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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20 – 23, 33 and 34 – 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cetin et al. (“An integrated acoustic and dielectrophoretic particle manipulation in a microfluidic device for particle wash and separation fabricated by mechanical machining,” Biomicrofluidics 10, 014112 (2016); published online: 25 January 2016), 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Moles (US 2009/0074615 A1) and Paul et al. (US 2004/0011648 A1).
The previous objection to claims 36 and 37 have been withdrawn.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20 – 25, 33, 34 – 36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cetin et al. (“An integrated acoustic and dielectrophoretic particle manipulation in a microfluidic device for particle wash and separation fabricated by mechanical machining,” Biomicrofluidics 10, 014112 (2016); published online: 25 January 2016; hereinafter “Cetin”) in view of either Moles (US 2009/0074615 A1) or Paul et al. (US 2004/0011648 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Cetin teaches a microfluidic device (Abstract; II. Simulations and Design section; III. Fabrication of the Device section; figure 1) comprising:
a first substrate composed of a first material (e.g., PDMS);
a second substrate composed of a second material (e.g., glass), different from the first material; and
a bonding layer connecting the first substrate and the second substrate (the plasma treated surface of the PDMS substrate is interpreted as the bonding layer), and
a microfluidic channel having at least one outlet (e.g., at least three outlets are shown in figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cetin does not specifically teach wherein the bonding layer defines a microfluidic channel having at least one outlet.
However, Paul teaches microfluidic apparatus comprising a bonding material layer that defines a channel. Paul teaches a flow device that includes a porous material that is encapsulated within a bonding material that forms a channel enclosure therein (paragraph 25).
Moles further teaches a microfluidic apparatus having a self-bonding polyimide film that may be etched to form channels therein (paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 32).
Both Moles and Paul teach the concept of a bonding layer defining a channel therein for use in the fabrication of microfluidic apparatus. Consequently, it would have been considered to be suitable and predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the use of such a bonding layer as an alternative binding mechanism for the Cetin microfluidic apparatus. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bonding layer as taught by Moles or Paul with the Cetin microfluidic apparatus.
Regarding claim 21, Cetin teaches the microfluidic device of claim 20, further comprising a first array of piezoelectric actuators located adjacent to the outlet for ejecting a portion of a fluid in the microfluidic channel (the piezoelectric actuators comprising PZT (Lead Zirconate Titanate) transducers are interpreted as the first array of piezoelectric actuators adjacent to outlet C in figure 1; II. Simulations and Design section).
Regarding claim 22, Cetin teaches the microfluidic device of claim 20, further comprising one or more pairs of electrodes for charging particles flowing through the microfluidic channel so that the particles can be manipulated with an electrical field (the separation unit comprises a large electrode and small electrodes as shown in figure 1; II. Simulations and Design section).
Regarding claim 23, Cetin teaches the microfluidic device of claim 20, wherein the first material is glass (III. Fabrication of the Device section) and the second material is silicon (the disclosed devices can incorporate silicon material; I. Introduction section, page 2, paragraphs 2 and 3).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Moles teaches that the bonding material is composed of polyimide (paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 32).
Regarding claim 33, Cetin teaches the microfluidic device of claim 20, wherein an outlet port of the outlet is defined in the second substrate (figures 1, 2 and 7; pages 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 34, Cetin teaches the microfluidic device of claim 20, wherein an inlet port for the microfluidic channel is defined in the first substrate (figures 1, 2, 2A and 7; pages 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 35, Cetin teaches a method comprising:
providing a plurality of particles through the microfluidic channel of the microfluidic device of claim 20;
charging the particles flowing through the microfluidic channel so that the particles can be manipulated with an electrical field (Cetin teaches the use of dielectrophoresis (DEP); Abstract; I. Introduction section; II. Simulations and Design section); and
ejecting, with a first array of piezoelectric actuators located adjacent to the outlet, a portion of a fluid in the microfluidic channel (fluid can be ejected from the microfluidic channel in the apparatus using the piezoelectric actuators in the separation unit to outlets E and D; figure 1).
