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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-16, 20-22, and 24-26 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 lines 3-4 recites “and ones of the plurality of second heating electrodes are disposed on each of both sides of the plurality of first heating electrodes in the sixth direction” where the phrase “on each of both sides” appears to be redundant.
It is suggested to amend lines 3-4 to recite “and ones of the plurality of second heating electrodes are disposed on
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 4, 7-8, 15-16, 20, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 4 recites “the groove” on line 2 and on line 3, where it is unclear if “the groove” is referring to a specific one of the plurality of grooves recited in claim 3 or if it applies to all of the plurality of grooves.
For examination, it will be interpreted that the dimensions described in claim 4 are for all the grooves.
It is suggested to amend claim 4 to recite “wherein a dimension of each of the grooves each of the grooves
Claim 7 recites “the first groove” on line 2 and lines 3-4, where it is unclear which groove is being referred to. As described in claim 5 there is a plurality of first grooves, however is claim 7 singling out a specific groove of the plurality of first grooves? Or is it referring to all of the grooves of the plurality of first grooves?
Line 3 and line 4 recites “the second groove” where this is similarly unclear because in claim 5 there is a plurality of second grooves. Is claim 7 singling out a specific groove of the plurality of second grooves, or is it referring to all of the grooves of the plurality of second grooves?
Claim 8 is rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 15 recites “wherein an area of a cross section of the first sub-electrode… cross section of the second sub-electrode” where it is unclear if claim 15 is referring to a specific one of the first and second sub-electrodes, or if it applies to all of the sub-electrodes.
A suggested amendment for if the limitation applies to all the present sub-electrodes is: “wherein an area of a cross section of each of the first sub-electrodes perpendicular to the fifth direction is larger than an area of a cross section of each of the second sub-electrodes perpendicular to the fifth direction.”
Claim 16 recites “the first sub-electrode” and “the second sub-electrode” on lines 2-3, where for similar reasons described above, it is unclear if claim 16 is referring to a specific one of the first and second sub-electrodes or if it applies to all of the sub-electrodes.
Please see claim 15 for a suggested amendment.
Claim 20 recites “wherein a dimension of the first sub-electrode in the fifth direction is ¼ to ½ of a dimension of the first heating electrode in the fifth direction.”
It is unclear if “the first heating electrode” is referring to a specific one of the plurality of first heating electrodes described in claim 14, or if it applies to all of the first heating electrodes.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the heating layer is on a surface of the base substrate facing the cover plate” on line 4, where it is unclear if this surface of the base substrate is the same or different from the first surface described in claim 1. Based on claim 1, the first surface faces the heating layer, where it is understood that the first surface will also face the cover plate.
For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same surfaces.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO-2020/147203-A1), mapping using publication Wu (US-2021/0237052-A1), in view of Kim (WO-2020/190035-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a micro-fluidic chip (detection chip 100), comprising ([0054; Figure 1):
a base substrate (first substrate 10) ([0054], Figures 1, 3);
a micro-cavity defining layer (micro-cavity defining layer 11) on the base substrate (10) and defining a plurality of micro-reaction chambers (micro-reaction chambers 110) ([0054], Figure 3);
a cover plate (second substrate 20) on a side of the micro-cavity defining layer (11) away from the base substrate (10) ([0068], Figure 3);
a heating layer (heating electrode 12) between the micro-cavity defining layer (11) and one of the base substrate (10), and configured to heat the plurality of micro- reaction chambers (110) ([0025] see micro-reaction chambers undergoes a temperature cyclic process, [0054], Figure 3),
The limitation “and configured to heat the plurality of micro-reaction chambers” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Wu and the apparatus of Wu is capable of heating the plurality of micro-reaction chambers. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Wu (see MPEP §2114).
Wu does not teach wherein one of the base substrate and the cover plate away from the heating layer serves as a heat dissipation plate.
In the analogous art of thermal cyclers that perform nucleic acid amplification reactions on samples accommodated in reaction vessels, Kim teaches where heat is provided to the sample holder by a heat-generating element and heat is discharged outwardly through a heat sink (Kim; [3]).
Specifically, Kim teaches a sample holder assembly 100 that includes sample holders 110 and 111 and a plurality of heat-generating elements 120 and 121 and a plurality of heat sinks 130 and 131 (Kim; [46], Figure 1a). [93] of Kim describes where the heat-generating element 120 is present between the sample holder 110 and the heat sink 130, where a Peltier element or a plate or film-shaped resistance heating element is present. [105] of Kim further describes that the plurality of heat dissipation fins may be aligned vertically on the base of the heat sink, and [106] describes that the shape, number, height, width and length of the fins are selectively adjusted to optimize heat dissipation performance of the heat sink.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the base substrate of Wu such that it includes the heat sink of Kim because Kim teaches that the heat sink is effective at sufficiently dissipating heat from the sample holder 110 or heat-generating element 120 (Kim; [100]).
[0075] of Wu describes where the heating electrode 12 and control electrode 15 may be located on the same layer, and therefore the first insulating layer 16 is omitted. As such, the first substrate 10 will have the heating electrode 12 and control electrode 15 on one surface, and the heat sink of Kim will be on the opposite side. The first substrate and the heat sink together will now define the base substrate, where the heat dissipation fins are grooves. The area of the base substrate will be larger than an area of an orthographic projection of the heating layer (layer with electrode 12) on a plane where the heating layer is located due to the additional surface area added by the heat dissipation fins.
The limitation “serves as a heat dissipation plate” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Wu and the apparatus of modified Wu is capable of dissipating heat. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Wu (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 2, modified Wu teaches the micro-fluidic chip according to claim 1. Wu has been modified to include the heat sink of Kim, where the heat dissipation fins are grooves. As the entire first substrate will have the heat sink placed on it, an orthogonal projection of the plurality of micro-reaction chambers on the base substrate will overlap an orthogonal projection of at least two of the plurality of grooves.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wu teaches the micro-fluidic chip according to claim 2. Wu has been modified to include the heat sink of Kim. Please see Figure 4 of Kim which shows an isometric view of the heat sink, where the fins (grooves) are seen to extend along a first direction and are arranged at intervals along a second direction.
Regarding claim 4, modified Wu teaches the micro-fluidic chip according to claim 3. [106] of Kim describes that the shape, number, height, width and length of the fins are selectively adjusted to optimize heat dissipation performance of the heat sink.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum dimension of the groove in the second direction to a range of 0.2 mm and 0.4 mm, a depth of the groove to a range of 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm and an interval between every two adjacent ones of the plurality of grooves to a range of 0.8 mm and 1.2 mm which would allow for optimized heat dissipation performance (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Please note that there has been no established criticality for the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 24, modified Wu teaches the micro-fluidic chip according to claim 1. Wu further teaches wherein the micro-fluidic chip (100) further comprises a bonding layer (spacer 18) between the cover plate (20) and the base substrate (10) and enclosing an accommodating cavity with the cover plate (20) and the micro-cavity defining layer (11), the plurality of micro-reaction chambers (110) being in the accommodating cavity (Wu; [0087], [0088], Figure 3).
Please note that the first substrate 10 of Wu and the heat sink of Kim now form the base substrate.
Regarding claim 25, modified Wu teaches the micro-fluidic chip according to claim 1. Wu further teaches wherein the micro-fluidic chip (100) further comprises a hydrophilic layer (hydrophilic layer 14) covering at least a side wall and a bottom wall of each of the plurality of micro-reaction chambers (110) (Wu; [0065], Figure 3).
Regarding claim 26, modified Wu teaches the micro-fluidic chip according to claim 1. Wu further teaches wherein the micro-fluidic chip (100) further comprises a hydrophobic layer (hydrophobic layer 13) (Wu; [0068], Figure 3),
wherein the heating layer (12) is on a surface of the base substrate (10) facing the cover plate (20), and the hydrophobic layer (13) is on a surface of the cover plate (20) facing the base substrate (10) (Wu; see Figure 3).
Additionally, from claim 1 supra, the heating electrode 12 and control electrode 15 are located in the same layer where the first insulating layer 16 is omitted, where therefore the first substrate 10 will have the heating electrode 12 and control electrode 15 on one side, and on the opposite side will be the heat sink of Kim. Additionally, the first substrate 10 and heat sink together define the base substrate.
Claim(s) 10-12, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO-2020/147203-A1), mapping using publication Wu (US-2021/0237052-A1), and Kim (WO-2020/190035-A1), and in further view of Deng (WO-2021/218450-A1), mapping using Deng (US-2022/0410149-A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wu teaches the micro-fluidic chip according to claim 1. While Wu does teach a heating electrode, Wu does not teach a plurality of heating electrodes.
In the analogous art of detection chips with heating electrodes, Deng teaches a heating electrode with a plurality of sub-electrodes (Deng; [0004], [0084]).
Specifically, Deng teaches a heating electrode 12 that includes sub-electrodes 121a, 121b, 122a, 122b, and 122c where the heating electrode 12 heats solution stored in micro-reaction chambers 111 (Deng; [0073], [0084], Figure 2). [0106] of Deng describes that the two middle connection electrodes 132 seen in Figure 2 are connected to the other end of heating electrode 12. [0071] of Deng describes that the heating value per unit time of the sub-electrodes may be made different by making the resistance values of the sub-electrodes different where the heating value per unit time of the sub-electrodes under the condition of receiving the same electrical signal can be made different, and in other examples the electrical signals received by the sub-electrodes may be different to allow for independent control. Therefore in the instance of receiving the same electrical signal the electrodes will be connected in series.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the heating electrode of Wu such that it has a plurality of sub-electrodes as taught by Deng because Deng teaches that by having sub-electrodes with different heating values per unit of time, the temperature of different regions may be adjusted to realize highly efficient, accurate, and uniform temperature control, improve temperature uniformity, reduce the area of the edge low-temperature region, and effectively reduce the chip size and increase the number of micro-reaction chambers (Deng; [0072]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., detection chip) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., heating electrode) with other component(s) (i.e., plurality of heating electrodes), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., single heating electrode for a plurality of heating electrodes), and the results of the substitution (i.e., heating the micro-reaction chambers) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute the heating electrode of reference Wu with the sub-electrodes of reference Deng, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 11, modified Wu teaches the micro-fluidic chip according to claim 10. Deng further teaches wherein each of the plurality of heating electrodes extends along a fifth direction, the plurality of heating electrodes are arranged at intervals in a sixth direction, and the fifth direction intersects the sixth direction (Deng; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wu teaches the micro-fluidic chip according to claim 11. Deng further teaches wherein dimensions of the plurality of heating electrodes in the sixth direction are substantially equal, and an interval between every two adjacent ones of the plurality of heating electrodes is substantially equal (Deng; [0084] see spacing distance between adjacent sub-electrodes is 1-200, 1-20, 1-15, 1-10, or 1-5 microns where therefore the interval between adjacent electrodes will be substantially equal, [0091] see the width and thickness of the first sub-electrode and second sub-electrode may be the same, [0100] see the cross-sectional shapes of the plurality of sub-electrodes may be the same).
Regarding claim 21, modified Wu teaches the micro-fluidic chip according to claim 10. The heating electrode 12 of Wu has been modified to be the plurality of sub-electrodes as taught by Deng, where Figure 6A of Wu shows the location of heating electrode 12 which is the darkest shaded rectangle. This area will now have the plurality of sub-electrodes of Deng. Therefore the orthographic projection of the plurality of sub-electrodes on the second surface will surround a middle region of the second surface (the second surface being the surface on which the heating electrode is placed on the first substrate 10).
Regarding claim 22, modified Wu teaches the micro-fluidic chip according to claim 10. Deng further teaches wherein the heating layer further comprises a first driving electrode and a second driving electrode, and the plurality of heating electrodes are connected in series between the first driving electrode and the second driving electrode (Deng; [0105] connection electrode used for electrically connecting with a separately provided device to receive an electrical signal and transmit the electrical signal to the control circuit, [0106] the two middle connection electrodes 132 that are connected to the heating electrode (made up of the plurality of sub-electrodes) are first and second driving electrodes that will be connected to the plurality of sub-electrodes in series).
Other References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimizu (US-2011/0126612-A1) teaches where a pressing member has a plurality of grooves for increasing the surface area, and that by changing the density and depth of the grooves the surface area in contact with ambient air can be increased or decreased to adjust the heat release performance (Shimizu; [0124]).
Ely (US-2020/0206734-A1) teaches an exterior surface modification that facilitates heat dissipation from a microfluidic chamber, such as a crenulated surface seen in Figure 5 (Ely; [0041]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, while Kim does teach that the shape, number, height, width and length of the fins are selectively adjusted to optimize heat dissipation performance of the heat sink (Kim; [106]), where the number of fins would be related to the density of the fins associated with the heat sink, Kim does not teach a plurality of first grooves and a plurality of second grooves where a distribution density of the plurality of first grooves is larger than that of the plurality of second grooves.
Additionally, while Shimizu (cited above in pertinent prior art) does teach changing the density and depth of grooves to adjust heat release performance, Shimizu similarly does not teach having different densities in a single unit.
Claim 6 would be allowable by virtue of being dependent on claim 5.
Claims 14 is objected to, please see above, but would be allowable if amended to overcome the above objection and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art of record is Deng (WO-2021/218450-A1), mapped using Deng (US-2022/0410149-A1). While Deng does teach a heating electrode with a plurality of sub-electrodes, where as seen in Figure 2 to have first sub-electrodes 121a and 121b and second sub-electrodes 122a, 122b, and 122c, Deng does not teach or even suggest the second sub-electrode is on both sides of the first sub-electrode in the fifth direction.
Claims 15-16, 20 would be allowable by virtue of being dependent on claim 14, however please note that there are 112(b) rejections that need to be addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796