DETAILED ACTION
In application filed on 02/27/2023, Claims 1-15 are pending. The claim set submitted on 02/27/2023 is considered because this is the most recent claim set with some preliminary amendments. Claims 1-15 are considered in the current office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2025, 01/31/2024, 05/30/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the resolutions of Figures 1A-D, 2A-D, 4D and 4D are low. Examiner submits to Applicant that Figures of improved resolution should be provided.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the term “UVX-8204, UVX-8400, SX-UV100A, SX- UV200, BBX-UV300, U-1340 (Chemitech Inc.), U-1455B, U-1558B, Aronix UV-3000, TB3094 (, or Hitaroid7975D, UV-3630ID80, UX-3204, or FINETAC RX-104” (See specification, Para 0037), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 9 and 14-15 recites limitations such as “portion”, Examiner submits that the claimed “portion” is not specifically defined in the specification and will therefore be given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Any part, section or area of the associated structure will be considered a “portion”.
Regarding Claims 1, 6 13 and 15 recites limitations such as “area”, Examiner submits that the claimed “area” is not specifically defined in the specification and will therefore be given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Any part, section or portion of the associated structure will be considered an “area”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the surface” in line 4. It appears this limitation should be recited as “a surface” for the purpose of clarification. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kim et al. (US20100261286A1) in view of Usui et al. (JP2007248101A, An English Machine Translation was obtained from WIPO Patenscope. The rejection below is based off the translation provided with the office action”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a method for manufacturing a microchip for analyzing a component (‘analyte’) in a liquid sample (See Para 0023…sample containing an analyte to be analyzed,) by passing the sample through a flow path (See Fig. 2A, Para 0071 for the embodiment of the combination of refs.36, 38, 40 and 42, thereby teaching “a flow path”) provided inside (See Abstract…a liquid sample is dropped into the inlet chamber) and performing a reaction in a reaction portion (See Abstract…Biogenic or immunoreactive substances are placed in the reaction chamber and detection chamber(s)) provided in a portion of the flow path (See Fig. 2A, Para 0071 for the embodiment of the combination of refs.36, 38, 40 and 42, thereby teaching “groove” serving as “a flow path”), the method comprising:
providing a substrate (referred to as photoresist layer [Para 0053; Fig.1 ref. 14]) comprising on the surface (See Fig.1 ref. 14 where the photoresist layer has a surface) thereof a groove (See Fig. 2A, Para 0071 for the embodiment of the combination of refs.36, 38, 40 and 42, thereby teaching “groove”) serving as a flow path (See Fig. 2A, Para 0071 for the embodiment of the combination of refs.36, 38, 40 and 42, thereby teaching “groove” serving as “a flow path”, interpreted as intended use of the “groove”; See MPEP 2114) and a reaction portion (referred to as reaction chamber [Para 0071; Fig. 2A, ref. 40]) in a portion (See Fig. 2A for any part or portion between Fig. 2A, refs. 36 and 42) between the both ends of the groove (See Fig. 2A for refs. 36 and 42 for both ends of the groove);
applying an adhesive agent or a gluing agent (See Para 0025… ‘an adhesive tape roll’; See Para 0056…The cover layer 16 can be a polymeric film or adhesive film.) on an area other than the groove on the grooved surface of the substrate (See Para 0025…and a top cover layer such as PET film or an adhesive tape roll; Examiner clarifies that the adhesive tape roll is applied to the top cover layer thereby teaching “an area other than the groove on the grooved surface of the substrate”); and
an area (See Para 0053; Fig.1 ref. 14…any part or portion of the photoresist layer) of which a reaction substance is applied (See Para 0029… the reaction chamber or region contains a dried form of buffer reagent, biochemical reagent, antigen or antibody labeled with gold particles, enzymes, or a fluorescence dye);
Kim does not explicitly teach:
providing a film on an area of which a reaction substance is applied; and
attaching the film on the substrate in such a manner that the groove on the substrate is covered by the film to form the flow path, and that the reaction portion of the adhesive agent- or the gluing agent-applied surface of the substrate overlaps the area of the film on which the reaction substance is applied.
In the analogous art of an inspection tool for a liquid fluid, and in particular, relates to mixing with two types of reagents, Usui teaches:
providing a film (referred to as a double-sided tape 2b [Para 0019; Fig.3, ref. 2b]) on an area (referred to as a hole [Para 0026; Fig. 1, ref. 175) of which a reaction substance is applied (See Abstract…sample that was present in the hole); and
attaching the film (referred to as a double-sided tape 2b [Para 0019; Fig.3, ref. 2b]) on the substrate (referred to as second plate [Para 0015; Fig. 1, ref. 2]) in such a manner that the groove (See Para 0026; Fig. 1, ref. 175, wherein the hole has a groove) on the substrate (referred to as second plate [Para 0015; Fig. 1, ref. 2]) is covered by the film (referred to as a double-sided tape 2b [Para 0019; Fig.3, ref. 2b]) to form the flow path (See Para 0026; Fig. 1, ref. 175, thereby teaching “groove” serving as “a flow path”, interpreted as intended use of the “groove”; See MPEP 2114), and that the reaction portion (See Para 0015, Fig. 1, ref. 2…interpreted as any portion of the second plate) of the adhesive agent- or the gluing agent-applied surface of the substrate (See Para 0025… Th the second plate 2 are integrated in a stacked state by the double-sided tapes 2 b and 4 b via the adhesive; See Para 0036… the second plate 2 to the fourth plate 4 May be integrated with an adhesive) overlaps the area of the film (referred to as a double-sided tape 2b [Para 0019; Fig.3, ref. 2b]) on which the reaction substance (See Abstract…sample that was present in the hole) is applied.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manufacturing of Kim to incorporate providing a film on an area of which a reaction substance is applied; and attaching the film on the substrate in such a manner that the groove on the substrate is covered by the film to form the flow path, and that the reaction portion of the adhesive agent- or the gluing agent-applied surface of the substrate overlaps the area of the film on which the reaction substance is applied, as taught by Usui for the benefit of providing for the liquid generated after reaction to be sent to the measurement chamber in an optimal time (Usui, Para 0004), allowing for the provision of an inspection tool or an inspection method capable of avoiding a problem in which, even when mixed with two types of reagents, those having different concentration differences are given to the second type of reagent (Usui, Para 0007).
Regarding Claim 2, the manufacturing method of claim 1 is obvious over Kim in view of Usui.
Kim further teaches that the substrate (referred to as photoresist layer [Para 0053; Fig.1 ref. 14]) is any one of plastic, silicone, and glass (See Para 0055…Photoresist layer 14 may be made of polyimide polymer, wherein polyimide is a plastic).
Regarding Claim 3, the manufacturing method of claim 1 is obvious over Kim in view of Usui.
Kim further teaches that the substrate or the film (referred to as photoresist layer [Para 0053; Fig.1 ref. 14]; the claimed “film” is viewed as optional) comprises through holes (See Fig. 2A for the embodiment of the inlet chamber; Fig. 2A, ref. 36 and absorbent channels; Fig. 2A, ref. 46, thereby teaching “through holes”) serving as an inlet (referred to as inlet chamber; Fig. 2A, ref. 36) and an outlet (referred to as absorbent channels; Fig. 2A, ref. 46) at positions on both end sides (See Fig. 2A for the “positions on both end sides”) across the reaction portion (referred to as reaction chamber [Para 0071; Fig. 2A, ref. 40]) of a flow path (See Fig. 2A, Para 0071 for the embodiment of the combination of refs.36, 38, 40 and 42, thereby teaching “a flow path”) formed by attaching the substrate (referred to as photoresist layer [Para 0053; Fig.1 ref. 14] and the film (See Para 0021…polymer film) together (See Figs. 1 and 2A, where “together” is implicitly taught).
Regarding Claim 4, the manufacturing method of claim 1 is obvious over Kim in view of Usui.
Kim further teaches that the surface of the substrate (referred to as photoresist layer [Para 0053; Fig.1 ref. 14]; where the photresist layer has a surface is hydrophilized (See Claim 32…the surface of the photoresist layer is hydrophilic.), and an adhesive agent or a gluing agent (See Para 0025… ‘an adhesive tape roll’; See Para 0056…The cover layer 16 can be a polymeric film or adhesive film )is applied to the hydrophilized surface (See Fig. 1 for the cover layer covering the photoresist layer, thereby teaching “applied to the hydrophilized surface”).
Regarding Claim 5, the manufacturing method of claim 1 is obvious over Kim in view of Usui.
Kim further teaches that the adhesive agent or the gluing agent (See Para 0025… ‘an adhesive tape roll’; See Para 0056…The cover layer 16 can be a polymeric film or adhesive film) is a UV curing adhesive agent or a UV curing gluing agent (See Para 025… The rolls undergo a series of unit processes such as …UV exposure,).
Kim and Usui does not teach explicitly that the method of applying an adhesive agent or a gluing agent to an area of the substrate other than a groove is screen printing.
However, Kim does teach a method in a manner to manufacture the electrochemical sensor device 100 described above, which may also be used to manufacture microfluidic device 10. The various steps in the manufacture process include screen printing… (Para 0130).
This, Examiner submits under BRI that, the method of Kim for manufacturing the microfluidic device include various steps including screen printing (Supra).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of the teachings of Kim and Usui to include a method of applying an adhesive agent or a gluing agent to an area of the substrate other than a groove is screen printing, as taught by Kim for the benefit of providing an alternative manner of manufacturing the microfluidic device (Kim, Para 0130). Doing so offers benefits such as providing a new and improved microfluidic devices that address drawbacks of current assay technology and are quick, inexpensive and easy-to-use, and moreover allow for quantitative detection (Kim, Para 0015).
Regarding Claim 12, the manufacturing method of claim 1 is obvious over Kim in view of Usui.
Kim further teaches that the reaction substance is an antibody, an enzyme, a nucleic acid, a blood coagulation factor, or a bead containing the same (See Para 0029… the reaction chamber or region contains a dried form of buffer reagent, biochemical reagent, antigen or antibody labeled with gold particles, enzymes, or a fluorescence dye, thereby teaching “antibody”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20100261286A1) in view of Usui et al. (JP2007248101A, An English Machine Translation was obtained from WIPO Patentscope. The rejection below is based off the translation provided with the office action”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US20060131171A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the manufacturing method of claim 1 is obvious over Kim in view of Usui.
Kim does not teach explicitly that the method of applying an adhesive agent or a gluing agent to an area of the substrate other than a groove is screen printing.
However, Kim does teach a method in a manner to manufacture the electrochemical sensor device 100 described above, which may also be used to manufacture microfluidic device 10. The various steps in the manufacture process include screen printing…(Para 0130).
This, Examiner submits under BRI that, the method of Kim for manufacturing the microfluidic device include various steps including screen printing (Supra).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of the teachings of Kim and Usui to include a method of applying an adhesive agent or a gluing agent to an area of the substrate other than a groove is screen printing, as taught by Kim for the benefit of providing an alternative manner of manufacturing the microfluidic device (Kim, Para 0130). Doing so offers benefits such as providing a new and improved microfluidic devices that address drawbacks of current assay technology and are quick, inexpensive and easy-to-use, and moreover allow for quantitative detection (Kim, Para 0015).
While Kim teaches that methods of printing the electrodes and circuits are well known in the art, for example by screen printing (Para 0138), Kim and Usui does not explicitly teach that the thickness applied by screen printing is 5 to 15 µm.
In the analogous art of an analytical tool used for analyzing a particular component (such as glucose, cholesterol or lactic acid) contained in a sample (e.g. biochemical sample such as blood or urine), Kobayashi teaches that the thickness applied by screen printing is 5 to 15 µm (See Para 0054… working electrode 11 and the counter electrode 12 were formed to have a thickness of 10 μm by screen printing using carbon ink).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manufacturing method of Kim and Usui for the benefit of forming the working electrode 11 and the counter electrode 12 on the substrate (Kobayashi, Para 0054), allowing for the provision of a glucose sensor that can enhance the reproducibility of response current measurement and accurately measure a glucose level (Kobayashi, Para 0052).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20100261286A1) in view of Usui et al. (JP2007248101A, An English Machine Translation was obtained from WIPO Patentscope. The rejection below is based off the translation provided with the office action”) and further Kobayashi (US20060131171A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Iseda et al. (US20150282330A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the manufacturing method of claim 6 is obvious over Kim in view of Usui and further in view of Kobayashi.
Kim does not teach explicitly that the method of applying an adhesive agent or a gluing agent to an area of the substrate other than a groove is screen printing.
However, Kim teaches a method in a manner to manufacture the electrochemical sensor device 100 described above, which may also be used to manufacture microfluidic device 10. The various steps in the manufacture process include screen printing… (Para 0130).
Thus, Examiner submits under BRI that, the method of Kim for manufacturing the microfluidic device include various steps including screen printing (Supra).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of the teachings of Kim, Usui and Kobayashi to include a method of applying an adhesive agent or a gluing agent to an area of the substrate other than a groove is screen printing, as taught by Kim for the benefit of providing an alternative manner of manufacturing the microfluidic device (Kim, Para 0130). Doing so offers benefits such as providing a new and improved microfluidic devices that address drawbacks of current assay technology and are quick, inexpensive and easy-to-use, and moreover allow for quantitative detection (Kim, Para 0015).
While Kim teaches that methods of printing the electrodes and circuits are well known in the art, for example by screen printing (Para 0138), Kim does not explicitly teach that the thickness from the applied adhesive agent or gluing agent by screen printing is 5 to 15 µm.
In the analogous art of an invention relating to a conductive adhesive for screen printing which can be utilized for formation of electrodes or circuits of electronic components and the like, adhesion between components and the like, and to a joined body of inorganic material using this adhesive and a method for producing the same, Iseda teaches that the thickness from the applied adhesive agent or gluing agent by screen printing is 5 to 15 µm (See Para 0054… in the case of coating the conductive adhesive by means of screen printing to form a pattern having, for example, a thickness of from about 5 to 20 μm and a width of from about 30 to 100 μm…See Para 0064… As a method of screen printing, a customary method can be utilized. A coating thickness is from about 1 to 50 μm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manufacturing method of Kim, Usui and Kobayashi to incorporate that the thickness from the applied adhesive agent or gluing agent by screen printing is 5 to 15 µm, as taught by Iseda for the benefit of having the first inorganic material and the second inorganic material to be joined may be a different material from each other, or may be the same material (Iseda, Para 0063), allowing for the provision of a conductive adhesive in which even when a fine pattern is formed by means of screen printing, productivity is high and heat radiation properties and adhesiveness to an inorganic material can be improved, and a joined body of inorganic materials using this adhesive and also a method for producing the same (Iseda, Para 0011).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20100261286A1) in view of Usui et al. (JP2007248101A, An English Machine Translation was obtained from WIPO Patentscope. The rejection below is based off the translation provided with the office action”) and further Kobayashi (US20060131171A1), and further in view of Iseda et al. (US20150282330A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ortner et al. (US20190329251A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the manufacturing method of claim 7 is obvious over Kim in view of Usui, further in view of Kobayashi and further in view of Iseda.
The combination of Kim, Usui, Kobayashi and Iseda does not teach that the viscosity of an adhesive agent or a gluing agent to be applied by screen printing is 2,000 to 31,000 mPa-s.
In the analogous art of a method for producing fine structures or cutouts in the volume of a substrate composed of hard brittle material, in particular in a glass or glass ceramic element, Ortner teaches that the viscosity of an adhesive agent or a gluing agent (‘an acrylate adhesive’) to be applied by screen printing is 2,000 to 31,000 mPa-s (See Para 0169… In one exemplary embodiment, for the production of a microfluidic cell 12 by screen printing, an acrylate adhesive having a viscosity of 9600 mPa·s was applied to the glass element 200 on both sides…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manufacturing method of Kim and Iseda to incorporate that the viscosity of an adhesive agent or a gluing agent to be applied by screen printing is 2,000 to 31,000, as taught by Ortner for the benefit of producing a microfluidic cell screen printing (Ortner, Para 0169), allowing for the provision of a manufacturing method wherein, the processing leaves behind no damage, residues or stresses in the marginal region or volume of the substrate (Ortner, Para 0002).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20100261286A1) in view of Usui et al. (JP2007248101A, An English Machine Translation was obtained from WIPO Patentscope. The rejection below is based off the translation provided with the office action”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stults et al. (US20200041487A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the manufacturing method of claim 1 is obvious over Kim in view of Usui.
The combination of Kim and Usui does not teach that the film is cyclo-olefin polymer (COP), cyclo-olefin copolymer (COC), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polystyrene (PS), polycarbonate (PC), or polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
In the analogous art of a system for creation of assays such as assays based on the use of mass spectrometry, Stults teaches that the film (referred to as 75 µm PMMA film [Para 0174]) is cyclo-olefin polymer (COP), cyclo-olefin copolymer (COC), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polystyrene (PS), polycarbonate (PC), or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (See Para 0174… the microfluidic devices may be fabricated by hot embossing of PMMA and the channels are sealed by lamination with a 75 µm PMMA film).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manufacturing method of Kim and Usui to incorporate that the film is cyclo-olefin polymer (COP), cyclo-olefin copolymer (COC), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polystyrene (PS), polycarbonate (PC), or polyethylene terephthalate (PET), as taught by Stults, for the benefit of sealing channels by lamination with a 75 µm PMMA film (Stults, Para 0174), allowing for the provision of systems and methods of greater sensitivity, specificity, and/or cost effectiveness (Stults, Abstract).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20100261286A1) in view of Usui et al. (JP2007248101A, An English Machine Translation was obtained from WIPO Patentscope. The rejection below is based off the translation provided with the office action”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parracino et al. (US20190118174A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the manufacturing method of claim 1 is obvious over Kim in view of Usui.
The combination of Kim and Usui does not teach that the thickness of the film is 50 to 200 µm.
In the analogous art of field of microfluidics, in particular it shows that microfluidic chips are especially suitable for use in a number of immunoassays (such as ELISA immunoassays), Parracino teaches that the thickness of the film is 50 to 200 µm (See Para 0269… The use of thermoplastic material (co-olephin polymer) for the fabrication of the microfluidic chip, in particular, the use of a film with a thickness in a range between 50 and 150 μm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manufacturing method of Kim and Usui to incorporate that the the thickness of the film is 50 to 200 µm, as taught by Parracino for the benefit of using a thermoplastic material (co-olephin polymer) for the fabrication of the microfluidic chip, in particular, the use of a film with a thickness in a range between 50 and 150 μm (Parracino, Para 0269), allowing for the provision of a rapid, highly sensitive and specific method for the identification of a wide variety of analytes, including pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli or Campylobacter, in an efficient manner (Parracino, Para 0006).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20100261286A1) in view of Usui et al. (JP2007248101A, An English Machine Translation was obtained from WIPO Patentscope. The rejection below is based off the translation provided with the office action”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cooney et al. (US20120149603A1).
Regarding Claim 13, the manufacturing method of claim 1 is obvious over Kim in view of Usui.
The combination of Kim and Usui does not teach that the film is hydrophilized in an area to which the reaction substance is applied, and the reaction substance is applied on the hydrophilized area.
In the analogous art of Cooney an integrated sample analysis system, Cooney teaches that the film (referred to as top surface of the reaction chamber [Para 0037]) is hydrophilized (See Para 0037… top surface of the reaction chamber is a hydrophilic surface) in an area (‘reaction chamber’) to which the reaction substance (‘liquid sample’) is applied (See Para 0037… loading a liquid sample into the reaction chamber; ….), and the reaction substance (‘liquid sample’) is applied on the hydrophilized area (See Para 0037… loading a liquid sample into the reaction chamber, thereby teaching “the reaction substance is applied on the hydrophilized area”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manufacturing method of Kim and Usui to incorporate that the film is hydrophilized in an area to which the reaction substance is applied, and the reaction substance is applied on the hydrophilized area, as taught by Cooney for the benefit of facilitating the complete filling of the reaction chamber (Cooney, Para 0037), allowing for the development of more cost effective methods and devices for performing molecular tests using microarray technology (Cooney, Para 0004).
Regarding Claim 14, the manufacturing method of claim 13 is obvious over Kim in view of Usui and further in view of Cooney.
The combination of Kim, Usui and Cooney does not teach that the film is attached to a substrate in which at least a portion of a groove is hydrophilized.
In the analogous art of Cooney an integrated sample analysis system, Cooney teaches that the film (referred to as top surface of the reaction chamber [Para 0037]) is attached to a substrate (See Para 0037…the embodiment of the microarray) in which at least a portion of a groove (See Para 0037 for the volume/space of the reaction chamber, thereby teaching “groove”; The claimed “portion” is viewed as any part of the embodiment of the reaction chamber) is hydrophilized (See Para 0037… top surface of the reaction chamber is a hydrophilic surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manufacturing method of Kim, Usui and Cooney to incorporate that the film is attached to a substrate in which at least a portion of a groove is hydrophilized, as taught by Cooney for the benefit of facilitating the complete filling of the reaction chamber (Cooney, Para 0037), allowing for the development of more cost effective methods and devices for performing molecular tests using microarray technology (Cooney, Para 0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 and 15 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.
Regarding Claim 9, Neither Kim or Usui teach or suggest that the substrate on whose surface an adhesive agent or a gluing agent is applied is attached to the film after a stirrer is arranged at a position where the reaction portion is to be located.
It would constitute impermissible hindsight to have the substrate on whose surface an adhesive agent or a gluing agent is applied to be attached to the film after a stirrer is arranged at a position where the reaction portion is to be located without a teaching or suggestion to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 15, Neither Kim or Usui teach or suggest that that an adhesive agent is applied to an inner side area of the substrate excluding an outer circumference portion of the substrate and excluding a groove serving as a flow path, a gluing agent is applied to an outer circumference portion of the film, and the substrate and the film are attached with the adhesive agent- or gluing agent-applied side facing inward.
It would constitute impermissible hindsight to have an adhesive agent that is applied to an inner side area of the substrate excluding an outer circumference portion of the substrate and excluding a groove serving as a flow path, a gluing agent that is applied to an outer circumference portion of the film, and the substrate and the film are attached with the adhesive agent- or gluing agent-applied side facing inward without a teaching or suggestion to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahashi et al. (US20110130307A1) teaches a microanalysis chip useful for analyses of extremely trace components, and a method of manufacturing such a microanalysis chip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-1678. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached on (571) 272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797