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 claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot due to the new ground of rejection below.
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.
Claims 1,2,9-13,17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 20020090649) in view of AI et al (US 20220341836).
.
Regarding claim 1, Chan et al. teach A capacitive probe structure (Note par. 0049) comprising:
two or more microfluidic channels (7, Fig. 1) defined within a plurality of stacked dielectric layers (2, 4, Fig. 1, par. 0161) disposed over a substrate (6, Fig. 1); and
a plurality of probes (3, Fig. 1, par. 0161) extending through the plurality of stacked dielectric layers such that several probes of the plurality of probes extend to the two or more microfluidic channels (Note Fig. 1) to measure at least particle concentrations (Note par. 0062, 0062] As used herein, the term "reference electrode" refers to an electrode that can be used in assays where an estimate or determination of the number or concentration of target molecules in a sample solution is desired.) and particle flow within the two or more microfluidic channels.
Chan et al. does not teach to measure particle flow.
AI et al. teach measure particle flow. (Note par. 0119, The cross-sectional position may include lateral position and vertical position in the fluidic channel. FIG. 7B illustrates the schematic diagram of the sensing area for the cross-sectional measurement of the flowing particles. By adding two floating electrodes 118d, 118e, the resulting signal profile encodes the height of the particle trajectory (corresponding to vertical position in the fluidic channel).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan et al. to include the teaching of measure particle flow to determine the position of the particles in continuous flows. (Note AI et al. par. 0059)
Regarding claims 2, 13 and 20, Chan et al. teach wherein the plurality of probes are physically and electrically isolated from each other by the plurality of stacked dielectric layers. (Note 2 and 4, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 11,Chan et al. teach a plurality of probes (5) and the plurality of stacked dielectric layers (Note 2 and 4, Fig. 1)
Chan et al. is silent as to wherein the plurality of probes include eight probes and the plurality of stacked dielectric layers include seven dielectric layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to change the probes of Chan et all to include eight and the dielectric layers to include seven layers since the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. One would be motivated to make modification in order to increase the robustness of the measuring device.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Chan et al. teach wherein at least two probes of the plurality of probes are generally linear and horizontally aligned with respect to each other. (Note 5, Fig. 1)
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Chan et al. teach wherein the two or more microfluidic channels have a generally rectangular shape. (7, Fig. 1)
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Chan et al. teach a capacitive probe structure comprises:
two or more microfluidic channels (Note 7, Fig. 1) defined within a plurality of stacked dielectric layers (4 and 5, Fig. 1)
a plurality of probes (5, Fig. 1) extending through the plurality of dielectric layers (4 and 5, Fig. 1) such that several probes of the plurality of probes extend to a sidewall region of the first microfluidic channel and at least a second probe of the plurality of probes extends to a sidewall region of the second microfluidic channel. (Note Fig. 1)
Claim 19 method is interpreted as being inherent to the structure of rejected claim 12.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 20020090649) in view of AI et al (US 20220341836) further in view of Hekmatshoartabari et al. (US 20150276653).
Chan et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Chan et al. does not teach wherein at least two probes of the plurality of probes extend above the two or more microfluidic channels.
Hekmatshoartabari et al. teach wherein at least two probes of the plurality of probes extend above the two or more microfluidic channels. (Microwells 76 are formed in the silicon handle layer 74. A plurality of rod-like columns 78 extend within each microwell. Each column includes an n+ polysilicon core 80 and a dielectric layer 82 of high-k material adjoining the core.) [par. 0023, Fig. 2] Examiner’s position is that the rods extend above the lower opening of the microwell.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan et al. to include the teaching of at least two probes of the plurality of probes extend above the two or more microfluidic channels to provide precise control of fluid flow, enabling operations such as fluid delivery, aspiration, mixing, separation, and localized analysis.
Regarding claim 7, Chant et al. does not teach wherein at least four probes of the plurality of probes extend to sidewall regions of the two or more microfluidic channels.
Hekmatshoartabari et al. teach wherein at least four probes of the plurality of probes extend to sidewall regions of the two or more microfluidic channels. (Microwells 76 are formed in the silicon handle layer 74. A plurality of rod-like columns 78 extend within each microwell. Each column includes an n+ polysilicon core 80 and a dielectric layer 82 of high-k material adjoining the core.) [par. 0023, Fig. 2] Examiner directs applicant attention to the rods in the circle in Fig. 2 and the corresponding rods on the left side of the structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chant et al. to include the teaching of wherein at least four probes of the plurality of probes extend to sidewall regions of the two or more microfluidic channels to provide a broader range of sensing ability.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 20020090649) in view of AI et al (US 20220341836) further in view of Burdon et al. (US 6572830).
Chan et al. teach the instant invention except the following limitations.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Chan et al. does not teach several of the probes have generally L-shaped configurations.
Burdon et al. teach several of the probes have generally L-shaped configurations.(Note 560, 562 at least Fig. 16)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan et al. to include the teaching of several of the probes have generally L-shaped configurations to manipulate the electric field to exert focused forces on a droplet's contact line, enabling faster and more accurate fluidic operations compared to conventional electrode designs.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 20020090649) in view of AI et al (US 20220341836) further in view of Krulevitch et al. (US 6437551).
Chan et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Chan et al. does not teach wherein the two or more microfluidic channels include a first channel and a second channel, the first channel being a sensing channel and the second channel being a reference channel.
Krulevitch et al. teach wherein the two or more microfluidic channels include a first channel and a second channel, the first channel being a sensing channel and the second channel being a reference channel. (Note column 14, lines 39-42)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan et al. to include the teaching of wherein the two or more microfluidic channels include a first channel and a second channel, the first channel being a sensing channel and the second channel being a reference channel to measure impedance changes associated with particles. (Note Krulevitch et al. column 3, lines 46-50.)
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 20020090649) in view of AI et al (US 20220341836) further in view of Fuchs et al. (US 20050112606).
Chan et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Chan et al. does not teach wherein the plurality of probes measure a dielectric constant change for conducting and non-conducting liquids and gasses within the two or more microfluidic channels.
Fuchs et al. teach wherein the plurality of probes measure a dielectric constant change for conducting and non-conducting liquids and gasses within the two or more microfluidic channels. (Note par. 0053)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan et al. to include the teaching of plurality of probes measure a dielectric constant change for conducting and non-conducting liquids and gasses within the two or more microfluidic channels to indicate the ability to store energy.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 20020090649) in view of AI et al (US 20220341836) further in view of Nellissen et al. (US 20090185955).
Chan et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Chan et al. does not teach wherein at least two probes of the plurality of probes extend along a bottom region of the two or more microfluidic channels.
Nellissen et al. teach wherein at least two probes of the plurality of probes (22, Fig. 8a) extend along a bottom region of the two or more microfluidic channels. (The micro channel structure comprises an interdigitated electrode structure (22) placed between two fluid chambers (23) and (24).) [par. 0092]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan et al. to include the teaching of wherein at least two probes of the plurality of probes extend along a bottom region of the two or more microfluidic channels to place them in close proximity to target analytes flowing through the device.
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 DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858