DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
As to the claim amendments filed on 3/27/26, the previous prior art rejection is withdrawn and a new rejection has been set forth to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 6-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 6-9, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (WO 2020199125, where US 20210252501 is used as the corresponding document; both documents already of record; hereinafter “Wu”) in view of Kurowski et al (US 8580209; hereinafter “Kurowski”; already of record) and in view of Fuji (Translation of JP 2001-075111A; already of record; hereinafter “Fuji”).
As to claim 1, Wu teaches a method for manufacturing a microchip for liquid sample analysis, the microchip comprising a flow path therein, the method comprising: providing a substrate comprising on a surface thereof a groove serving as the flow path; providing another substrate capable of forming the flow path by covering the surface of the substrate to seal the groove; applying an adhesive agent and/or a gluing agent to the surface of the substrate on which the groove is formed; and attaching the another substrate on the substrate in such a manner that the another substrate and the surface of the substrate on which the adhesive agent and/or the gluing agent is/are applied overlap each other, and wherein said attaching comprises: pressing the another substrate onto the substrate at 32 to 643 kPa, and curing the adhesive agent and/or the gluing agent (Wu teaches a microfluidic chip with a substrate 200 and substrate 100 forming a flow path 240, where the substrates are placed together with an adhesive and then pressed at a pressure of 50 KPa, 100 Kpa, or 500 KPa and also UV cured; Fig. 5, [79, 82-84]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “for…”, “configured to…”, etc…). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Wu is silent to the substrate being a film. However, Kurowski teaches the analogous art of a microchip (Kurowski; abstract) where there is a film and substrate connected to form the microfluidic device (Kurowski; col. 4 line 15-25, col. 7 line 40-57) and that films and substrates are commonly adhered via heating and/or pressure (Kurowski; col. 8 line 3-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the another substrate attached to the substate with the flow path of Wu to have been a film as in Kurowski because Kurowski that films are commonly used as substrates in microfluidics (Kurowski; col. 4 line 15-25, col. 7 line 40-57) and because Kuroswki teaches that pressure and/or heating are commonly used to adhere a microfluidic substrate to another film substrate (Kurowski; col. 8 line 3-20).
Wu is silent to curing in a state where the device is pressed together. However, Wu does disclose that UV glue has fluidity before being cured and does discuss applying a pressure and then UV curing (Wu; [82-84]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have ensured that Wu was pressed during curing because this would provide the advantage of ensuring that the components were held together correctly when cured, and because Wu teaches that UV glue has fluidity prior to curing, providing the rationale of not having the component shift during curing which would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art that if pressure is removed that the glue can allow movement of the components. Alternatively, Fuji teaches the analogous art of pressing substrates and UV curing them, where the curing is in a state in which the substrates are pressed together (Fuji teaches a pressurizing bag member 80/81 which has a contacting surface as the bottom of the bag 81 and which inflates when gas is injected into it because it is an airbag; [44-47], Fig. 2c. Fuji teaches that the airbag is made of silicon rubber elastic material; [52, 60]. Fuji teaches that the pressure is applied while the UV light is provided to cure the materials; [44-47]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pressing of the substrates and also the UV curing of modified Wu to have used the elastic airbag pressing cavity to press during curing as in Fuji because Fuji teaches that the airbag helps to apply uniform pressure (Fuji; [44-47]) and that it is known to cure while applying pressure (Fuji; [44-47]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pressing of the substrates and also the UV curing of modified Wu to have pressed during curing as in Fuji because Fuji teaches that this helps to achieve the predictable results of curing the substrate while pressed (See MPEP 2143 I. A).
As to claim 6, Wu teaches the method according to claim 1, with the pressing of the substrate substrates (see above, and [74]).
Wu does not specifically teach wherein said pressing uses a member in which a cavity is formed, the member having a film-contacting surface comprising an elastic material, which film-contacting surface inflates when a gas is injected from one end of the cavity, wherein said pressing is carried out by bringing the film-contacting surface of the member into contact with the film surface of the microchip and injecting the gas into the member to apply pressure onto the film surface of the microchip. However, Fuji teaches the analogous art of pressing substrates and UV curing them, where said pressing uses a member in which a cavity is formed, the member having a film-contacting surface comprising an elastic material, which film-contacting surface inflates when a gas is injected from one end of the cavity, wherein said pressing is carried out by bringing the film-contacting surface of the member into contact with the film surface of the microchip and injecting the gas into the member to apply pressure onto the film surface of the microchip (Fuji teaches a pressurizing bag member 80/81 which has a contacting surface as the bottom of the bag 81 and which inflates when gas is injected into it because it is an airbag; [44-47], Fig. 2c.Fuji teaches that the airbag is made of silicon rubber elastic material; [52, 60]. Fuji teaches that the pressure is applied while the UV light is provided to cure the materials; [44-47]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pressing of the substrates and also the UV curing of modified Wu to have used the elastic airbag pressing cavity to press during curing as in Fuji because Fuji teaches that the airbag helps to apply uniform pressure (Fuji; [44-47]) and that it is known to cure while applying pressure (Fuji; [44-47]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pressing of the substrates and also the UV curing of modified Wu to have used the elastic airbag pressing cavity during curing as in Fuji because the pressing device could be used in combination with the pressing of the substrates to achieve the predictable results of pressing the substrates (See MPEP 2143 I. A). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the known step of using the elastic airbag pressing cavity to uniformly press objects as disclosed in Fuji as the pressing device in modified Wu because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the known technique of uniformly pressing in Fuji to improve the pressing of objects as in Wu (See MPEP 2143 I. C).
As to claim 7, modified Wu teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the member in which a cavity is formed is a member prepared by attaching a plate-like member to a sheet comprising an elastic material for covering the film surface, in such a manner that a gas can be injected into the member (The modification of the pressing of the film and substrate during UV curing of modified Wu to have used the elastic airbag pressing cavity as in Fuji has already been discussed above. Fuji teaches the rubber airbag as a sheet of elastic material that enables gas to be injected; [44-47, 52]).
As to claim 8, modified Wu teaches the method according to claim 1, with the pressing of the firm and substrate (see above, and [74]).
Modified Wu does not specifically teach wherein said pressing is carried out by applying pressure to an auxiliary sheet comprising an elastic material for covering the film surface, the auxiliary sheet being placed in the film side. However, Fuji teaches the analogous art of pressing substrates while UV curing them, pressing is carried out by applying pressure to an auxiliary sheet comprising an elastic material (Fuji teaches a pressurizing bag member 80/81 which has a contacting surface as the bottom of the bag 81 and which inflates when gas is injected into it because it is an airbag; [44-47], Fig. 2c.Fuji teaches that the airbag is made of silicon rubber elastic material; [52, 60]. Fuji teaches that the pressure is applied while the UV light is provided to cure the materials; [44-47]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pressing of the film and substrate during UV curing of modified Wu to have used the elastic airbag sheet pressing cavity as in Fuji because Fuji teaches that the airbag helps to apply uniform pressure (Fuji; [44-47]), the resulting modification being the sheet pressing the film. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pressing of the substrates during UV curing of modified Wu to have used the elastic airbag pressing cavity as in Fuji because the pressing device could be used in combination with the pressing of the substrates to achieve the predictable results of pressing the substrates (See MPEP 2143 I. A). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the known step of using the elastic airbag pressing cavity to uniformly press objects as disclosed in Fuji as the pressing device in Wu because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the known technique of uniformly pressing in Fuji to improve the pressing of objects as in Wu (See MPEP 2143 I. C).
As to claim 12, modified Wu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of attaching comprises: a step of pressing the film onto the substrate at 32 to 643 kPa, and a step of curing the adhesive agent and/or the gluing agent in a state where the film is pressed onto the substrate at 32 to 643 kPa (The modification of the curing and pressing of the film of modified Wu to be pressed during curing as in Fuji has already been discussed above. See claim 1, and Wu; [84]).
Modified Wu does not specifically teach that the pressing is at 129 to 321 kPa. However, Wu does specifically disclose a range of 10 Kpa (0.01 MPa) to 1000 KPa (1 MPa), and then Wu discloses specific examples within the range at 50 Kpa (0.05 MPa), 100 Kpa (0.1 MPa), 500 Kpa (0.5 MPa). Thus, Wu teaches similar functions and properties of the range of pressures in achieving adhered substrates, thereby showing that the claimed pressure range is not critical. Further, the claimed pressure range is entirely encompassed by the range of Wu, and the distinct examples of pressure in Wu are close to the claimed range and encompass the claimed range on either side. The pressure range disclosed in Wu is entirely predictable and would depend on time the pressure was applied, which Wu also teaches can vary. Therefore, although the ranges in Wu are disclosed with sufficient specificity, the ranges overlap and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a pressure of Wu to be 129 to 321 KPa depending on the time the adhesive was pressed and also depending on the type of adhesive, and this pressure would provide enough pressure to contact the components together without providing too much pressure to crush the component. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 13, modified Wu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive agent is a photocurable adhesive agent and the gluing agent is a photocurable gluing agent (Wu; [79, 82-84]. See also the modification in claim 1).
As to claim 14, modified Wu teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the adhesive agent is a UV-curable adhesive agent and the gluing agent is a UV-curable gluing agent (Wu; [79, 82-84]. See also the modification in claim 1).
As to claim 9, modified Wu teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the elastic material is rubber or silicone (The modification of the pressing of the film and substrate during UV curing of modified Wu to have used the elastic airbag pressing cavity as in Fuji has already been discussed above. Fuji teaches the rubber airbag; [52, 60]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (WO 2020199125, where US 20210252501 is used as the corresponding document; both documents already of record; hereinafter “Wu”) in view of Kurowski et al (US 8580209; hereinafter “Kurowski”; already of record) in view of Fuji (Translation of JP 2001-075111A; already of record; hereinafter “Fuji”) in view of Ransbury et al (US 20160143522; hereinafter “Ransbury”; already of record).
As to claims 10-11, modified Wu teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the photocurable adhesive agent and/or the photocurable gluing agent is/are a UV-curable adhesive agent and/or a UV-curable gluing agent (Wu teaches UV curable adhesive; [83]).
Modified Wu does not specifically teach the material forming the cavity/sheet is optically/UV-transparent material. However, Ransbury teaches the analogous art of a pressurized balloon cavity/sheet that is used with UV light, where the material forming the cavity/sheet is optically/UV-transparent material (Ransbury; [30, 39]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elastic rubber material used for pressing during UV curing of modified Wu to have been silicone or urethane as in Ransbury because Ransbury teaches that these materials are UV-transparent and suitable for a pressurizing balloon/airbag and also suitable for use with UV light (Ransbury; [30]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the elastic rubber material used for pressing during UV curing of Wu with the UV-transparent silicone or urethane as in Ransbury because Ransbury teaches the use of these elastic materials as balloons to achieve the same purpose of providing a pressing force (Ransbury; [30, 39]) and because this would be simply substituting a known elastic inflatable material of Wu for the known elastic inflatable material of Ransbury thereby achieving the same purpose and predictable result of providing an elastic inflatable material (See MPEP 2143 I. B).
As to claim 15, modified Wu teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the photocurable adhesive agent and/or the photocurable gluing agent is/are a UV-curable adhesive agent and/or a UV-curable gluing agent (Wu teaches UV curable adhesive; [83]), and where there is an auxiliary sheet used in the step of attaching (The modification of the pressing of the substrates during UV curing of modified Wu to have used the elastic airbag pressing cavity as in Fuji has already been discussed above in claim 8).
Modified Wu does not specifically teach the material forming the cavity/sheet is optically/UV-transparent material. However, Ransbury teaches the analogous art of a pressurized balloon cavity/sheet that is used with UV light, where the material forming the cavity/sheet is optically/UV-transparent material (Ransbury; [30, 39]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elastic rubber material used for pressing during UV curing of modified Wu to have been silicone or urethane as in Ransbury because Ransbury teaches that these materials are optically/UV-transparent and suitable for a pressurizing balloon/airbag and also suitable for use with UV light (Ransbury; [30]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the elastic rubber material used for pressing during UV curing of Wu with the optically/UV-transparent silicone or urethane as in Ransbury because Ransbury teaches the use of these elastic materials as balloons to achieve the same purpose of providing a pressing force (Ransbury; [30, 39]) and because this would be simply substituting a known elastic inflatable material of Wu for the known elastic inflatable material of Ransbury thereby achieving the same purpose and predictable result of providing an elastic inflatable material (See MPEP 2143 I. B).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Kurowski et al (US 8580209; hereinafter “Kurowski”; already of record) teaches various film adhesion contact pressures and times as known variables; col. 8 line 3-20.
Cho et al (US 20160038941; hereinafter “Cho”; already of record) teaches various substrate adhesion techniques [41, 42] and that the amount of adhesive, pressure, and duration/time are result effective variables [45].
Matsumoto et al (US 20140011268; hereinafter “Matsumoto”; already of record) teaches various bonding processes to bond substrate layers; [147].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/27/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are towards the amended claims and not the current rejection. However, in order to advance prosecution, the examiner will address applicants arguments that pertain to the current rejection.
Applicants argue on page 5 of their remarks that Wu teaches a “chamber” and not a “flow path” as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the only limitation claimed is a “flow path” and there is nothing to preclude a chamber from forming a flow path. Further, Wu does teach a flow path 240 where there is a respective inlet and outlet formed; see Fig. 5B, [79].
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 BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights