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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 4/3/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-19 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2016/0339427, hereinafter Wiktor in view of United States Application Publication No. 2015/0051118, hereinafter Ghenciu and United States Patent No. 5,840,256, hereinafter Demers.
Regarding claim 1, Wiktor teaches the receiving unit (figure 1) comprising: a receiving element (item 22) having a receiving face defining a planar portion (item 22a) and at least one micro-cavity (item 24) defined in the receiving element on the receiving face (figure 1), the at least one micro-cavity being shaped to receive the fluid (paragraph [0057]), wherein the receiving face has a hydrophilic surface character in at least one subregion bordering the at least one micro-cavity (paragraph [0065]).
Wiktor fails to teach the hydrophilic surface character in at least one subregion bordering the at least one micro-cavity is configured such that water forms a contact angle of no more than 75° on the at least one subregion.
Ghenciu teaches a coated substate and that a substrate which is too hydrophilic with a water contact angle below 50 degrees, may lead to increased pooling of excess liquid sample on the substrate surface and the water contact angle is over 90 degrees, the relationship between the substrate surface and the liquid sample is hydrophobic and the liquid sample will not move into the reaction sites (Ghenciu, paragraphs [0049]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum water contact angle to no more than 75° which would allow for the desired filling of the reaction sites without excessive pooling or the sample not moving into the reaction site (Ghenciu, paragraphs [0049]-[0050]) (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
WIktor and Ghenciu fail to teach the receiving face is configured with an optically detectable feature thereon, such that the optically detectable feature is surrounded by the planar portion of the receiving face, to provide a predefined position relative to an arrangement of the at least one micro-cavity.
Demers teaches a plate for receiving a fluid in which three optical fiducials surrounded by a planar portion are utilized which provide for optical alignment of the device (Demers, column 8, lines 22-25 and figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized optically detectable features that are surrounded by the planar portion of the receiving face because it would provide for optical alignment of the device (Demers, column 8, lines 22-25 and figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, Wiktor teaches wherein the at least one micro-cavity has a side wall aligned substantially perpendicular to the receiving face (figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Wiktor teaches wherein the receiving face is configured at least partly as a silicon oxide layer (paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 4, Wiktor teaches wherein the receiving element is formed of a silicon substrate (paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 5, Wiktor teaches wherein: a plurality of further micro-cavities are defined in the receiving element on the receiving face and are shaped to receive the fluid (figures 1 and 5), and the at least one micro-cavity and the plurality of further micro-cavities are aligned in an arrangement region in hexagonal form (paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 6, Wiktor teaches wherein the at least one micro-cavity contains at least one stored reagent (paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wiktor teaches wherein the receiving face has the hydrophilic surface character between the at least one micro-cavity and the plurality of further micro-cavities (see supra).
Regarding claim 16, Wiktor teaches wherein the optically detectable feature has a predetermined character in relation to its size, shape and/or optical properties (see supra, the fiducials as added by Demers would have a predetermined size and shape).
Regarding claim 17, Wiktor teaches wherein: the at least one micro-cavity comprises a plurality of micro-cavities (figure 1); at least a first of the plurality of micro-cavities includes at least one of an additive (paragraph [0063], item 62a); and at least a second of the plurality of micro-cavities includes at least the reagent (paragraph [0063], item 62b).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiktor and Ghenciu as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2014/0242596, hereinafter Danehy.
Regarding claim 18, Wiktor teaches the plurality of micro-cavities are sealed by a sealing film (item 28).
Wiktor and Ghenciu fail to teach the plurality of micro-cavities is sealed by a sealing liquid.
Danehy teaches the use of a sealing liquid which seals but does not mix with biological samples to reduce or eliminate evaporation of the sample (Danehy, paragraph [0039]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a sealing liquid) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a sealing film) with other component(s) (i.e., a sealing liquid), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a sealing film with a sealing liquid), and the results of the substitution (i.e., sealing the microcavities) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the sealing film of reference Wiktor with the sealing liquid of reference Danehy, since the result would have been predictable. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a sealing liquid to seal the microcavities because it would seal but does not mix with biological samples to reduce or eliminate evaporation of the sample (Danehy, paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 19, Wiktor teaches wherein: each of the plurality of micro-cavities includes a respective sidewall (figure 5); and each of the respective sidewalls forms an angle of between 80 and 100° with respect to the receiving face (figure 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8, filed 4/3/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 15-17 under 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wiktor, Ghenciu and Demers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights