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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 19, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6, 8 and 23-30 are pending. Applicant amended claim 1, and added new claims 23-30.
Response to Arguments
The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth below, rendering moot Applicant’s arguments directed to the patentability of the claims.
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 1-6, 8, 23-26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giri (WO 2018067177 A1) in view of Foster et al. (“Foster”) (US 2009/0212407 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Giri teaches a molded microfluidic substrate comprising (see Fig. 1):
a molding compound layer 110 (see [0011] disclosing epoxy molding compound); and
a microfluidic channel 130 formed within the molding compound layer 110, the microfluidic channel having a round sidewall profile defined by a sacrificial metal bond wire of predetermined diameter* (see [0019] disclosing that the channel comprises a diameter);
wherein the microfluidic channel 130 has a portion 134 at a bottom exterior surface of the molding compound layer (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the portion being planar with and bounded by the bottom exterior surface, the portion corresponding to an etched-away sacrificial metal portion of a molded-interconnect substrate (MIS) sacrificial metal bond layer* (see annotation).
PNG
media_image1.png
260
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
*The limitations marked by asterisk are directed to processes of making the claimed channel. The patentability of the claimed invention is based on the device itself, and not how the device is made. Consequently, prior art need not teach the claimed processes to anticipate the limitations. Because the microfluidic channel 130 taught by Giri is structurally indistinct from the claimed microfluidic channel formed using the claimed methods, the channel 130 is sufficient to anticipate the asterisked limitations.
The substrate illustrated in Figure 1 of Giri differs from the claimed invention in that the channel 130 does not have a three-dimensional configuration corresponding to a sacrificial metal bond wire being bent in three spatial dimensions. Rather, the channel 130 is bent in two spatial dimensions to form a U-shape (see Fig. 1). In addition, Giri does not disclose the claimed metal component.
Regarding the three-dimensional configuration of the channel, Giri discloses that the U-shaped channel 130 illustrated in Figure 1 is merely a “simplified example” and that inlet 132 and outlet 134 of channel 130 can be situated on different surfaces of substrate 110, including adjacent surfaces (see [0015]). Based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided inlet 132 on the front face of substrate 110 such that the channel 130 bends in all three spatial dimensions.
Alternatively, Giri illustrates plan views (i.e. top-down views) of other channel configurations in which the channel narrows and widens (see Fig. 2) and the channel forks (see Figs. 3 and 4). If such channels are formed in the molding compound layer 110 illustrated in Figure 1 with the same inlet 132 and outlet 134 arrangements, then the channel 110 would have a three-dimensional configuration corresponding to a sacrificial metal bond wire being bent in three spatial dimensions.
Regarding the metal component, Foster discloses a microfluidic device comprising a channel (see [0003]), the device further comprising a metal component 24/32 that traverses the thickness of substrate 20 of the device and extends along a surface of the substrate 20 (see Figs. 2-10), wherein the metal component functions as a conductive interconnect (see [0102]). The metal component is situated within the substrate 20 and it is separate from and does not contact the microfluidic channel of the device (see Figs. 2-10). In light of the disclosure of Foster, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Giri’s substrate with a metal component within the molding compound layer, the metal component being separate from and not contacting the microfluidic channel and having a round cross-sectional shape corresponding to a non-sacrificial metal bond wire or a rectangularly flat cross-sectional shape corresponding to a non-sacrificial metal ribbon. The modification would enable the substrate to perform electrical sensing and other functions that require an electronic circuit.
With respect to claim 2, as discussed above, the molding compound layer 110 comprises an epoxy molding compound (EMC) layer.
With respect to claim 3, as discussed above, the microfluidic channel 130 has a round sidewall (see also [0019]).
With respect to claims 4 and 30, the device taught by Foster further comprises a metal 28 that lines the surface of the channel (see Figs. 8-9), the metal also functioning as a conductive interconnect. That said, the channel of the modified substrate of Giri would comprise a metal-plated sidewall.
As discussed above, the patentability of the claimed invention is based on the structure of the device, not how it is made. In this case, Giri’s substrate modified pursuant to the teachings of Foster arrives at a microfluidic channel comprising a metal-plated sidewall, which is sufficient to reject the claim.
With respect to claim 5, Giri teaches other embodiments of the microfluidic channel 330/430, said embodiment comprising a plurality of inlets (see [0038] and Fig. 3) or a plurality of outlets (see [0039] and Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device with either channel embodiment in the molding compound layer 110. Such a channel would comprise a second opening corresponding to a second inlet/outlet at the bottom exterior surface of the molding compound layer 110 (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the second opening inlet/outlet corresponding to another etched-away sacrificial metal portion of the MIS sacrificial metal bond layer*.
PNG
media_image2.png
271
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
*As discussed above, prior art need not teach the claimed method to anticipate the claim. The second opening taught by Giri is deemed to be structurally indistinct from the claimed second opening formed using the claimed method, and thus the asterisked limitations are deemed to be anticipated.
With respect to claim 6, as discussed above, the patentability of the claimed invention is based on the structure of the device, not how it is made. That said, claim 6 conveys a device comprising a second microfluidic channel formed within the molding compound layer, which is taught by Giri (see [0018]).
With respect to claim 8, as discussed above, the patentability of the claimed invention is based on the structure of the device, and the sacrificial metal bond wire is not part of the claimed invention given that it is sacrificed during manufacturing. Moreover, the recitation “same metal as or a different metal than” encompasses all possibilities. That said, the metal recited in the claim can refer to any metal. Naturally, the subject matter of the claim is taught by the combination of Giri and Foster.
With respect to claim 23, the metal component would be entirely encased within the molding compound layer (see element 24 in Fig. 9 of Foster).
With respect to claims 24 and 25, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 1), the metal component functions as a conductive interconnect/plate.
With respect to claim 26, as discussed above, the metal component traverses through the thickness and along a top surface of substrate 20 (see Fig. 10 of Foster), meaning the metal component of Giri’s substrate would have a three-dimensional configuration corresponding to the non-sacrificial metal bond wire or ribbon being bent in multiple spatial dimensions. While Foster does not explicitly teach that the metal component bends in three spatial dimensions, depending on the layout of the circuit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have meandered the metal component on the exposed surface (bottom surface, see annotation of Fig. 1 provided above) of the molding compound layer 110 such that the metal component bends in all three spatial dimensions.
With respect to claim 28, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 1), the metal component would extend along an exposed surface (bottom surface) of the molding compound layer 110 (see annotated Fig. 1 above), meaning the metal component would be exposed at a channel portion at the bottom exterior surface of the molding compound layer 110, the channel portion corresponding to an etched-away sacrificial metal portion of the MIS sacrificial metal bond layer (see annotated Figure 1 above).
With respect to claim 29, the device taught by Foster further comprises a semiconductor package 107 having bond pads (see Fig. 13), wherein the microfluidic channel is in fluidic communication with the semiconductor package (see [0110]). If the substrate taught by Giri is modified pursuant to the teachings of Foster, then the substrate would comprise a semiconductor package having bond pads, wherein the microfluidic channel is in fluidic communication with the semiconductor package via the metal component that serves as a conductive interconnect. As discussed above (see rejection of claim 1), the modification would enable the substrate to perform electrical sensing and other functions that require an electronic circuit.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giri in view of Foster as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 23-26 and 28-30 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (“Kim”) (US 2010/0261286 A1).
With respect to claim 27, neither Giri nor Foster disclose a channel comprising a sidewall plated with palladium. However, based on the intended use of the metal in the modified substrate of Giri (the metal serves as an interconnect), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any metal suitable for use as an interconnect, for example palladium, as taught by Kim (see [0058]).
Regarding the sacrificial metal bond layer, it is not a part of the claimed invention. Consequently, prior art need not teach it to reject the claim.
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 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, Luan Van can be reached at 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights