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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 70-78 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected micro-droplet generating system and method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 13 MARCH 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I: Claims 51-69 in the reply filed on 13 MARCH 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that because Groups I and III include a special technical feature they should be linked as one group. This is not found persuasive because in 371 cases a restriction is proper if the special technical feature makes a ‘contribution’ over the prior art with respect to novelty and inventive step. It is not whether the shared feature is common / shared among groups and there is undue burden.
Since the WO reference teaches this special technical feature and it lacks novelty and or lacks inventive step.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
In the election on 13 MARCH 2026, Applicant has elected Group I: Claims 51-69. Applicant has cancelled Claim 53. Claims 1-50 were previously cancelled.
Current pending claims are Claims 51, 52 and 54-69 and are considered on the merits below.
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 23 JUNE 2023 was filed. The submission 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 07 OCTOBER 2023 was filed. The submission 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 14 APRIL 2025 was filed. The submission 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 06 OCTOBER 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A liquid droplet driving unit is used for driving the liquid injected into the fluid channel layer to flow in the fluid channel layer so as to form liquid micro-droplets at a position of the suction points in claim 51.
A ‘unit’ does not connote any particular structure. The specification describes the ‘driving unit’ as an electrode driving unit, [0017] and claim 63 and 68.
A rotation driving unit is used for driving the microfluidic chip…in claim 64 and …drives the microfluidic chip to rotate at a rotation speed greater than 0 rpm and less than or equal to 1000 rpm in claim 65.
A ‘unit’ does not connote any particular structure. The specification does not describe what the ‘rotation driving unit’ is.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “rotation driving unit drives the microfluidic chip to rotate at a rotation speed greater than 0 rpm and less than or equal to 1000 rpm” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of rotating performed by “rotation.” There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to rotate at a rotation speed. The use of the term “rotating ” is not adequate structure for performing the maintaining function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which brightening structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of rotate. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 51, 52, 54, 55, 63 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MGI TECH, WO 2020/094116 A1, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 23 JUNE 2023, Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 1.
Applicant’s invention is directed towards a system.
Regarding Claim 51, the reference MGI TECH discloses a micro-droplet generating system, abstract, comprising: a microfluidic chip, apparatus, Figure 2A, 4A, 6a, [0007], and a droplet driving unit connected to the microfluidic chip, electrodes 24 and 27 , wherein the microfluidic chip comprises an upper electrode plate and a lower electrode plate, Figure 2A, [0060, 0061], first substrate 22 with dielectric layer 23 and electrodes 24a-c, second substrate 28 with electrode 27, a fluid channel layer formed between the upper electrode plate and the lower electrode plate, Figure 2A, spacer 29, at least one of the upper electrode plate and the lower electrode plate forms a plurality of suction points, and the suction points are used for adsorbing liquid, Figure 2A, actuation electrodes 24a-c, [0060-0061, 0074, 0076, 0082]; wherein a liquid droplet driving unit is used for driving the liquid injected into the fluid channel layer to flow in the fluid channel layer so as to form liquid micro-droplets at a position of the suction points, [0062, 0082], wherein said suction points are formed by a plurality of first electrodes actuated by an electrode layer, adjacent actuated electrodes being spaced apart by a plurality of second electrodes not actuated, [0082].
Additional Disclosures Included are: Claim 52: wherein the micro-droplet generation system of claim 51, wherein the upper electrode plate comprises an upper plate, a conductive layer and a first hydrophobic layer which are sequentially arranged, Figure 2A, [0065], substrate, electrode 27 and hydrophobic material; wherein the lower plate comprises a second hydrophobic layer, a dielectric layer, [[an]] the electrode layer and a substrate which are sequentially arranged, Figure 2B, [0067], electrode 27b has hydrophobic material, insulating layer and electrodes 24, the first hydrophobic layer and the second hydrophobic layer are oppositely arranged, Figure 2A, 2B, the fluid channel layer is formed between the first hydrophobic layer and the second hydrophobic layer, and the electrode layer comprises [[a]] the plurality of first electrodes and the plurality of second electrodes arranged in an array, Figure 2A, 2B, [0065-0067].; Claim 54: wherein the micro-droplet generating system of claim 52, wherein the upper electrode plate forms a hydrophilic point array on one side of the first hydrophobic layer far away from the conductive layer, the hydrophilic points of the hydrophilic point array are the suction points, and adjacent hydrophilic points are arranged at intervals, [0079].; Claim 55: wherein the micro-droplet generation system of claim 52, wherein [[said]]each electrode on [[of]] the [[said]] electrode layer is hexagonal and/or square in shape, [0078].; Claim 63: wherein the micro-droplet generation system according to claim 52, wherein the liquid droplet driving unit is an electrode driving unit connected to the electrode layer and used for controlling opening and closing of the electrode of the electrode layer so as to control the flow of liquid injected into the fluid channel layer in the fluid channel layer and form liquid micro-droplets at the position of the suction points, [0065, 0066, 0068], control circuit, Figure 6A.; and Claim 64: wherein the micro-droplet generation system according to claim 52, wherein a liquid injection hole is formed in the center of the microfluidic chip; the liquid injection hole is used for injecting liquid into the fluid channel layer, Figure 6A, [0091] , sample inlet, the microfluidic chip is also provided with a plurality of liquid drain holes, wherein the plurality of liquid drain holes are used for discharging excess liquid from the microfluidic chip, Figure 6A, [0091], waste region 66. the liquid droplet driving unit is a rotary driving unit, and the rotary driving unit is used for driving the microfluidic chip to rotate so that liquid injected into the fluid channel layer forms micro-droplets at the suction points in a spin- coating mode, [0090].
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 56-62 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MGI TECH, WO 2020/094116 A1, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 23 JUNE 2023, Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 1.
Regarding Claim 56, the reference MGI TECH discloses the claimed invention of the micro-droplet generation system of claim 52, including wherein the electrode layer comprises a plurality of square electrodes arranged in an array, [0078], but is silent in regards to wherein a plurality of hexagonal electrodes arranged in an array.
MGI TECH discloses the electrodes can have a polygonal shape (e.g., square, rectangular, triangular, and the like) , a circular shape, an oval shape, etc., [0078].
While MGI TECH suggest different shape, a hexagonal shape is not taught, however, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of the electrodes to be hexagonal as this is a matter of design choice and would have found it obvious absent evidence that this particular shape is significant. The hexagonal shape of the electrode would provide a larger surface area for moving and/or splitting droplets in a desired number of directions within the system.
Regarding Claim 57, the MGI TECH reference suggests the claimed invention of the micro-droplet generation system of claim 56, and includes a plurality of square electrodes arranged in an array, which can be on both side, [0078], but is silent in regards to wherein the electrode layer comprises a plurality of hexagonal electrodes arranged in an array.
While MGI TECH suggest different shape, a hexagonal shape is not taught, however, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of the electrodes to be hexagonal as this is a matter of design choice and would have found it obvious absent evidence that this particular shape is significant. The hexagonal shape of the electrode would provide a larger surface area for moving and/or splitting droplets in a desired number of directions.
Regarding Claim 58, the MGI TECH reference suggests the claimed invention of micro-droplet generation system of claim 56, including wherein the electrode layer comprises a plurality of regular-side electrodes arranged in an array, [0078], but is silent in regards to a plurality of hexagonal electrodes arranged in an array on both sides of the plurality of regular- side electrodes arranged in an array.
While MGI TECH suggest different shape, a hexagonal shape is not taught, however, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of the electrodes to be hexagonal as this is a matter of design choice and would have found it obvious absent evidence that this particular shape is significant and to have the hexagonal electrodes arranged in an array on both sides of the plurality of regular- side electrodes arranged in an array to moving and/or splitting droplets in a desired number of directions and on both sides of the regular- side electrodes creating twice as many droplets and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 59, the reference MGI TECH suggest the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to the dimensions of the electrode, in particular wherein a side length of the hexagonal electrode is 50 mm to 2 mm, and the side length of the square electrode is 50 mm to 2 mm.
MGI TECH teaches the electrodes can be arranged in various configurations and the shape of the electrodes can have a polygonal shape (e.g., square, rectangular, triangular, and the like) , a circular shape, an oval shape, etc. The configuration can be a checker-board configuration, or other geometric configurations, [0078]. MGI TECH also teaches the size of the electrodes has a smaller footprint than a footprint of a droplet, [0013]. The droplet may be spherical or non-spherical and have a size ranging from 1 micron to of about several millimeters, [0022].
Since MGI TECH teaches the electrode to have a smaller footprint than the droplet size, which ranges from 1 micron to of about several millimeters, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the MGI TECH so that the dimensions of the electrode have a side length of the hexagonal electrode is 50 mm to 2 mm, and the side length of the square electrode is 50 mm to 2 mm to effectively move and/or split the droplet upon use of the device.
Regarding Claim 60, the reference MGI TECH suggest the claimed invention and discloses wherein the electrode layer comprises a plurality of first and second square electrodes arranged in an array, [0078], but is silent in regards to a plurality of first hexagonal electrodes arranged in an array and a plurality of second hexagonal electrodes arranged in an array.
MGI TECH teaches the electrodes can be arranged in various configurations and the shape of the electrodes can have a polygonal shape (e.g., square, rectangular, triangular, and the like) , a circular shape, an oval shape, etc. The configuration can be a checker-board configuration, or other geometric configurations, [0078].
While MGI TECH suggest different shape, a hexagonal shape is not taught, however, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of the electrodes to be hexagonal as this is a matter of design choice and would have found it obvious absent evidence that this particular shape is significant and to have the hexagonal electrodes arranged in an array on both sides of the plurality of regular- side electrodes arranged in an array to moving and/or splitting droplets in a desired number of directions and on both sides of the regular- side electrodes creating twice as many droplets and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 61, the reference MGI TECH suggest the claimed invention and discloses wherein the electrode layer comprises a plurality of square electrodes arranged in an array, [0078], but is silent in regards to a plurality of first hexagonal electrodes arranged in an array, a plurality of second hexagonal electrodes arranged in an array, and a plurality of square electrodes arranged in an array, which are sequentially connected.
While MGI TECH suggest different shape, a hexagonal shape is not taught, however, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of the electrodes to be hexagonal as this is a matter of design choice and would have found it obvious absent evidence that this particular shape is significant and to have the hexagonal electrodes arranged in an array on both sides of the plurality of regular- side electrodes arranged in an array to moving and/or splitting droplets in a desired number of directions and on both sides of the regular- side electrodes creating twice as many droplets and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
MGI TECH teaches the components of the system can be positioned in a number of different orientations and is not limiting, [0059], and suggest any variations and modification of the electrode arrangement, [0092].
In addition, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the array of electrodes so that the plurality of first hexagonal electrodes arranged in an array, the plurality of second hexagonal electrodes arranged in an array, and the plurality of square electrodes arranged in an array, which are sequentially connected so that droplet can be moved and/or split in a desired fashion as a matter of design choice depending on how the droplets are to manipulated and the sequential arrangement is an obvious matter of design choice and does not modify the operation of the device, In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 62, the reference MGI TECH suggest the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the plurality of first square electrode or a side length of the square electrode is 50 mm - 2 mm, the side length of the plurality of second square electrode is 1/5-1/2 of the side length of the first square electrode, the side length of the first hexagonal electrode is 50 mm - 2 mm, and the side length of the second hexagonal electrode is 1/5-1/2 of the side length of the first hexagonal electrode.
MGI TECH teaches the electrodes can be arranged in various configurations and the shape of the electrodes can have a polygonal shape (e.g., square, rectangular, triangular, and the like) , a circular shape, an oval shape, etc. The configuration can be a checker-board configuration, or other geometric configurations, [0078]. MGI TECH also teaches the size of the electrodes has a smaller footprint than a footprint of a droplet, [0013]. The droplet may be spherical or non-spherical and have a size ranging from 1 micron to of about several millimeters, [0022].
Furthermore, MGI TECH teaches the components of the system can be positioned in a number of different orientations and is not limiting, [0059], and suggest any variations and modification of the electrode arrangement, [0092].
Since MGI TECH teaches the electrode to have a smaller footprint than the droplet size, which ranges from 1 micron to of about several millimeters and suggests different variations and modifications of the electrodes, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the MGI TECH so that the plurality of first square electrode or a side length of the square electrode is 50 mm - 2 mm, the side length of the plurality of second square electrode is 1/5-1/2 of the side length of the first square electrode, the side length of the first hexagonal electrode is 50 mm - 2 mm, and the side length of the second hexagonal electrode is 1/5-1/2 of the side length of the first hexagonal electrode to effectively move and/or split the droplet upon use of the device.
Regarding Claim 66, the MGI TECH reference teaches the claimed invention directed to the micro-droplet generation system of claim 64, including a distance between the first hydrophobic layer and the second hydrophobic layer is 5 mm - 600 mm, [0064], Figure 2A, but is silent in regards to wherein the electrode is hexagonal, a side length of the electrode is 50mm - 2mm.
MGI TECH teaches the electrodes can be arranged in various configurations and the shape of the electrodes can have a polygonal shape (e.g., square, rectangular, triangular, and the like) , a circular shape, an oval shape, etc. The configuration can be a checker-board configuration, or other geometric configurations, [0078]. MGI TECH also teaches the size of the electrodes has a smaller footprint than a footprint of a droplet, [0013]. The droplet may be spherical or non-spherical and have a size ranging from 1 micron to of about several millimeters, [0022].
Since MGI TECH teaches the electrode to have a smaller footprint than the droplet size, which ranges from 1 micron to of about several millimeters, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the MGI TECH so that the dimensions of the electrode have a side length of the hexagonal electrode is 50 mm to 2 mm, and the side length of the square electrode is 50 mm to 2 mm to effectively move and/or split the droplet upon use of the device.
Claims 67-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MGI TECH, WO 2020/094116 A1, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 23 JUNE 2023, Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 1, and further in view of SHABANI, Lab Chip, 2011, 11, 3401.
Regarding Claim 67, the MGI TECH reference discloses the micro-droplet generation system according to claim 52, See Rejection to Claim 52 above, including wherein the microfluidic chip is provided with a first sample injection hole and a first sample drain hole, the first sample injection hole and the first sample drain hole are arranged on a first diagonal line of the microfluidic chip, Figure 6A, [0090-0091], but is silent in regards to wherein the liquid droplet driving unit includes a first micropump and a third micropump, wherein the first micropump is connected to the first sample injection hole and is used for injecting liquid into the fluid channel layer so that the fluid channel layer is filled with the liquid, and the third micropump is connected to the first sample drain hole and is used for extracting the liquid or gas flowing out of the first sample drain hole so as to form micro-droplets at the suction points.
The SHABANI reference discloses a micro-droplet generation system, Figure 1-3, comprising: a microfluidic chip and a droplet driving unit connected to the microfluidic chip, Figure 3, wherein the microfluidic chip comprises an upper electrode plate and a lower electrode plate, Figure 1, page 3401-3402, silicon substrate and metallic tube, a fluid channel layer is formed between the upper electrode plate and the lower electrode plate, Figure 1 and 3, at least one of the upper electrode plate and the lower electrode plate forms a plurality of suction points, Figure 1 and 3,; wherein a liquid droplet driving unit is used for driving the liquid injected into the fluid channel layer to flow in the fluid channel layer so as to form liquid micro-droplets at a position of the suction points, Figure 3, wherein the liquid droplet driving unit includes a micropump, wherein the micropump is connected to a sample injection hold and is used for injecting liquid into the fluid channel layer so that the fluid channel layer is filled with the liquid, Figure 3.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a micropump as the liquid droplet driving unit as taught by SHABANI to have an on-demand micropump which utilizes Laplace pressure gradient between a droplet and a liquid meniscus as a propellant source, and an alteration of the surface wettability as a valving method without using any moving parts, page 3401.
SHABANI teaches the use of a micropump, but not a third micropump, wherein the third micropump is connected to the first sample drain hole and is used for extracting the liquid or gas flowing out of the first sample drain hole so as to form micro-droplets at the suction points as this would also utilize a Laplace pressure gradient between a droplet and a liquid meniscus as a propellant source, and an alteration of the surface wettability as a valving method without using any moving parts and to have fluid flow through at a constant flow rate, page 3401, 3403, and by providing another micropump this would allow for a constant flow rate through the outlet and a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) .
Regarding Claim 68, the combination of MGI TECH and SHABANI suggest the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to more than one injection hole and micropump.
However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide more than one sample injection hold and micropump as required by the instant claim to increase the number of samples process to generate droplet and to provide an active pumping means to create a constant flow rate through the entirety of the device creating a constant generation of droplet and so that a droplet may be surrounded by or wrapped in fluid at the suction point and a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 69, combination of MGI TECH and SHABANI suggest the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to the specific thicknesses of components of the system.
SHABANI discloses the thickness of some of the components, [0064, 0065 0067, 0094].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of the components such that the thickness of the upper plate is 0.05 mm to 1.7 mm, the thickness of the substrate is 0.05 mm to 1.7 mm, the thickness of the conductive layer is 10 nm to 500 nm, the thickness of the dielectric layer is 50 nm to 1000 nm, the thickness of the electrode layer is 10 nm to 1000 nm, the thickness of the first hydrophobic layer is 10 nm to 200 nm, and the thickness of the second hydrophobic layer is 10 nm to 200 nm so that the device can operate directly as an EWOD device for accurately manipulating a droplet, [0098].
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MGI TECH, WO 2020/094116 A1, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 23 JUNE 2023, Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 1, and further in view of UMAPATHI, US Publication No. 2018/0318826 A1.
Regarding Claim 65, the reference MGI TECH teaches the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein included in the system ais rotation driving unit.
UMAPATHI discloses an electrowetting on dielectric actuator that causes droplets to change the contact angle between the droplet and a surface that the droplet is touching. This in turn may cause the droplet to change shape, to move, to split into smaller droplets, or to merge with another droplet, abstract, [0006]. In some cases, the EWOD actuator is configured to cause the movement to occur while the drops are above the EWOD actuator. In some cases, the apparatus includes a robot that is configured to actuate rotation of the EWOD actuator in such a way that a given surface of the EWOD actuator comprises a top surface of the EWOD actuator before the rotation and comprises the bottom surface after the rotation. In some cases, the EWOD actuator is configured to modulate voltage of each electrode in the array, respectively, in such a way that electric fields created by the electrodes cause the drops to touch and press against the actuator throughout the entire rotation, [0261].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a rotation driving unit at a rotation speed greater than 0 rpm and less than or equal to 1000 rpm to promote mixing , heat transfer enhancement , prevent droplet collision.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T MUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3243. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 -15:30 EST.
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 at (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 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.
CTM
/CHRISTINE T MUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights