FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10-16, 21, and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardslee et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0003689 in view of Rivas et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0134002 and further in view of Qasaimeh et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0146549.
With respect to claims 1-3, 21, and 22, Beardslee teaches a sensor comprising a resonator structure (MEMS resonator having an semicircular annulus 110 and cantilever stem 120, paragraph 61, figure 1); and a polymeric 3D printed coating disposed on a surface of at least a portion of the sensor (The resonator is coated with sensing polymer, paragraphs 62, 65, 66, 70. Beardslee further teaches wherein the resonator structure comprises a semicircular annulus and a cantilever (MEMS resonator having an semicircular annulus 110 and cantilever stem 120, paragraph 61, figure 1), wherein the polymeric printed coating is disposed on at least a portion of an top or outer surface of the semicircular annulus (figure 1), and exposing the sensing system to an environment containing one or more analytes (paragraphs 66); and measuring a frequency change of the sensor in response to absorption of the one or more analytes by the polymeric 3D printed coating (paragraph 67, figure 4).
Beardslee fails to teach forming a polymer 3D printed structure by two-photon polymerization on the cantilever-based resonator head region and wherein the polymeric 3D printed coating comprises a three-dimensional scaffold structure.
Rivas teaches methods for biological and chemical sensing, and methods for forming MEMS resonator devices and fluidic devices (abstract) having an active region 30 of the resonator device 10, a top side electrode 58 embodying a patterned enhanced surface area (interpreted as three dimensional scaffold structure) element with multiple upwardly extending protrusions 60 separated by grooves or recesses 62, with the upwardly extending protrusions 60 and grooves or recesses 62 arranged over an active area 30 (paragraph 87, figure 5A).
Qasaimeh teaches a 3D microscopy probe system where the 3D probes are manufactured using commercial two-photon polymerization (TPP) 3D printer (paragraphs 56-59).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the sensing film of Beardslee with the a patterned enhanced surface area that is a three dimensional structure as taught by Rivas in order to improved sensor performance by enabling capture of an increased amount of analyte (paragraph 89, Rivas) and further modify the polymer sensing film forming of Beardslee with the method of forming a 3D sensing polymer as taught by Qasaimeh in order to produce innovative 3D probe tip materials, geometries, integrated elements, and designs that cannot be obtained by the traditionally used Si probe microfabrication techniques (paragraph 59).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardslee et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0003689 in view of Rivas et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0134002 and further in view of Qasaimeh et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0146549 and further in view of Rivas U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0138935 (hereinafter Rivas ‘935).
With respect to claim 4, Beardslee as modified by Rivas and further modified by Qasaimeh teaches the claimed invention except wherein the polymer sensing film is disposed on a bottom surface of the head region.
Rivas ‘935 teaches a sensor structure wherein a sensor device 60 has polymer structures form on an upper and lower surface (protrusions 64 and protrusions 74, paragraphs 75, figure 6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the invention of Beardslee as modified by Rivas and Qasaimeh with the sensing structure that is formed on a top and bottom surface as taught by Rivas ‘935 in order to improve the sensitivity of the sensor.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardslee et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0003689 in view of Rivas et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0134002 and further in view of Qasaimeh et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0146549 and further in view of Liu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0303853.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Beardslee as modified by Rivas and Qasaimeh teaches the claimed invention except wherein the three-dimensional scaffold structure comprises a triply periodic minimal surface geometry, and wherein the triply periodic minimal surface geometry comprises a gyroid lattice.
Liu teaches a polymer sensor structure where the sensor structure may a printed gyroid lattice (paragraph 31).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the invention of Beardslee as modified by Rivas and Qasaimeh with the gyroid lattice structure as taught by Liu in order to provide a sensor with instantaneous responses for multi-purpose applications (paragraph 32, Liu).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardslee et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0003689 in view of Rivas et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0134002 and further in view of Qasaimeh et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0146549 and further in view of Moore et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0168037.
With respect to claims 7 and 9 , Beardslee as modified by Rivas and Qasaimeh teaches the claimed invention except wherein the polymeric 3D printed coating comprises an elastomeric photoresin, wherein the polymeric 3D printed coating comprises a polyurethane-based resin.
Moore teaches a detector having a copolymer polyurethane composition wherein the materials may comprise a polymeric material that comprises an epoxy resin composition and a catalyst, such as a photo-polymerization catalyst and the photo-polymerization catalyst comprises a cationic photoinitiator (paragraph 64).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Beardslee as modified by Rivas and Qasaimeh with the materials as taught by Moore in order to provide a more effective sensor structure.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardslee et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0003689 in view of Qasaimeh et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0146549.
With respect to claims 10-11, Beardslee teaches a cantilever-based resonator having a head region and a cantilever portion (MEMS resonator having an semicircular annulus 110 and cantilever stem 120, paragraph 61, figure 1); and a polymer sensing film disposed on at least a portion of the head region (resonator is coated with sensing polymer, paragraphs 62, 65, 66, 70), and exposing the sensing system to an environment containing one or more analytes (paragraphs 66); and measuring a frequency change of the sensor in response to absorption of the one or more analytes by the polymeric 3D printed coating (paragraph 67, figure 4).
Beardslee fails to teach forming a polymer 3D printed structure by two-photon polymerization on the cantilever-based resonator head region.
Qasaimeh teaches a 3D microscopy probe system where the 3D probes are manufactured using commercial two-photon polymerization (TPP) 3D printer (paragraphs 56-59).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the polymer sensing film forming of Beardslee with the method of forming a 3D sensing polymer as taught by Qasaimeh in order to produce innovative 3D probe tip materials, geometries, integrated elements, and designs that cannot be obtained by the traditionally used Si probe microfabrication techniques (paragraph 59).
With respect to claim 12, Beardslee teaches wherein the cantilever-based resonator comprises a hammerhead configuration in which the semicircular annulus is supported by the cantilever portion (paragraph 61, figure 1).
Claim(s) 13 and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardslee et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0003689 in view of Qasaimeh et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0146549 and further in view of Liu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0303853.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Beardslee as modified by Qasaimeh teaches the claimed invention except wherein the three-dimensional scaffold structure comprises a triply periodic minimal surface geometry, and wherein the triply periodic minimal surface geometry comprises a gyroid lattice.
Liu teaches a polymer sensor structure where the sensor structure may a printed gyroid lattice (paragraph 31).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Beardslee as modified by Qasaimeh with the gyroid lattice structure as taught by Liu in order to provide a sensor with instantaneous responses for multi-purpose applications (paragraph 32, Liu).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardslee et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0003689 in view of Qasaimeh et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0146549 and further in view of Rivas U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0138935.
With respect to claim 15, Beardslee as modified by Qasaimeh teaches the claimed invention except wherein the polymer sensing film is disposed on both a top surface and a bottom surface of the head region.
Rivas teaches a sensor structure wherein a sensor device 60 has polymer structures form on an upper and lower surface (protrusions 64 and protrusions 74, paragraphs 75, figure 6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Beardslee as modified by Qasaimeh with the sensing structure is formed on a top and bottom surface as taught by Rivas in order to improve the sensitivity of the sensor.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardslee et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0003689 in view of Qasaimeh et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0146549 and further in view of Moore et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0168037.
With respect to claim 16, Beardslee as modified by Qasaimeh teaches the claimed invention except wherein the polymer sensing film comprises a solvent-free photoresin.
Moore teaches a detector having a copolymer polyurethane composition wherein the materials may comprise a polymeric material that comprises an epoxy resin composition and a catalyst, such as a photo-polymerization catalyst and the photo-polymerization catalyst comprises a cationic photoinitiator (paragraph 64).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Beardslee as modified by Qasaimeh with the materials as taught by Moore in order to provide a more effective sensor structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 7/31/2026
Prosecution Insights