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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Baba et al. (US 2018/0100792 A1 – hereafter ‘792).
‘792 (Baba) discloses a device for electrical measurement (Abstract) that includes the following limitations for claim 1:
“A microfluidic bio-sensing system”: ‘792 discloses a device for the electrical measurement of a sample migration channel ([0041]) with channels that are micro scale ([0077]) and is being interpreted as the microfluidic biosensing system of the instant application.
“at least one semiconductor chip configured to control at least one electrokinetic fluid flow, cell manipulation and sensing and bio-molecular sensing by utilizing at least one plurality of electrodes in a microfluidic channel.”: ‘792 discloses a chip that is made from a semiconductor material ([0106]; [0107]) that includes a sensing circuit ([0041]) that flows a sample through the channel by a drive circuit (Fig. 15; [0131]).
For claim 2, ‘792 discloses controlling the voltage to move the fluid through the channels ([0131]) by a voltage application means.
For claim 4, the electrodes of ‘792 (electrodes 41 & 42) which is being interpreted as an array that is asymmetrical (i.e. a 1x2 array; Fig. 15; [0134]).
For claim 5, ‘792 discloses that the electrodes can be made from gold or titanium ([0084]).
For claim 6, ‘792 discloses a drive circuit (circuit 30; Fig. 15; [0135]) that is fully capable of controlling the voltage magnitude applied to the fluid.
For claim 8, the electrodes of ‘792 are fully capable of creating an asymmetric excitation of the electrodes .
For claim 19, ‘792 discloses that the channels can be made from PDMS ([0119]) with the electrodes embedded in the substrate.
Therefore, ‘792 meets the limitations of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 19.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Chodavarapu et al. (US 2011/0115499 A1 – hereafter ‘499).
‘499 (Chodavarapu) discloses a micromachined biosensor (Abstract) that includes the following limitations for claim 1:
“A microfluidic bio-sensing system”: ‘499 discloses a biosensor array ([0046]) that is being interpreted as the microfluidic biosensing system of the instant application.
“at least one semiconductor chip configured to control at least one electrokinetic fluid flow, cell manipulation and sensing and bio-molecular sensing by utilizing at least one plurality of electrodes in a microfluidic channel.”: ‘499 discloses a semiconductor chip ([0049] that uses an electrode array ([0055]) for sensing a biomolecule.
Therefore, ‘499 meets the limitations of claim 1.
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.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba et al. (US 2018/0100792 A1 – hereafter ‘792) in view of Mehta (US 2002/0127144 A1 – hereafter ‘144).
For claims 3 and 7, ‘792 (Baba) does not explicitly disclose using an AC source.
‘144 (Mehta) discloses a system for measuring and manipulating materials from particles (Abstract) that for claims 3 and 7 includes connecting electrodes to an AC voltage source ([0122]). This reduces the polarization from the electrodes that could occur from using a DC voltage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the AC source of ‘144 within ‘792 in order to supply a signal to the electrodes. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to reduce polarization of the electrodes ([-122]).
Claims 9, 11-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chodavarapu et al. (US 2011/0115499 A1 – hereafter ‘499) in view of Baba et al. (US 2018/0100792 A1 – hereafter ‘792).
For claim 9, ‘499 (Chodavarapu) differs from the instant claim by not explicitly stating if some of the electrodes are top electrodes.
‘792 discloses for claim 9 that the electrodes can be placed on different surfaces (Fig. 7(1)) such that there is a top electrode and a bottom electrode ([0086]). This allows the electrodes to sandwich the migration channel where the electrical measurement is allowed to cut across the channel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the electrode positioning of ‘792 within ‘499 in order to allow the measurement to cut across the channel. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been to allow the potential difference between the resistance element to be balanced ([0134]).
For claim 10, ‘499 discloses an impedance connect (connect 400b; Fig. 7; [0055]) that is being interpreted as the impedance receiver.
For claim 12, the impedance connect of ‘499 is configured to receive a variable frequency ([0021]).
For claim 13, ‘499 discloses that the frequencies vary from 1 milliHertz to 1 MegaHertz ([0021]).
For claim 14, ‘499 (Chodavarapu) differs from the instant claim by not explicitly stating if some of the electrodes are top electrodes.
‘792 discloses for claim 14 that the electrodes can be placed on different surfaces (Fig. 7(1)) such that there is a top electrode and a bottom electrode ([0086]). This allows the electrodes to sandwich the migration channel where the electrical measurement is allowed to cut across the channel. The top electrodes are fully capable of being excitation electrodes and the bottom of being sensing electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the electrode positioning of ‘792 within ‘499 in order to allow the measurement to cut across the channel. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been to allow the potential difference between the resistance element to be balanced ([0134]).
‘499 discloses that the surface of the electrodes are adapted to bind a probe molecule such as a protein ([0059]; Fig. 5B; protein 540).
For claim 15, ‘499 discloses an electrode array (Fig. 5a; [0058]) that would have electrodes on the corners and an electrode in the center. Furthermore, this reads on a first or second portion. Finally, the probe can be a nucleic acid ([0015]).
For claim 18, ‘499 discloses that the electrodes can be on a printed circuit board ([0056]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba et al. (US 2018/0100792 A1 – hereafter ‘792).
For claim 22, ‘792 discloses the following limitations:
“A microfluidic bio-sensing system”: ‘792 discloses a device for the electrical measurement of a sample migration channel ([0041]) with channels that are micro scale ([0077]) and is being interpreted as the microfluidic biosensing system of the instant application.
“at least one semiconductor chip configured to control at least one electrokinetic fluid flow, cell manipulation and sensing and bio-molecular sensing by utilizing at least one plurality of electrodes in a microfluidic channel.”: ‘792 discloses a chip that is made from a semiconductor material ([0106]; [0107]) that includes a sensing circuit ([0041]) that flows a sample through the channel by a drive circuit (Fig. 15; [0131]).
‘792 does not explicitly disclose a plurality of these controllers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a plurality of the chips in order to increase the throughput of the sensing system. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to run multiple tests in parallel. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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: For claim 11, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the impedance spectroscopy receiver includes a voltage excitation driver, a transimpedance amplifier and an in-phase and quadrature mixer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gomez et al. (UKS 2003/0157587 A1) discloses a biosensor that uses electrodes that uses an electric field to retain a target molecule in a collection chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-3724. The examiner can normally be reached Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM 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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799