Regarding claim 36, Cetin implicitly teaches the method of claim 35, further comprising inducing, with the first array of piezoelectric actuators, a laminar flow from an inlet of the microfluidic channel toward the outlet. Cetin teaches the micro-particles are pushed towards the centerline in the microfluidic channel, which implies a laminar flow (II. Simulations and Design section).
Regarding claim 38, in view of the teachings of Moles and Paul for the bonding layer defining the microfluidic channel therein as indicated above, it is implicit that the bonding layer forms a set of sidewalls for the microfluidic channel.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cetin, Moles and Paul, and further in view of Stoffel et al. (US 2005/0167043 A1; hereinafter “Stoffel”).
Regarding claim 28, Cetin does not specifically teach the microfluidic device of claim 20, wherein the bonding layer is composed of a polymer material, such as polyimide with one or more photoinitiators.
Stoffel teaches the use of binding layers comprising a polymer material comprising polyimide, which is a photoimageable material, and a photoinitiator, which are well known in the microfluidic art (paragraphs 11 and 33). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the bonding layer is composed of a polymer material comprising polyimide and a photoinitiator. Regarding claim 26, Stoffel further teaches the use of a photoresist material (paragraphs 14, 20, 33 and 43). Regarding claim 27, Stoffel further teaches the use of an epoxy material (paragraph 33).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cetin, Moles and Paul, and further in view of Bumby et al. (US 2022/0042505 A1; hereinafter “Bumby”).
Regarding claim 29, modified Cetin does not specifically teach the microfluidic device of claim 20, wherein the bonding layer has a thickness between 20 microns and 80 microns.
Bumby teaches a microfluidic apparatus including a bonding layer comprising a polyimide layer with a preferred thickness of 5 microns to 500 microns (paragraphs 270, 271, 285 and 286). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the bonding layer has a thickness between 20 microns and 80 microns.
Claim(s) 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cetin, Moles and Paul, and further in view of Lahmann et al. (US 2021/0031188 A1; hereinafter “Lahmann”).
Regarding claim 30, modified Cetin does not specifically teach the microfluidic device of claim 21, further comprising a second array of piezoelectric actuators is located adjacent to an inlet of the microfluidic device.
Lahmann teaches a microfluidic droplet ejector apparatus comprising a microfluidic network, two outlets and two droplet ejectors comprise an array of piezoelectric actuator elements in order to convey fluid (Abstract; paragraphs 21 and 22; figures 1 – 3). The addition of a second array of piezoelectric actuators adjacent to the inlet of the Cetin apparatus could enable the effective transfer of fluid within the apparatus. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second array of piezoelectric actuators is located adjacent to an inlet of the microfluidic device in order to convey fluid through the device.
Regarding claim 31, Cetin does not specifically teach the microfluidic device of claim 30, further comprising a third array of piezoelectric actuators is located adjacent to the microfluidic channel. The addition of a third array of piezoelectric actuators adjacent to the microfluidic channel of the Cetin apparatus could enable the effective transfer of fluid within the apparatus. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second array of piezoelectric actuators is located adjacent to an inlet of the microfluidic device in order to convey fluid through the device.
Claim(s) 32 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cetin, Moles and Paul, and further in view of Takayama et al. (US 2007/0243627 A1; hereinafter “Takayama”).
Regarding claim 32, modified Cetin does not specifically teach the microfluidic device of claim 21, further comprising: one or more processors electrically coupled to the first array of piezoelectric actuators for providing actuation signals to the first array of piezoelectric actuators.
Regarding claim 37, modified Cetin does not specifically teach the method of claim 35, further comprising providing actuation signals to the first array of piezoelectric actuators.
Takayama teaches software and a computer system comprising a processor for a related microfluidic system comprising a piezoelectric actuator (Abstract; paragraphs 33, 37 and 66; figures 1 and 8). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one or more processors electrically coupled to the first array of piezoelectric actuators for providing actuation signals to the first array of piezoelectric actuators in order to facilitate effective process control for the apparatus.
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 BRIAN J. SINES whose telephone number is (571)272-1263. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM EST M-F.
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 A 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.
BRIAN J. SINES
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/BRIAN J. SINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796