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 01/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 19-36 remain pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejections of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
A new ground of rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is necessitated in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections under claims 35 U.S.C. 103 are being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments.
New set of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are put forth.
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.
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.
Claims 19-26, 28-30 and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabhachandani et al. (“Integrated microfluidic platform for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing and bacterial growth analysis using bead-based biosensor via fluorescence imaging.” Microchimica Acta Volume 184, pages 4619–4628, 2017)(provide in the Applicant’s IDS of 04/04/2023) in view of Malloggi et al. (“Electrowetting-controlled droplet generation in a microfluidic flow-focusing device.” J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19 (2007) 462101), and further in view of Isaac et al. (WO2018234446A1).
Regarding claim 19, Sabhachandani teaches a device comprising:
i) a chip (Fig. 2A) comprising a first region (the region between the channel and the array. See annotated Fig. A) for manipulating a plurality of microdroplets (Fig. 2A and captions);
ii) a microdroplet source (the droplet generation junction) for providing the microdroplets (Figs. 2A and 2B and p. 4622, under Results and Discussion);
iii) a channel (the channel that extends droplet generation junction to the array area, Fig. 2B) having a distal end (see annotated Fig. A above), which extends in a first direction (up-down direction of Fig. 2A) into the chip, and a proximal end (the end of the channel at the droplet generation junction), which is in fluid communication with the microdroplet source (droplet generation junction)(Fig. 2A); and
iv) a pressure source (one of syringe pumps at the inlets) for moving the microdroplets from the microdroplet source along the channel and into the first region of the chip (Page 4622, under Results and Discussion, syringe pumps introduce solution into the device the inlets to form droplets by flow-focusing at a flow rate);
and wherein the distal end of the channel is fluted or blunted (Figure 2B, the distal end of the channel is blunted, or less sharp, as the channel flares outward with rounded corners. See also annotated Fig. A above).
Sabhachandani teaches the device utilizes a droplet microfluidics-based approach for analyzing biological samples. Sabhachandani teaches the device that is a microfluidic chip with a droplet generation junction, a channel, a first region and a second region (see annotated Fig. A above). Sabhachandani teaches at the droplet generation junction, micro-size droplets that encapsulating sample and reagent are generated (Fig. 2B and captions). Sabhachandani teaches the generated droplets flow through the channel into a first region, where the droplets are being manipulated and then docked into an array in the second region (Fig. 2 and captions). Sabhachandani teaches imaging analysis is performed on the droplets in the array in the second region (p. 4622-4623, Results and Discussion). Sabhachandani teaches the device is made with PDMS (p. 4632, left column). Sabhachandani teaches droplets are generated by flow-focusing, but fails to teach the device utilizes EWOD.
However, Malloggi teaches a electrowetting-based flow focusing device (EW-based FFD) that integrates electrowetting with flow focusing for droplet generation. Malloggi further teaches the device is made by incorporating into a PDMS-flow focusing device with electrowetting components including a bottom electrodes, ITO-glass precoated with a hydrophobic dielectric layer of Teflon and a thin wire (p. 2). Malloggi teaches the integration to enable increased control over the size and frequency of droplet generation (abstract and bottom para. on p. 6) and to harvest the power of both EW and FFD (bottom of p. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microdroplet source of the device taught by Sabhachandani to incorporated electrowetting components including a bottom electrodes, ITO-glass precoated with a hydrophobic dielectric layer of Teflon and a thin wire as taught by Malloggi (Fig. 1 and p. 2) in order to control over the size and frequency of droplet generation with the added electrowetting capability and harvest the power of both EW and FFD with a reasonable expectation of success (Malloggi, abstract, bottom of p. 1 and bottom para. on p. 6) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Modified Sabhachandani as modified by Malloggi would yield the device utilizes EWOD in the microdroplet source for generating droplets, but modified Sabhachandani/Sabhachandani does not teach how the droplets are being manipulated and docked into an array format in the second region, and thus modified Sabhachandani is silent on whether an array of electrodes are involved into docking the droplet, and therefore, modified Sabhachandani fails to teach the chip comprising a first region (the region between the channel and the array) for manipulating a plurality of microdroplets is an EWOD chip.
