019, hereinafter Vlăsceanu).
Regarding claim 1, Ross discloses a cell and tissue culture graphene-multielectrode array device (microelectrode array devices, methods for their use and methods for their manufacture, para. [0006]); abstract), comprising: a support electrode (electrodes, para. [0019], line 4, Fig. 1, bottom portion 14, shown in Fig. 1), comprising: a first electrically non-conductive substrate sheet (transparent substrate, para. [0007], line 11), a first patterned circuit made of an electrically conductive ink applied on the substrate (printed circuit boards, PCBs—patterned circuit—processed on a transparent substrate, glass, para. [007], lines 8-12). Further, Ross teaches microelectrode array devices disclosed have been designed to fit into a standard multiwell plate (para. [0007], lines 15-16). However, Ross does not explicitly teach a plurality of patterned graphene dots and a dielectric ink coating for exposing graphene dots.
For claim 1, Vlăsceanu teaches additive manufacturing provides the opportunity to precisely deposit inks to form desired structures with precise control over structure and morphology (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 3-5), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a plurality of patterned graphene dots and a dielectric ink coating for exposing graphene dots.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the invention of Ross and further include a plurality of patterned graphene dots and a dielectric ink coating for exposing graphene dots as taught by Vlăsceanu. Further, Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques and Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 1, Ross teaches the invention discussed above. Further, Ross teaches a lid electrode (electrodes 20, cover portion shown in Fig. 1). Further, Ross teaches the system is fabricated from flexible materials such as polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), and rigid substrates, like silicon and glass (para. [0005], lines 1-5), where the latter materials are not very conductive substrates. Also, Fig. 1 shows a pattern circuit created by the electrodes 20. Ross also reaches a multiwell format (i.e. several wells of 12 electrodes, para. [0019], lines 3-4). Moreover, Ross teaches microelectrodes stimulate the cultures (para. [0032], lines 3-4). Likewise, Ross teaches the glass plate design and the interconnection between the two Substrates is achieved using metal pads defined at two of the corners of the both substrates (para. [0030], lines 3-6). However, Ross does not explicitly teach patterned graphene dots and electrically conductive ink.
For claim 1, Vlăsceanu teaches additive manufacturing provides the opportunity to precisely deposit inks to form desired structures with precise control over structure and morphology (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 3-5), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a plurality of patterned graphene dots and a dielectric ink coating for exposing graphene dots.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the invention of Ross and further include a plurality of patterned graphene dots and a dielectric ink coating for exposing graphene dots as taught by Vlăsceanu. Further, Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques and Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 2, Ross teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ross teaches a lid electrode, also discussed above. However, Ross does not explicitly teach dielectric ink.
For claim 2, Vlăsceanu teaches additive manufacturing provides the opportunity to precisely deposit inks to form desired structures with precise control over structure and morphology (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 3-5), which reads on the instant claim limitation of dielectric ink.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the invention of Ross and further include dielectric ink as taught by Vlăsceanu. Further, Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques and Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 3, Ross teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ross teaches a multiwell format system. However, Ross does not explicitly teach graphene dots.
For claim 3, Vlăsceanu teaches additive manufacturing provides the opportunity to precisely deposit inks to form desired structures with precise control over structure and morphology (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 3-5), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a plurality of patterned graphene dots.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the invention of Ross and further include a plurality of patterned graphene dots as taught by Vlăsceanu. Further, Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques and Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 4, Ross teaches wherein the support electrode closes the bottom of the well (bottom portion 14, shown in Fig. 1, para. [0019], line 8).
Regarding claim 5, Ross teaches wherein the support electrode is a positive electrode or a negative electrode (the MEA traces and recording sites can be defined using a relatively thick layer of negative resist, para. [0023], lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 6, Ross teaches wherein the lid electrode is a negative electrode or a positive electrode (the MEA traces and recording sites can be defined using a relatively thick layer of negative resist, para. [0023], lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 7, Ross teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. However, Ross does not explicitly teach graphene dots made of graphene ink.
For claim 7, Vlăsceanu teaches additive manufacturing provides the opportunity to precisely deposit inks to form desired structures with precise control over structure and morphology (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 3-5), which reads on the instant claim limitation of graphene dots made of graphene ink.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the invention of Ross and further include graphene dots made of graphene ink as taught by Vlăsceanu. Further, Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques and Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 12-13). Also, Vlăsceanu teaches Graphene composites are an extraordinary option for the development of numerous composite inks for seemingly endless functions [18]. Graphene based inks can be tuned to embody particular properties such as biocompatibility or biological inertness, photo responsivity, electrical conductivity or hydrophilicity alteration (page 713, left column, paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 8, Ross teaches the invention discussed above in claim 7. However, Ross does not explicitly teach wherein the graphene ink is a biocompatible graphene ink.
For claim 8, Vlăsceanu teaches additive manufacturing provides the opportunity to precisely deposit inks to form desired structures with precise control over structure and morphology (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 3-5), which reads on the instant claim limitation of graphene ink.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the invention of Ross and further include graphene ink as taught by Vlăsceanu. Further, Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques and Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 12-13). Also, Vlăsceanu teaches Graphene composites are an extraordinary option for the development of numerous composite inks for seemingly endless functions [18]. Graphene based inks can be tuned to embody particular properties such as biocompatibility or biological inertness, photo responsivity, electrical conductivity or hydrophilicity alteration (page 713, left column, paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 9, Ross teaches wherein the patterned circuit is made of silver ink or copper ink or nickel-copper ink or their mixture (fabricated rigid PCB with copper patterns, Fig. 3a, and para. [0050], lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 10, Ross teaches wherein the substrate sheet is a polymeric or a glass sheet (a glass substrate, para. [para. [0015], and para. [0021], lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 11, Ross teaches wherein the substrate sheet is a polymeric sheet (polymer-substrate multiwell MEAs, para. [0021], lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 12, Ross teaches wherein the polymeric sheet has a thickness of at least 50 micrometres (he polymer membrane has a thickness of about 10 to about 100 microns, para. [0051], lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 13, Ross teaches wherein the substrate is a sheet of polyethylene terephthalate or polyethylene naphthalate or polycarbonate or polyimide or polyvynil chloride (the polymer is Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), para. [0051], line 3).
Regarding claim 14, Ross teaches wherein the multi-well plate and the inserts are made of polystyrene, or polycarbonate, or polyethylene terephthalate glycol or polylactic acid (the fabrication process using printed circuit boards (of any kind) or multilayer glass technology with vias as a substrate for single-well or multiwell MEAs. PCB substrate materials may include, but are not limited to, polyethylene terephthalate, para. [0074], lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 15, Ross teaches wherein the support electrode comprises a first adhesive for attaching the support electrode to the multi-well plate (polymer lamination on PCBs that is compatible with standard adhesives used in the industry, para. [0025], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Ross teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ross teaches a lid electrode and a multiwell plate format, also discussed above. Further, Ross teaches PCBs that is compatible with standard adhesives used in the industry, para. [0025], lines 1-3). However, Ross does not explicitly teach graphene dots.
For claim 16, Vlăsceanu teaches additive manufacturing provides the opportunity to precisely deposit inks to form desired structures with precise control over structure and morphology (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 3-5), which reads on the instant claim limitation of graphene dots made of graphene ink.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the invention of Ross and further include graphene dots made of graphene ink as taught by Vlăsceanu. Further, Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques and Vlăsceanu teaches the patterns feature high electrical conductivity displaying excellent performances, at simple and practical printing techniques (page 713, left column, paragraph 5, lines 12-13). Also, Vlăsceanu teaches Graphene composites are an extraordinary option for the development of numerous composite inks for seemingly endless functions [18]. Graphene based inks can be tuned to embody particular properties such as biocompatibility or biological inertness, photo responsivity, electrical conductivity or hydrophilicity alteration (page 713, left column, paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 17, Ross teaches a lid to maintain the sterility of the culture in the wells (electrodes 20, cover portion shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Ross teaches herein said device is a printed device (printed circuit board, para. [0025], line 4).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0120626A1-Ross et al. (hereinafter Ross), in view of Vlăsceanu et al. (2019, hereinafter Vlăsceanu) as applied to claims 1 and 18, respectively above, and further in view of US 2025/0116680 A1-Clinton (has an earlier effective filing date as of the provisional application).
Regarding claim 19, modified Ross teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified Ross teaches microfabrication of the multiwell MEA using a combination of a large area process like PCBs and post processing using microfabrication or MEMS technique, para. [0020], lines 3-6). However, modified Ross does not explicitly teach an in-mould labelled device.
For claim 19, Clinton teaches an invention providing a monitoring system comprising a plurality of sample collection modules fluidically connected to a detection module, wherein the detection module comprises (i) a plate holder for supporting a multi-well assay plate in the detection module (para. [0007], lines 1-5) and Clinton teaches an injection-molded plate top (para. [0097], line 4, Fig. 11b), and Clinton teaches construction of blow-molded plastic (para. [0040], lines 8-9),which reads on the instant claim limitation of an in-mould labelled device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the modified invention of Ross and further include an in-mould labelled device as taught by Clinton, because Clinton teaches plates with screen printed plate bottoms mated to injection-molded plate tops include fiducials patterned (e.g. screen printed) or cut into the plate bottom to correct for misalignment of the plate bottom to the plate top (para. [0096], lines 8-15).
Regarding claim 20, modified Ross teaches the invention discussed above in claim 18. However, modified Ross does not explicitly teach a printed device is made by screen-printing.
For claim 20, Clinton teaches an invention providing a monitoring system comprising a plurality of sample collection modules fluidically connected to a detection module, wherein the detection module comprises (i) a plate holder for supporting a multi-well assay plate in the detection module (para. [0007], lines 1-5) and Clinton teaches a screen-printed mylar plate bottom (para. [0097], lines 4-5), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a printed device is made by screen-printing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the modified invention of Ross and further include a printed device is made by screen-printing as taught by Clinton, because Clinton teaches plates with screen printed plate bottoms mated to injection-molded plate tops include fiducials patterned (e.g. screen printed) or cut into the plate bottom to correct for misalignment of the plate bottom to the plate top (para. [0096], lines 8-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENORA A. ABEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
/L.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799