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 .
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 1-4, 7-8, 16, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiou et al (US20190078140A1 published 03/14/2019; hereinafter Chiou).
Regarding claim 1, Chiou teaches a microfluidic substrate (a multiplex slide plate device with a slide plate 10, a sacrificial layer 20, and a housing 30 – Fig. 1 and paragraph 44) comprising:
a plurality of microcavities arranged in an array (the reaction vessels 160a-f – Fig. 3), wherein at least some of the plurality of microcavities are through holes (the reaction vessels 160d and 160f are through holes – Fig. 3), and
[AltContent: textbox (a symmetry axis parallel to the reference plane)][AltContent: arrow]a tangent plane at each of at least some points on a sidewall (tangent planes at points on the sidewalls of the reaction vessels 160d and 160f – Fig. 3) of each microcavity forms a non-perpendicular angle with a reference plane (a reference plane with the slide plate 10 – Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 2) where the microfluidic substrate is located (tangent planes at points on the sidewalls of the reaction vessels 160d and 160f are non-perpendicular with the reference plane – Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Chiou teaches the microfluidic substrate of claim 1, wherein the sidewall of each microcavity comprises at least one of a curved surface (The cross-sectional shape of the reaction vessels may be a circle – paragraph 50) and an inclined surface (inclined side walls of the reaction vessels 160d and 160f – Fig. 3), the inclined surface is non-perpendicular to the reference plane (the inclined side walls are non-perpendicular to the reference plane – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Chiou teaches the microfluidic substrate of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of microcavities is a through hole (the reaction vessels 160d and 160f are through holes – Fig. 3), and each microcavity comprises a top opening and a bottom opening (the reaction vessels 160d and 160f having top and bottom openings – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Chiou teaches the microfluidic substrate of claim 3, wherein a shape of each microcavity is a circular truncated cone or a regular prismoid (The cross-sectional shape of the reaction vessels may be a square – paragraph 50), and an area of an orthographic projection of the top opening of each microcavity on the reference plane is larger than an area of an orthographic projection of the bottom opening of each microcavity on the reference plane (the top openings of the reaction vessels 160d, 160e, 160f is larger than the bottom openings of the reaction vessels 160d, 160e, 160f – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Chiou teaches the microfluidic substrate of claim 3, wherein a shape of each microcavity is axisymmetric about a symmetry axis (each reaction vessel is symmetric about a symmetry axis – Fig. 3), the symmetry axis is parallel to the reference plane (the symmetry axis is parallel to the reference plane – Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Chiou teaches the microfluidic substrate of claim 7,
wherein each microcavity comprises a first portion (an exhaust hole 44 and exhaust hole 14 – Fig. 4) and a second portion (reaction vessels 102 of the slide plate 10 – Figs. 2-4) stacked on and penetrating through each other (the exhaust hole 44, exhaust hole 14 and reaction vessels 102 are stacked on each other with the exhaust hole 44, exhaust hole 14 penetrating the slide plate 10 – Fig. 4), the first portion and the second portion are axisymmetric about the symmetry axis (the exhaust hole 44, exhaust hole 14 penetrating the slide plate 10 are symmetrical about the symmetry axis– Fig. 4), and a shape of each of the first portion and the second portion is one of a circular truncated cone (the exhaust hole 44, exhaust hole 14 are truncated cones – Fig. 4) and a regular prismoid (the reaction vessels 102 are prismoids – Figs. 2-4), and
wherein an area of an orthographic projection of a first top opening of the first portion on the reference plane is larger than an area of an orthographic projection of a second bottom opening of the first portion on the reference plane (an opening in the exhaust hole 44 is larger than an opening in the exhaust hole 14 – Fig. 4), an area of an orthographic projection of a third top opening of the second portion on the reference plane is smaller than an area of an orthographic projection of a fourth bottom opening of the second portion on the reference plane (a top opening of the reaction vessel 160f is larger than an bottom opening of the reaction vessel 160f – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Chiou teaches the microfluidic substrate of claim 1, wherein others of the plurality of microcavities are blind holes (the reaction vessels 160a and 160 b are blind holes– Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 25, Chiou teaches a microfluidic chip comprising the microfluidic substrate of claim 1, a counter substrate assembled with the microfluidic substrate (a bottom plate 50 assembled with the slide plate 10 – Fig. 1), and an encapsulant (a sacrificial layer 20 – Fig. 1) between the microfluidic substrate and the counter substrate (the material of the sacrificial layer 20 may include wax, so the sacrificial layer 20 melts when it is heated to about 60° C – paragraph 53).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiou.
Regarding claim 5, Chiou teaches the microfluidic substrate of claim 4, wherein an angle between a normal (a normal – annotated Fig. 2) of any point on the sidewall of each microcavity (the sidewalls are between 110°-120° to the bottom of the bottom portion 102b of the reaction vessel – paragraph 47) and a reference line is 82°~85° (a reference line – annotated Fig. 2) (there exists reference plane and reference line such that the reference line makes an angle between 82°~85° with the normal of the side wall – annotated Fig. 2), the reference line is perpendicular to the reference plane (the reference line is perpendicular to the reference plane – annotated Fig. 2), and wherein a shape of the top opening of each microcavity is a circle (The cross-sectional shape of the reaction vessels may be a circle – paragraph 50).
Although Chiou does not teach a diameter of the circle is 110~130µm, per MPEP 2144.04IV where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the size of the top opening of the reaction vessels.
Regarding claim 15, Chiou teaches the microfluidic substrate of claim 3.
Although Chiou does not teach a diameter of the top opening is 210-230 µm, and a depth of each microcavity is 300 µm, per MPEP 2144.04IV where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the relative dimensions of the reaction vessels.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiou in view of Watanabe et al (US20180104686A1 published 04/19/2018; hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 21, Chiou teaches the microfluidic substrate of claim 1, wherein a distance between two adjacent microcavities in the plurality of microcavities is 20-50 µm (The pitch (p1) between the reaction vessels 102 may range from 25 μm-40 μm – paragraph 47 and Fig. 2).
However, Chiou does not teach wherein the plurality of microcavities are arranged in a glass substrate of the microfluidic substrate.
Watanabe teaches a micro-chamber array wherein the plurality of microcavities are arranged in a glass substrate of the microfluidic substrate (the micro-chambers 26 are arranged on a glass substrate 22 – Fig. 2 and paragraph 91). Watanabe also teaches to use a glass substrate 22 so that an electrode layer 23a is formed by vapor-depositing a metal on the surface of the glass substrate 22 to heat the micro-chambers 26 (paragraphs 92 and 163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate material, as taught by Chiou, with the glass substrate 22, taught by Watanabe, so that an electrode layer 23a can be formed to heat the micro-chambers 26. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Chiou and Watanabe teach micro-chamber arrays.
Regarding claim 22, Chiou teaches the microfluidic substrate of claim 1.
However, Chiou does not teach further comprising: a heating electrode, wherein the heating electrode is arranged in a region between two adjacent microcavities on at least one of a first surface and a second surface of the microfluidic substrate which are opposite.
Watanabe teaches a micro-chamber array further comprising: a heating electrode (the electrode 23 from by the electrode layer 23a – Fig. 2 and paragraphs 92 and 163), wherein the heating electrode is arranged in a region between two adjacent microcavities (the electrode 23 is between two adjacent microchambers 26 – Fig. 2) on at least one of a first surface and a second surface of the microfluidic substrate which are opposite (the electrode 23 is located on a first surface of the glass substrate 22 on the left of the micro-chamber 26 and a second surface of the glass substrate 22 on the right of the micro-chamber 26 – Fig. 2). Watanabe also teaches to use an electrode 23 to heat the micro-chambers 26 (paragraph 163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate material, as taught by Chiou, with the glass substrate 22 and electrode 23, taught by Watanabe, to heat the micro-chambers 26. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Chiou and Watanabe teach micro-chamber arrays.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-11, 13, 17, 19 and 24 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 6, the art on record do not teach “a portion of the hydrophobic layer on the first surface comprises a plurality of first vias, and a portion of the hydrophobic layer on the second surface comprises a plurality of second vias”. Chang (US Pat No. 9239328 B2) is the closest art on record that teaches a plurality of second vias (logic circuitry 510 – Fig. 8). However, Chang does not teach the logic circuitry 510 is formed in a hydrophobic layer.
Furthermore, the examiner did not find a motivation to modify the Chiou reference to add vias and a hydrophobic layer.
Regarding claim 9, the art on record do not teach “each microcavity further comprises a third portion between the first portion and the second portion and connecting the first portion and the second portion”. Furthermore, the examiner did not find a motivation to modify the Chiou reference to add a third portion. Claim 10 and 11 dependent on claim 9 are also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 13, the art on record do not teach does not teach “a vertical distance from any point on the sidewall of each microcavity to a reference line is greater than a radius of the top opening, and the reference line passes through centers of the top opening and the bottom opening and is perpendicular to the reference plane”. Furthermore, the examiner did not find a motivation to modify the Chiou reference to arrive at the claimed shape.
Regarding claim 17, the art on record do not teach does not teach “a vertical distance from any point on the sidewall of the blind hole to a reference line is greater than a radius of the top opening, the reference line passes through the center of the top opening and is perpendicular to the reference plane”. Furthermore, the examiner did not find a motivation to modify the Chiou reference to arrive at the claimed shape. Claim 19 dependent on claim 17 is also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 24, the art on record do not teach “the conductive layer being electrically connected to the heating electrode through vias in the second dielectric layer”. Furthermore, the examiner did not find a motivation to modify the Chiou reference to add vias and a hydrophobic layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINGCHEN SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/T.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798