However, Isaac teaches a droplet microfluidics-based chip (Fig. 1) for analyzing biological compounds by sequencing (ln. 3-4). Isaac teaches the chip comprising microdroplet preparation zone 1 and microdroplet manipulation zone 3. Isaac teaches the chip produces micro-size droplets that encapsulate analytes and reagents (Fig. 1 and p. 16, lns. 26-30 and p. 17, lns. 7-9). Isaac further teaches the manipulation zone 3 of the chip comprises of optically-mediated electrowetting components and pathways that enables microdroplets to be manipulated into an array (Fig. 1) using optically-mediated electrowetting means (p. 3, ln. 5 – p.4, ln. 8). Isaac further teaches that electrowetting forces is a reliable way of manipulating thousands of microdroplets to locations for processing and analysis (p. 1, ln. 22 – p. 2, ln. 15 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second regions of the chip in the device taught by modified Sabhachandani (which already incorporated EWOD in the microdroplet source for droplet generation) with optically-mediated electrowetting components and pathways in manipulation zone 3 as taught by Isaac in order to have a reliable way of manipulating microdroplets to locations for analysis with a reasonable expectation of success. (Isaac, p. 1, ln. 22 – p. 2, ln. 15)(MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teachings of Sabhachandani as modified by Isaac would yield the chip comprising the first region for manipulating a plurality of microdroplets is an oEWOD chip.
PNG
media_image1.png
757
1339
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Annotated Fig. 2 of Sabhachandani.
Regarding claim 20, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 19. Modified Sabhachandani further teaches wherein the channel is tapered (Fig. 2B, the distal end of the channel is tapered toward the proximal end).
Regarding claim 24, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 19. Sabhachandani teaches wherein the surface area of the first region is greater than the internal surface area of the channel (Fig. 2, see annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 25, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 19. Sabhachandani further teaches wherein the pressure source for moving the microdroplets is a pump (P. 4622, Results and Discussion, the pressure source is one of syringe pumps at the inlets; also compatible with the teachings of Malloggi, which incorporates both flow-focusing and EW).
Regarding claim 26, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 25. Sabhachandani further teaches wherein the chip further comprises an outlet (see annotated Fig. A above).
Regarding claim 28, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 25. Sabhachandani further teaches wherein the pump is configured to apply a positive pressure at the microdroplet source to move the microdroplets (interpreted as a functional limitation. Pages 4622, Results and Discussion, a syringe pump introduces liquid sample or reagent into the device at the inlet to create the flow of the aqueous phase, and thus capable of applying a positive pressure to move the microdroplets).
Regarding claim 29, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 19. Sabhachandani further wherein the microdroplet source is a reservoir (the droplet generation junction is reservoir that holds both the oil and the sample/antibiotic mixture).
Regarding to claim 30, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 19. Sabhachandani further teaches wherein the microdroplet source is a droplet generator device (the droplet generation junction is device that generates droplets as shown in Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 32, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 19. Sabhachandani further teaches wherein the spherical microdroplet diameter is 20 to 200 mm (p. 4622 teaches the microdroplets has a diameter of 100 mm).
Regarding to claim 33, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 19. Modified Sabhachandani teaches wherein the chip comprises a second region (see annotated Fig. A above) comprising desired array locations (Fig. 2C) in which microdroplets move from the first region of the chip to the second region (Figs. 2B and 2C). Modified Sabhachandani teaches the microdroplets move from the first region of the chip to the second region via a plurality of electrowetting pathways created by an application of ephemeral EWOD or oEWOD force at positions along the pathway (Isaac, p. 17, lns. 3-11 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 34, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 33.
Modified Sabhachandani teaches the device comprises electrowetting pathways for manipulating movements of droplets into an array (see above, claim 19). Modified Sabhachandani does not teach the device further comprising a microprocessor configured to provide one or more electrowetting pathways and synchronising the movement of each microdroplet in the pathways relative to the others.
However, Isaac teaches a droplet microfluidics-based chip as discussed above. Isaac further teaches a microprocessor and associated computer programs for controlling and automating various operations including to provide one or more electrowetting pathways and synchronising the movement of each microdroplet in the pathways relative to the others (p. 14, lns 29-31 and p. 17, ln. 30 - p. 18, ln. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Sabhachandani to include a microprocessor configured to provide one or more electrowetting pathways and synchronising the movement of each microdroplet in the pathways relative to the others in order to automate the operation of providing one or more electrowetting pathways and synchronising the movement of each microdroplet in the pathways relative to the others with a reasonable expectation of success. (Isaac, p. 14, lns 29-31 and p. 17, ln. 30 - p. 18, ln. 2) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Regarding claim 35, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 33. Sabhachandani teaches wherein microdroplets in the first region are disordered (Fig. 2B) and microdroplets in the second region are ordered (Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 36, modified Sabhachandani teaches a device (Fig. 2A) comprising:
i) an EWOD or oEWOD chip (Fig. 2A) comprising a first region (the region between the channel and the array. See annotated Fig. A below) for manipulating a plurality of microdroplets (Fig. 2 and captions);
ii) a microdroplet source (droplet generation junction) for providing the microdroplets (Figs. 2A and 2B and p. 4622, under Results and Discussion);
iii) a channel (the channel that extends droplet generation junction to the array area, Fig. 2B) having a distal end (see annotated Fig. A below), which extends in a first direction (up-down direction of Fig. 2a) into the chip, and a proximal end (the end of the channel at the droplet generation junction), which is in fluid communication with the microdroplet source (droplet generation junction)(Fig. 2A); and
iv) a pressure source (one of syringe pumps at the inlets) for moving the microdroplets from the microdroplet source along the channel and into the first region of the chip (p. 4622, under Results and Discussion, syringe pumps introduce liquid sample and reagent into the device the inlets to form droplets by flow-focusing at a flow rate);
wherein the pressure source is configured to enable the movement of the microdroplets from the microdroplet source into the proximal end of the channel at a first velocity (interpreted as functional limitation. Microdroplets are not positively recited. Page 4622, under Results and Discussion, syringe pump is capable of introducing fluid into the device and thus enable movement of the microdroplets); and wherein the distal end of the channel is fluted or blunted (Figure 2B, the distal end of the channel is blunted, or less sharp, as the channel flares outward with rounded corners) such that the micro droplets move from the distal end of the channel into the first region of the chip at a velocity which is lower than the first velocity (the increase in cross-sectional area at the distal end of the channel causes a lowering of velocity).
Sabhachandani teaches the device utilizes a droplet microfluidics-based approach for analyzing biological samples. Sabhachandani teaches the device that is a microfluidic chip with a droplet generation junction, a channel, a first region and a second region (see annotated Fig. A above). Sabhachandani teaches at the droplet generation junction, micro-size droplets that encapsulating sample and reagent are generated (Fig. 2B and captions). Sabhachandani teaches the generated droplets flow through the channel into a first region, where the droplets are being manipulated and then docked into an array in the second region (Fig. 2 and captions). Sabhachandani teaches imaging analysis is performed on the droplets in the array in the second region (p. 4622-4623, Results and Discussion). Sabhachandani teaches the device is made with PDMS (p. 4632, left column). Sabhachandani teaches droplets are generated by flow-focusing, but fails to teach the device utilizes EWOD.
However, Malloggi teaches a electrowetting-based flow focusing device (EW-based FFD) that integrates electrowetting with flow focusing for droplet generation. Malloggi further teaches the device is made by incorporating into a PDMS-flow focusing device with electrowetting components including a bottom electrodes, ITO-glass precoated with a hydrophobic dielectric layer of Teflon and a thin wire (p. 2). Malloggi teaches the integration to enable increased control over the size and frequency of droplet generation (abstract and bottom para. on p. 6) and to harvest the power of both EW and FFD (bottom of p. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microdroplet source of the device taught by Sabhachandani to incorporated electrowetting components including a bottom electrodes, ITO-glass precoated with a hydrophobic dielectric layer of Teflon and a thin wire as taught by Malloggi (Fig. 1 and p.2) in order to control over the size and frequency of droplet generation with the added electrowetting capability and to harvest the power of both EW and FFD with a reasonable expectation of success (Malloggi, abstract, bottom of p. 1, and bottom para. on p. 6) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Modified Sabhachandani as modified by Malloggi would yield the device utilizes EWOD in the microdroplet source, but modified Sabhachandani/Sabhachandani does not teach how the droplets are being manipulated and docked into an array format in the second region, and thus modified Sabhachandani is silent on whether an array of electrodes are involved into docking the droplet, and therefore, modified Sabhachandani fails to teach the chip comprising a first region (the region between the channel and the array for manipulating a plurality of microdroplets is an EWOD chip.
However, Isaac teaches a droplet microfluidics-based chip (Fig. 1) for analyzing biological compounds by sequencing (ln. 3-4). Isaac teaches the chip comprising microdroplet preparation zone 1 and microdroplet manipulation zone 3. Isaac teaches the chip produces micro-size droplets that encapsulate analytes and reagents (Fig. 1 and p. 16, lns. 26-30 and p. 17, lns. 7-9). Isaac further teaches the manipulation zone 3 of the chip comprises of optically-mediated electrowetting components and pathways that enables microdroplets to be manipulated into an array (Fig. 1) using optically-mediated electrowetting means (p. 3, ln. 5 – p.4, ln. 8). Isaac further teaches that electrowetting forces is a reliable way of manipulating thousands of microdroplets to locations for processing and analysis (p. 1, ln. 22 – p. 2, ln. 15 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second regions of the chip in the device taught by modified Sabhachandani (which already incorporated EWOD in the microdroplet source for droplet generation) with optically-mediated electrowetting components and pathways in manipulation zone 3 as taught by Isaac in order to have a reliable way of manipulating microdroplets to locations for analysis with a reasonable expectation of success. (Isaac, p. 1, ln. 22 – p. 2, ln. 15)(MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teachings of Sabhachandani as modified by Isaac would yield the chip is an oEWOD chip.
Regarding claim 21, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 36. Sabhachandani further teaches wherein the first velocity is equivalent to a flow rate of between 0.1 to 100.0 mL/min (the Results and Discussion on p. 4622 teaches the microdroplets are generated by an aqueous phase and an oil phase at flow rates of 100 mL/h or 1.67 mL/min and 400 mL/h or 6.67 mL/min, respectively, which are within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 22, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 36. Sabhachandani further teaches wherein the first velocity is equivalent to a flow rate of between 0.1 to 10 mL/min (the Results and Discussion on p. 4622 teaches the microdroplets are generated by an aqueous phase and an oil phase at flow rates of 100 mL/h or 1.67 mL/min and 400 mL/h or 6.67 mL/min, respectively, which are within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 23, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 36. With respect to the limitation "wherein the velocity of microdroplets in the first region is 25 to 5000 µm/s," the microdroplets are not positively recited, and thus they are not a part of the invention and does not further limit the structure of the invention. Furthermore, the droplet velocity is approx. 3537 µm/s at the entrance of region 1 from the distal end of the channel. The velocity would decrease as the droplet leaves the distal end into region 1 since the diameter of the channel increases (Fig. 2b) and thus the droplet velocity at some point in region 1 is within the range of 25 to 5000 µm/s. The calculation based on the channel has a diameter of 100 µm, the same as the droplet diameter and a flowrate of 100 mL/h based on the teachings in Results and Discussion on p. 4622 and Fig. 2B.)
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabhachandani et al. (“Integrated microfluidic platform for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing and bacterial growth analysis using bead-based biosensor via fluorescence imaging.” Microchimica Acta Volume 184, pages 4619–4628, 2017)(provided in the Applicant’s IDS of 04/04/2023) in view of Malloggi et al. (“Electrowetting-controlled droplet generation in a microfluidic flow-focusing device.” J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19 (2007) 462101), further in view of Isaac et al. (WO2018234446A1) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view Dorrer (US 20130186512 A1).
Regarding claim 27, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 26.
Sabhachandani teaches a microfluidic device comprises a syringe pump at the an inlet to introduce liquid sample or reagent into the device (p. 4622, Results and Discussion).
Modified Sabhachandani teaches the pump is at the inlet, and thus fails to teach wherein the pump is configured to apply a negative pressure at the outlet.
However, Dorrer teaches a microfluidic device. Dorrer further teach liquid in the device can be move by the application of a positive pressure to the inlet channel and/or a negative pressure in the outlet channel by a pump(para. 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the pump at the inlet taught by modified Sabhachandani with a pump at the outlet configured to apply a negative pressure at the outlet because one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized the pump at the outlet configured to apply a negative pressure at the outlet would result in the predictable result of providing a means to introduce liquid sample or reagent into the device.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabhachandani et al. (“Integrated microfluidic platform for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing and bacterial growth analysis using bead-based biosensor via fluorescence imaging.” Microchimica Acta Volume 184, pages 4619–4628, 2017)(provided in the Applicant’s IDS of 0404/2023) in view of Malloggi et al. (“Electrowetting-controlled droplet generation in a microfluidic flow-focusing device.” J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19 (2007) 462101 (7pp) , and further in view of Isaac et al. (WO2018234446A1) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (“Step emulsification in microfluidic droplet generation: mechanisms and structures.” Chem. Commun., July 2020, 56, 9056.)
Regarding to claim 31, modified Sabhachandani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 30.
Modified Sabhachandani teaches the droplet generator is based on flow-focusing technique (Fig. 2B and captions) and thus fails to teach the droplet generator is a step emulsifier.
However, Shi teaches on droplet-based microfluidic techniques (abstract). Shi teaches that droplet-based microfluidic techniques such as flow-focusing has the disadvantage in that the size and homogeneity of droplets depend severely on the flow rate of fluids (from p. 9056 bottom right to p. 9057 top left). Shi further teaches step emulsification can be used for mass production of monodisperse droplets with high efficiency (p. 9057 top left).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the droplet generator based on flow focusing taught by modified Sabhachandani to a droplet generator based on step emulsification (step emulsifier) taught by Shi in order for to achieve mass production of monodisperse droplets with high efficiency with a reasonable expectation of success (Shi, p 9057 top left) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 5, filed 01/14/2026, with respect to the rejection under 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 10/14/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5-6, filed 01/14/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are .
The Applicant argue that Sabhachandani discloses a “’droplet-docking array’ for ‘trapping’ droplets where they remain ‘in [a] static position for imaging and analysis.’ Consequently, Sabhachandani is not concerned with manipulating microdroplets, but is instead concerned with trapping droplets to prevent movement (i.e., manipulation) thereof.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Sabhachandani teaches moving droplets from the droplet generation junction to into a the docking array region, and thus require manipulation of droplets to move from the junction to region 1 then to regions (Sabhachandani, Fig. 2; see also annotated Fig. A above). Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
However, the remaining arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sabhachandani (“Integrated microfluidic platform for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing and bacterial growth analysis using bead-based biosensor via fluorescence imaging.” Microchimica Acta Volume 184, pages 4619–4628, 2017)(provide in the Applicant’s IDS of 04/04/2023) in view of Malloggi et al. (“Electrowetting-controlled droplet generation in a microfluidic flow-focusing device.” J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19 (2007) 462101 (7pp)), and further in view of Isaac et al. (WO2018234446A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6-9, filed 01/14/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and not fully persuasive with regard to the following argument.
The Applicant argues that “the cited references provide no motivation to modify the teachings of Sabhachandani as suggested by the Examiner” and “Sabhachandani does not teach the use of EWOD or oEWOD forces to manipulate the microdroplets would require significant modification to implement such a feature. Sabhachandani is therefore an unsuitable starting point when seeking to derive the claimed invention and is no longer considered to be the closest prior art.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Malloggi (“Electrowetting-controlled droplet generation in a microfluidic flow-focusing device.” J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19 (2007) 462101) incorporating EWOD into a flow-focusing device in order to “harvests the power of both methods” (Malloggi, p. 1). Therefore, it is with the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to modified the flow focus device Sabhachandani with EWOD capability, and would be motivated to do in order to “harvests the power of both methods” and for the reasons discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
However, in the Office Action mailed on 10/14/2026, the teachings of Malloggi is not provided. For this reason, the rejection of 10/14/2026 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Sabhachandani (“Integrated microfluidic platform for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing and bacterial growth analysis using bead-based biosensor via fluorescence imaging.” Microchimica Acta Volume 184, pages 4619–4628, 2017)(provide in the Applicant’s IDS of 04/04/2023) in view of Malloggi et al. (“Electrowetting-controlled droplet generation in a microfluidic flow-focusing device.” J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19 (2007) 462101(7pp)), and further in view of Isaac et al. (WO2018234446A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY CHIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1054. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm.
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.
/M.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758