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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 23, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending. No claims were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the patentability of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are patentable over the disclosure of Arab because Arab does not disclose the limitation, “droplets of the aqueous liquid begin to form and are completely formed in the constant portion”. Remarks 6. According to Applicant, the presence of the front edge of droplet 152 in region 102 (constant portion) cannot be a basis for asserting that the droplet partially forms in region 102. Remarks 9. According to Applicant, “a portion of a droplet cannot exist independently of [the rest of] a droplet, and the front edge 152 did not spring into existence at the interface of regions 101 and [102]. Thus, a portion of a droplet requires droplet formation to have been initiated prior to the droplet reaching region 102”. Id.
The argument is not persuasive because the claims are subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation, and Applicant’s argument precludes the application of this broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
First, contrary to the implication of Applicant’s assertion that “the front edge 152 did not spring into existence at the interface of regions 101 and [102]”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation, “droplets…begin to form…in the constant portion” does not convey a location of droplet formation within the droplets (i.e. location of region 158 illustrated in Fig. 3A of Arab). Rather, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation conveys a location of the droplets (i.e. location of any part of the droplets) within the chip when the droplets begin to form. That said, because the front edge of partial droplet 152 lies within region 102 (the constant portion) when the droplets begin to form (see Fig. 3A of Arab), the examiner maintains that the limitation “droplets…begin to form…in the constant portion” is anticipated by Arab.
Second, even if, arguendo, Applicant’s assertion that “droplet formation…[is] initiated prior to the droplet reaching region 102” is correct, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation, “droplets… begin to form” encompasses the entirety of the droplet formation process, including the snapshot of droplet formation illustrated in Figure 3A of Arab. That said, because the front edge of droplet 152 lies within region 102 (constant portion) when the droplet is in the process of forming, the limitation “droplets… begin to form…in the constant portion” is anticipated by Arab.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s argument that the claims are patentable over the disclosure of Arab is not persuasive. The outstanding rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arab (US 2016/0271576 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Arab discloses a microfluidic chip (see [0007]) comprising a microfluidic network that includes (see Fig. 2):
1) an inlet port 107;
2) a channel 101 configured to receive liquid from the inlet port; and
3) a droplet-generating region including:
b) a constant portion 102 extending from an outlet (location corresponding to step 120) of the channel 101 having a transverse dimension (SH1), the constant portion having:
i) a length (T2); and
ii) a constant transverse dimension (SH2) along the length of the constant portion, measured parallel to the transverse dimension (SH1) of the outlet of the channel, that is larger than the transverse dimension (SH1) of the outlet of the channel; and
c) an expanding portion 103 extending from the constant portion 102, the expanding portion having:
i) a length T3; and
ii) a transverse dimension (SH3), measured parallel to the transverse dimension (SH2) of the constant portion;
wherein the transverse dimension (SH1) of the outlet of the channel, the length (T2) of the constant portion, and the transverse dimension (SH2) of the constant portion are configured such that, when an aqueous liquid is flowed through the droplet-generating region in the presence of a non-aqueous liquid (see [0070]), the aqueous liquid must flow through the outlet of the channel 101 to enter the constant portion 102 and droplets of the aqueous liquid begin to form and are completely formed while the droplet is in the constant portion 102 (see Figs. 3A and 3B; see also [0072] disclosing that complete droplet 153 forms upon reaching constant portion 102).
The chip illustrated in Figure 2 of Arab differs from the claimed invention in that the expanding portion 103 of the chip does not comprise a transverse dimension that increases along the length of the expanding portion from a first value that is greater than the transverse dimension of the constant portion to a second value that is greater than the first value.
However, Arab discloses that the chip may comprise “a fourth riser” (see [0060]). Based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the chip illustrated in Figure 2 of Arab with a fourth riser 140 comprising a length (T4) and a transverse dimension (SH4) (see Fig. 2 regarding what the hypothetical identifiers of the fourth riser would be and where the fourth riser would be situated). If the modification is made, then the expanding portion would comprise a transverse dimension that increases along its length (T3 +T4) from a first value (SH3) that is greater than the transverse dimension (SH2) of the constant portion 102 to a second value (SH4) that is greater than the first value (SH3).
With respect to claim 11, Arab also discloses a method of loading a microfluidic chip, the method comprising (see Figs. 3A-3C):
forming droplets of an aqueous liquid 151 (see [0070]) by flowing the aqueous liquid 151 through the channel 101 and through the droplet-generating region in the presence of a non-aqueous liquid (see [0070] and Figs. 3A-3C), wherein the droplets of the aqueous liquid begin to form and are completely formed while the droplet is in the constant portion 102 (see Figs. 3A and 3B and [0072]).
Regarding the limitations directed to the structure of the chip, refer to the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claims 2-4 and 12-14, Arab discloses that the value of CH (see Fig. 2) can range between 1 and 50 microns (see [0013]), and the ratio of SH1 to CH is greater than 1.0 and less than 10.0 (see [0010]), meaning that the value of SH1 is greater than 1.0 micron and up to less than 500.0 microns. Moreover, Arab discloses that the ratio of T2 to CH is between 0.1 and 7 (see [0012]), meaning that the value of T2 ranges from 0.1 to 350 microns. Based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the transverse dimension (SH1) of the outlet of the channel and the length (T2) of the constant portion with dimensions that fall within the respective claimed ranges.
With respect to claims 5, 6, 15 and 16, as discussed above, the value of T2 ranges from 0.1 to 350 microns and the value of SH1 is greater than 1.0 micron and up to less than 500.0 microns. Based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the length (T2) of the constant portion and the transverse dimension (SH1) of the outlet of the channel such that the ratio of T2 to SH1 is greater than 10.0.
With respect to claims 7, 8, 17 and 18, as discussed above, the value of SH1 is greater than 1.0 micron and up to less than 500.0 microns. Moreover, Arab further discloses that the ratio of SH2 to CH is greater than 1.0 and less than 10.0 (see [0010]), meaning that the value of SH2 is also greater than 1.0 micron and up to less than 500.0 microns, with the caveat that SH2 is greater than SH1 (see Fig. 2). Based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose values for SH2 and SH1 such that the transverse dimension (SH2) of the constant portion is from 150% to 400% of the transverse dimension (SH1) of the outlet of the channel (e.g. SH2=10 microns and SH1=5 microns, i.e. SH2 is 200% of SH1).
With respect to claims 9 and 19, as discussed above (see rejection of claims 5, 6, 15 and 16), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the length (T2) of the constant portion and the transverse dimension (SH1) of the outlet of the channel with dimensions such that the ratio of T2 to SH1 is greater than 10 (e.g. between 10 and 20). Moreover, as discussed above (see rejection of claims 7, 8, 17 and 18), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the constant portion and the outlet of the channel with transverse dimensions (SH2 and SH1) that satisfy the claimed ratio range.
With respect to claims 10 and 20, the expanding portion would include a first step 113 along which the expanding portion has the first transverse dimension (SH3), and a second step 114 along which the expanding portion has the second transverse dimension (SH4) (see Fig. 2 and rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at 571-272-7129. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796