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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, drawn to a sensing platform of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 8/10/26 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/10/26.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/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.
For claim 6, the claim language “heights of about 700 nm to about 700 micrometers” is ambiguous. What is included in “about” 700 nm and “about” 700 micrometers. Does the tolerance include a .01% deviation? How about a .1% deviation? How about a 1% deviation? The claim is examined as meaning “heights of 700 nm to 700 micrometers.”
For claim 7, the claim language “diameters of about 80 nm to about 3 micrometers” is ambiguous. What is included in “about” 80 nm and “about” 3 micrometers. Does the tolerance include a .01% deviation? How about a .1% deviation? How about a 1% deviation? The claim is examined as meaning “diameters of 80 nm to 3 micrometers.”
For claim 8, the claim language “lengths of about 2 micrometers to about 25 micrometers” is ambiguous. What is included in “about” 2 micrometers and “about” 25 micrometers. Does the tolerance include a .01% deviation? How about a .1% deviation? How about a 1% deviation? The claim is examined as meaning “lengths of 2 micrometers to 25 micrometers.”
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.
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) 1-2 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0353923 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0143906 to Allemand et al. (hereinafter “Allemand”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0006536 to Kalvesten et al. (hereinafter “Kalvesten”).
For claim 1, Lee discloses a sensing platform (“cellular detection,” para [0046]) comprising:
a flexible substrate (“flexible substrate,” Abstract);
micro-sized needles (“nanoneedles,” Abstract) extending from a surface of the flexible substrate (Abstract).
Lee does not expressly disclose a percolated network of electrically-conductive nanowires on the surface of the flexible substrate.
However, Allemand teaches a percolated network of electrically-conductive nanowires on the surface of the flexible substrate (para [0022]-[0023]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Lee to include a percolated network of electrically-conductive nanowires on the surface of the flexible substrate, in view of the teachings of Allemand, for the obvious advantage of having better flexibility and optical transparency that traditional conductors such as copper wires or tin soldering.
Lee and Allemand do not expressly disclose an electrically-insulating layer disposed on the surface of the flexible substrate and covering the percolated network of electrically-conductive nanowires so that only tips of the micro-sized needles protrude from and are exposed by the electrically-insulating layer.
However, Kalvesten teaches an electrically-insulating layer (para [0167]) (also see para [0164]) disposed on the surface of the flexible substrate (as can be seen in Fig. 11c) (also see para [0164] and [0167]) and covering the surface of the substrate so that only tips of the micro-sized needles (119a, 119b) (Fig. 11c) (para [0167]) protrude from and are exposed by the electrically-insulating layer (as can be seen in Fig. 11c) (para [0167]) (also see para [0164]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Lee to include an electrically-insulating layer disposed on the surface of the flexible substrate and covering the percolated network of electrically-conductive nanowires so that only tips of the micro-sized needles protrude from and are exposed by the electrically-insulating layer, in view of the teachings of Kalvesten, for the obvious advantage of covering and protecting the nanowires. It is noted that in making this modification, applying the insulating layer on the surface of the flexible substrate would result in covering the nanowires since the nanowires are also disposed on top of the surface of the flexible substrate from the previous modification of Lee in view of Allemand.
For claim 2, Lee further discloses wherein the flexible substrate is formed by an elastomer material (para [0019]).
For claim 4, Lee further discloses wherein the micro-sized needles are formed of silicon (see claim 3).
For claim 5, Lee further discloses wherein the flexible substrate is optically transparent (see claim 4).
For claim 6, Lee further discloses wherein the micro-sized needles have heights of about 700 nm to about 700 micrometers (para [0023]).
For claim 7, Lee further discloses wherein the micro-sized needles have diameters of about 80 nm to about 3 micrometers (para [0023]).
For claim 8, Lee further discloses wherein tips of the micro-sized needles have lengths of about 2 micrometers to about 25 micrometers (as can be seen in Figs. 3A-B).
For claim 9, Lee, as modified, further discloses the sensing platform further comprising an optically transparent conduction path leading from the flexible substrate and comprising a portion of the percolated network of nanowires (see Abstract of Allemand).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Allemand and Kalvesten, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0375140 to Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
For claim 3, Lee, Allemand, and Kalvesten do not expressly disclose wherein the electrically-insulating layer is formed by the elastomer material.
However, Li teaches wherein the electrically-insulating layer is formed by the elastomer material (para [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Lee wherein the electrically-insulating layer is formed by the elastomer material, in view of the teachings of Lie, because such a material is a suitable material for insulating the device.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Allemand and Kalvesten, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,134,070 to Casnig and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0067103 to Knipp et al. (hereinafter “Knipp”).
For claim 10, Lee, Allemand, and Kalvesten do not expressly disclose the sensing platform further comprising a cell culture well affixed to the electrically-insulating layer and surrounding the tips of the micro-sized needles.
However, Casnig teaches a cell culture affixed to an electrically-insulating layer (col. 20, lines 35-68).
Additionally, Knipp teaches that the cell culture is a cell culture well (para [0072]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Lee to include a cell culture well affixed to the electrically-insulating layer and surrounding the tips of the micro-sized needles, in view of the teachings of Casnig and Knipp, for the obvious advantage of isolating the cells from the nanowires so that accidental discharge or unwanted grounding does not happen. It is noted that in making this modification, applying the cell culture well to the insulating layer will also satisfy the limitation of surrounding the tips of the micro-sized needles since the insulating layer in Kalvesten surrounds the tips of the micro-sized needles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights