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
This is an office action in response to Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 26 November 2025. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application. Claims 1-9 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objections of claims 2 and 3 are withdrawn in view of amendments.
The interpretations of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are withdrawn in view of amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of amendments; however, a new ground of rejection is made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 26 November 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under U.S.C. 103 in view of Oliveira, et. al. ("Low-Cost and Rapid-Production Microfluidic Electrochemical Double-Layer Capacitors for Fast and Sensitive Breast Cancer Diagnosis") (2018) in view of Link (US 20130260447 A1) and claim 9 under U.S.C. 103 in view of Oliveira, et. al. ("Low-Cost and Rapid-Production Microfluidic Electrochemical Double-Layer Capacitors for Fast and Sensitive Breast Cancer Diagnosis") (2018) and Link (US 20130260447 A1) in further view of Teixeira, et. al. ("Renewable Solid Electrodes in Microfluidics: Recovering the Electrochemical Activity without Treating the Surface") have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oliveira, et. al. ("Low-Cost and Rapid-Production Microfluidic Electrochemical Double-Layer Capacitors for Fast and Sensitive Breast Cancer Diagnosis") in view of Camargo, et. al. (Cleanroom-free, fast, solventless, and bondless fabrication and application in high throughput liquid-liquid extraction") (copies of both provided with office action dated 29 July 2025).
Oliveira in view of Camargo remedies the missing elements of the microfluidic device being portable and the microfluidic device is capable of being used with an oil sample (Remarks, pg. 06, par. 02).
Applicant offers no additional arguments for claims 2-9 outside of their dependence on claim 1 (Remarks, pg. 06, par. 03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira, et. al. ("Low-Cost and Rapid-Production Microfluidic Electrochemical Double-Layer Capacitors for Fast and Sensitive Breast Cancer Diagnosis") in view of Camargo, et. al. (Cleanroom-free, fast, solventless, and bondless fabrication and application in high throughput liquid-liquid extraction") (citations for both made with respect to the provided copy with office action dated 29 July 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Oliveira teaches low-cost microfluidic sensor with capillary capacitors for sample analysis (Abstract), comprising an electrochemical double-layer capillary capacitors embedded in a PDMS substrate (pg. 12378, col. 1, par. 02) (a portable microfluidic system) wherein the electrodes are capillaries that inserted from one side of the substate and span across the width of the substrate to come out across the other side of the substrate (Fig. 1) (wherein the microfluidic chips comprise microfluidic channels comprising capacitive sensors). Oliveira teaches that pre-mixed/pre-treated sample (pg. 12380, "Modification of the MBs with Polyclonal Antibodies (MBs-Ab)" section) is introduced into the system via syringes (pg. 12378, par. 01) (syringe pumps configured to provide flow through the microfluidic chips). Oliveira teaches this device can be made portable by further comprising a hand-held potentiostat and a smart phone to control the potentiostat (pg. 12382; par. 04) (a portable smartphone-controlled potentiostat configured to analyze impedance using data from the capacitive sensors).
Oliveira is silent to a microfluidic chip for oil sample analysis, microfluidic chips configured to extract an aqueous phase from an oil sample having a BSW value lower than 1%, wherein the microfluidic chips are configured to operate under turbulent flow.
Camargo teaches a microfluidic device that provides turbulence under harsh flow rates (Abstract). Camargo teaches a microfluidic device formed through PSR (pg. 75, section 2.2 "Microfabrication") that uses multiple inlets with syringe pumps into channels to generate microemulsions to mix different fluids together by the turbulent flow (pg. 76, section 2.5 "Turbulence"; pg. 77, section 3.2 "Turbulence") and uses a potentiostat for analysis of the sample mixture (pg. 76, section 2.6 “Elastic deformation”) (the microfluidic chips are configured to operate under turbulent flow). Camargo teaches one application is the formation of microemulsions of water and oil to liquid-liquid extractions (pg. 75, section 2.7 "Liquid-liquid extraction) (for oil sample analysis) (microfluidic chips configured to extract an aqueous phase from an oil sample). Camargo teaches performing a liquid-liquid extraction on a microscale by a microfluidic device reduces solvent volumes and waste production and allows for easy automation of a common preconcentration, pre-treatment step (pg. 81, section 3.6 "Comparison with the literature: liquid-liquid extraction).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microfluidic analysis chip of Oliveira to further include channels that induce turbulent flow for extractions as taught by Camargo in order to perform a common extraction/pre-treatment step in mixed samples while maintaining the automatic function of the chip. Because both devices are microfluidic devices using a potentiostat to analyze a mixed sample, modifying the microfluidic device channels to have a turbulent flow as provided by Camargo, provides likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Examiner notes “an oil sample having a BSW value lower than 1%” is drawn to a functional limitation of the microfluidic device. Further “an oil sample” is not a positively recited element of the microfluidic device. Therefore, the microfluidic device as taught by Oliveira in view of Camargo is capable of being used with an oil sample having a BSW value lower than 1%.
Regarding claim 2, modified Oliveira teaches a method of producing a microfluidic device by sequential steps of polymerization and scaffold removal (PSR) (pg. 12379, col. 1, "Device Prototyping" section) (wherein the microfluidic chips are built by methods of polymerization and scaffold removal (PSR)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Oliveira teaches the microfluidic device is made from polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), a silicone-based polymer (pg. 12379, col. 1, "Device Prototyping" section) (wherein the microfluidic chips comprise silicone).
Regarding claim 4, modified Oliveira teaches the electrodes used in the microfluidic system are stainless steel capillaries (pg. 12379, col. 1, "Electrodes" section) (wherein the capacitive sensors comprise stainless steel capillaries).
Regarding claim 5, modified Oliveira teaches the stainless steel capillaries are spaces roughly 200 µm apart (pg. 12379, col. 1, "Electrodes" section) (wherein the capacitive sensors have a spacing of 200 µm between each other).
Regarding claim 6, modified Oliveira teaches the stainless steel capillaries are short-circuited with copper pieces producing an association of capacitors in parallel (pg. 12379, col. 1, "Device Prototyping" section) (wherein the stainless steel capillaries are short-circuited with copper pieces, obtaining an association of capacitors in parallel).
Regarding claim 7, modified Oliveira teaches the stainless steel capillaries are connected to each other by Tygon tubes to complete the fluidic circuit; Tygon is known to be made from poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) (pg. 12379, col. 1, "Device Prototyping" section) (wherein poly(vinyl chloride) hoses connect the stainless steel capillaries to each other to complete a microfluidic circuit).
Regarding claim 8, modified Oliveira teaches the PDMS for the microfluidic device as four to eight channels in parallel to one another (pg. 12379, col. 1, "Device Prototyping" section) (wherein the capacitive sensors have four or eight pairs of capacitors in parallel).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira, et. al. ("Low-Cost and Rapid-Production Microfluidic Electrochemical Double-Layer Capacitors for Fast and Sensitive Breast Cancer Diagnosis") (2018) and Camargo, et. al. (Cleanroom-free, fast, solventless, and bondless fabrication and application in high throughput liquid-liquid extraction") as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Teixeira, et. al. ("Renewable Solid Electrodes in Microfluidics: Recovering the Electrochemical Activity without Treating the Surface") (all citations made with respect to the provided copy with office action dated 29 July 2025).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Oliveira teaches the limitations as applied to claim 2 above.
Modified Oliveira is silent to the sensor obtained by soft lithography, the flat, gold interdigitated Capacitors are deposited on glass plates by physical evaporation techniques in the vapor phase.
Teixeira teaches an electrode sensor formed by lithography (pg. 11201; par. 02) (wherein the microfluidic chips obtained by soft lithography) that uses stainless steel microwires coated with chromium and gold layer by electron beam vapor deposition (pg. 11201; col. 1, "Experimental Section - Electrodes" section) (comprise flat, gold interdigitated capacitors deposited on glass plates by physical evaporation techniques in vapor phase). Teixeira teaches teach a flat support of metal and glass (Fig. 1 description). Teixeira teaches this sensor method reduces the common problems of contamination, passivation, or fouling of electrodes (pg. 11199, par. 01) by using renewable solid-state electrodes (pg. 11200; par. 01).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the PSR-based sensor of Oliveira with the lithography- based sensor or Teixeira in order to produce a sensor not prone to common problems of contamination, passivation, or fouling. Because both sensors are part of a larger microfluidic system and use electrochemical means of detection, substituting eh PSR- based sensor of Oliveira with the lithography-based sensor of Teixeira, provides likewise sought after functionality with predictable results. MPEP 2143(1)(B).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON T HERBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30a-5:00p.
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.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758