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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 8, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 18(w) have been amended; claims 15-18 and 21-23 have been withdrawn; and claims 2 and 19-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, and 3-14 are examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
New grounds of claim objection as outlined below.
New grounds of claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as outlined below.
All 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn.
Claim Objection
Claims 3-4, 7-10 and 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: please amend “the driving electrodes” to --the plurality of driving electrodes--; “a same lead” to -- a same lead of the plurality of leads--; “the column” to -- the same column--.
Claim 4: please amend “the driving electrodes” to --the plurality of driving electrodes--; “each of the driving electrodes in the same column” to -- each of the plurality of driving electrodes in the same column in the second portion--.
Claim 7: please amend “the driving electrodes in the third portion” (two places) to -- the plurality of driving electrodes in the third portion—.
Claim 8: please amend “the driving electrodes” (two places) to -- the plurality of driving electrodes—.
Claim 9: please amend “the driving electrodes in the third portion” (three places) to -- the plurality of driving electrodes in the third portion—; “and the third bonding electrode” to – [[and]] the third bonding electrode--; “N is a positive integer” to – and N is a positive integer--.
Claim 10: please amend “the driving electrodes” (two places) to -- the plurality of driving electrodes in the third portion—; “a driving electrode” (two places) to -- a driving electrode of the plurality of driving electrodes in the third portion--.
Claims 12-14: please amend “the driving electrodes” to -- the plurality of driving electrodes—.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of leads on the first base substrate only partially overlaps an orthographic projection of the driving electrode electrically connected to the lead on the first base substrate”. It is unclear if “the driving electrode” refers to the plurality of driving electrodes or only one (then which one) of the plurality of driving electrodes, and it is unclear if “the lead” refers the plurality of leads or only a specific one (then which one) of the plurality of leads. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 3-14 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “the third portion comprises a plurality of driving electrodes”, and it is unclear of “a plurality of driving electrodes” in claim 7 is a part of the plurality of driving electrodes recited in claim 1 or is additional plurality of driving electrodes. Therefore, the scope of claim 7 is indefinite. Claim 8 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “the third portion comprises a plurality of driving electrodes”, and it is unclear of “a plurality of driving electrodes” in claim 7 is a part of the plurality of driving electrodes recited in claim 1 or is additional plurality of driving electrodes. Therefore, the scope of claim 9 is indefinite. Claim 10 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 9-13, filed 12/8/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered, and all 102/103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues at pages 10-11 that in the active matrix EWOD device of Hadwen, each of the electrode array 42 contains an array element circuit 84 for controlling the electrode potential of a corresponding element electrode 38. However, the leads in Claim 1 are configured to transport the drive signals from the integrated driving circuit to each driving electrodes. Therefore "the array element circuit 84" in Hadwen should not be interpreted as "the lead" of Claim 1.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments are convincing and the 102 rejection from the previous office action is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues at page 11 that Hadwen also fails to disclose the feature that "an orthographic projection of each of the plurality of leads on the first base substrate only partially overlaps an orthographic projection of the driving electrode electrically connected to the lead on the first base substrate".
Examiner’s Response #2:
As outlined in the 112(b) rejection for claim 1 above, the above limitation is indefinite since it is unclear what are the driving electrode and the lead referring to.
Applicant’s Argument #3:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues at pages 11-12 that "reference electrode 28" in Hadwen receives different voltage signals from the reference electrode drive circuit when actuating droplets or performing sensing operation. It can be seen that the "reference electrode 28" is not grounded. However, in the present application, the shielding electrode is grounded. Thus the "reference electrode 28" in Hadwen cannot be interpreted as the recited "shielding electrode" of Claim 1.
Examiner’s Response #3:
Applicant’s arguments are convincing and the 102 rejection from the previous office action is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument #4:
Applicant argues at pages 12-13 that Hadwen fails to disclose or suggest that "each of the plurality of driving electrodes is electrically connected to one of the plurality of leads via at least two via holes," as recited by amended Claim 1. As shown in Fig. 9 of Pamula, a shield 942 made of conductive material is arranged above the transport electrode 930. That is, the shield 942 and the transport electrode 930 are in different layers, which is different from the recited "wherein the shielding electrode and the plurality of driving electrodes are in a same layer, and a part of the shielding electrode is around each of the plurality of driving electrodes" of Claim 1. Gach and Xi also fail to disclose or suggest the aforementioned recitations of amended Claim 1. As each of the dependent claims depends from a base claim that is believed to be in condition for allowance.
Examiner’s Response #4:
Applicant’s arguments are convincing and all prior art rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Madison et al. (Fluid transport in partially shielded electrowetting on dielectric digital microfluidic devices, Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 2016, 25, 593-605) teaches a shielding electrode (EP electrode) disposed above the driving electrodes (EWD electrode array) in a EWOD device (see Fig.1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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 V. Van can be reached on (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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795