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
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 16-26 in the reply filed on 03/31/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the arts cited does not explicitly disclose the claimed device of claim 1 as amended. The traversal has been fully considered and are persuasive, and the restriction requirement mailed on 02/05/26 is withdrew. However, upon further consideration, a new a posteriori lack of unity is made in view of Sparey-Taylor (US 2004/0066703 A1) as cited in previous Office Action in view of Hood (Modelling the Operating Frequency of Thin Film Piezoelectric Transducers, 2007).
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 16-26, drawn to a device.
Group II, claim(s) 27-30, drawn to a method of using the device.
Group III, claim(s) 31-33, drawn to a method of manufacturing the device.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of an acoustofluidic device of claim 16, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Sparey-Taylor. See rejection of claim 16 below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 17 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.
The claim recites the thickness of the of the transducer is 5 mm or less, yet the parent claim 16 already states the thickness is less than 10 microns. Therefore, claim 17 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 16 when it improperly broadens the scope of the upper limit to 5 mm from 10 microns.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 16-19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparey-Taylor in view of Hood.
Regarding claims 16-17, Sparey-Taylor discloses an acoustofluidic device (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a substrate (12, Fig. 1) in which a microfluidic cavity (fluid duct 30 and 34, Fig. 1) is positioned;
an ultrasound transducer in acoustic contact with at least a part of a surface of the substrate (transducer 28, Fig. 1), wherein the ultrasound transducer can be thin film (Piezoelectric thin film transducers; para. [0033]). However, Sparey-Taylor does not disclose the thin film ultrasound transducer has a thickness of less than 10 microns.
PNG
media_image1.png
692
923
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sparey-Taylor discloses the operating frequencies is between 6-200 MHz (para. [0014]) and the thickness of the film should be half or a fourth of the wavelength at the selected frequency (The piezoelectric thickness generally will need to be between one-fourth and one half the wavelength at the selected frequency depending on acoustic matches at the fluid interface to operate on the most efficient fundamental thickness resonance. Para. [0033]).
Analogous art Hood discloses modeling an operating frequency of thin film piezoelectric transducer using a 4 microns thick AIN (aluminum nitride) active layer on a glass substrate (1 mm) (Experimental Details, page 1705) for operating frequency between 60 and 350 MHZ.
The thickness can be determined by formula
f
=
v
2
d
Where f is operating frequency (1-200 MHz, 2e8 Hz), v is the acoustic velocity (5,600 m/s for AIN in Hood and 4400 m/s lead-zirconate-tianate (pzt, para. [0033]) in Sparey-Taylor), d is the wavelength.
d
=
v
2
f
d
=
5600
m
s
o
r
4,400
m
s
2
*
2
e
8
H
z
d = 14 microns for AIN or 11 for PZT
Sparey-Taylor discloses the actual thickness should be half or a fourth of the wavelength.
Actual thickness is 2.75 to 5.5 microns for PBT and 3.5 to 7 microns for AIN.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have derived the claimed thickness of the thin film transducer of Sparey-Taylor device based on operating frequency and the material of transducer based on disclosure of Hood as using a thinner film allows for higher operating frequency.
Regarding claim 18, Modified Sparey-Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 16. Sparey-Taylor discloses wherein the thin film ultrasound transducer comprises a layer of piezoelectric or electrostrictive material placed between a first electrode layer defining a first side of the thin film ultrasound transducer and a second electrode layer defining a second side of the thin film ultrasound transducer, and wherein the first side of the thin film ultrasound transducer is in acoustic contact with the at least a part of the surface of the substrate (In accordance with certain preferred embodiments, transducers comprise a layer of pzt, such as Ferroperm PZT26, and, on two opposed sides, have an electrode. The electrode is usually silver or gold on a chromium adhesion layer. The radiation frequency (RF) is supplied with two conductors, one to each electrode. Para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Sparey-Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 16. Sparey-Taylor discloses a further thin film ultrasound transducer (interpret as a second thin film ultrasound transducer) in acoustic contact with at least a part of the surface of the substrate so as to transfer ultrasonic vibrations to the substrate, thereby causing the whole substrate to vibrate (transducers 148 and 128, Fig. 4; para. [0041]).
PNG
media_image2.png
788
920
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sparey-Taylor does not disclose the thin film ultrasound transducer has a thickness of less than 10 microns.
Sparey-Taylor discloses the operating frequencies is between 6-200 MHz (para. [0014]) and the thickness of the film should be half or a fourth of the wavelength at the selected frequency (The piezoelectric thickness generally will need to be between one-fourth and one half the wavelength at the selected frequency depending on acoustic matches at the fluid interface to operate on the most efficient fundamental thickness resonance. Para. [0033]).
Analogous art Hood discloses modeling an operating frequency of thin film piezoelectric transducer using a 4 microns thick AIN (aluminum nitride) active layer on a glass substrate (1 mm) (Experimental Details, page 1705) for operating frequency between 60 and 350 MHZ.
The thickness can be determined by formula
f
=
v
2
d
Where f is operating frequency (1-200 MHz, 2e8 Hz), v is the acoustic velocity (5,600 m/s for AIN in Hood and 4400 m/s lead-zirconate-tianate (pzt, para. [0033]) in Sparey-Taylor), d is the wavelength.
d
=
v
2
f
d
=
5600
m
s
o
r
4,400
m
s
2
*
2
e
8
H
z
d = 14 microns for AIN or 11 for PZT
Sparey-Taylor discloses the actual thickness should be half or a fourth of the wavelength.
Actual thickness is 2.75 to 5.5 microns for PBT and 3.5 to 7 microns for AIN.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have derived the claimed thickness of the further thin film transducer of Sparey-Taylor device based on operating frequency and the material of transducer based on disclosure of Hood as using a thinner film allows for higher operating frequency.
Regarding claim 21, Modified Sparey-Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 19. Sparey-Taylor discloses the transducers and the components of the device are positioned and configured so as to allow the microfluidic cavity to be observable through the surface (component 330 may be a window providing visual observation of fluid in the manifold body. Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 22, Modified Sparey-Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 16. Sparey-Taylor discloses the thin film ultrasound transducer comprises a piezoelectric or electrorestrictive material selected from aluminum nitride (abstract, Hood) and lead-zirconate-titanate (PZT, Sparey-Taylor, para. [0033]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparey-Taylor in view of Hood as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Bruus (WO 2019043198 A1) as cited in IDS.
Regarding claim 20, Modified Sparey-Taylor discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 18. Sparey-Taylor discloses thin film ultrasound transducer and a further thin film ultrasound transducer as having a common layer of piezoelectric or electrostrictive material (active surface 144, Fig. 4; That is, it is a fluid boundary for the local fluid flow through the microfluidic junction, but it is substantially non-reflective of traveling wave radiation generated from active surface 144. Para. [0040]), and two electrodes for each transducer (In accordance with certain preferred embodiments, transducers comprise a layer of pzt, such as Ferroperm PZT26, and, on two opposed sides, have an electrode. The electrode is usually silver or gold on a chromium adhesion layer. The radiation frequency (RF) is supplied with two conductors, one to each electrode. Para. [0033]).
Sparey-Taylor does not explicitly disclose the thin film ultrasound transducer and a further thin film ultrasound transducer as having one common electrode layer
In an analogous art, Bruus discloses a device comprising a substrate (10, Fig. 5A) in which a microfluidic cavity (microfluidic channel 18, Fig. 5) is positioned;
an ultrasound transducer in acoustic contact with at least a part of a surface of the substrate (transducer 22, Fig. 5A), wherein the ultrasound transducer can be piezoelectric crystal (Piezoelectric crystal 24, Fig. 5A) placed between a first electrode layer (electrode 30, Fig. 5A) defining a first side of the transducer and a second electrode layer defining a second side of the thin film ultrasound transducer (common ground electrode 32),
wherein at least one of the first and second electrode layers is divided into at least two portions, thereby defining at least two separate electrodes (electrode 30A and B, Fig. 5A), together with the layer of piezoelectric or electrostrictive material (piezoelectric crystal 24, Fig. 5A) defined by the other of the first and second electrode layer (electrode 34, Fig. 5A), define the thin film ultrasound transducer and a further thin film ultrasound transducer (transducer 22A and 22Bm, Fig. 5A) as having a common layer of piezoelectric or electrostrictive material (24, Fig. 5A0 and one common electrode layer (common ground electrode 32, Fig. 5A).
PNG
media_image3.png
371
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device of Sparey-Taylor by incorporating a common electrode for both transducers of Sparey-Taylor as taught by Bruus as a common ground ensures all transducers share a stable 0 V reference point.
Claim(s) 16 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Bruus in view of Sparey-Taylor and Hood.
Regarding claim 16, Bruus discloses a device comprising a substrate (10, Fig. 5A) in which a microfluidic cavity (microfluidic channel 18, Fig. 5) is positioned;
an ultrasound transducer in acoustic contact with at least a part of a surface of the substrate (transducer 22, Fig. 5A), wherein the ultrasound transducer can be piezoelectric crystal (Piezoelectric crystal 24, Fig. 5A)
wherein at least one of the first and second electrode layers is divided into at least two portions, thereby defining at least two separate electrodes (electrode 30A and B, Fig. 5A), together with the layer of piezoelectric or electrostrictive material (piezoelectric crystal 24, Fig. 5A) defined by the other of the first and second electrode layer (electrode 34, Fig. 5A), define the thin film ultrasound transducer and a further thin film ultrasound transducer (transducer 22A and 22Bm, Fig. 5A) as having a common layer of piezoelectric or electrostrictive material (24, Fig. 5A0 and one common electrode layer (common ground electrode 32, Fig. 5A). Bruss does not disclose the transducer is a thin film transducer with a thickness of less than 10 microns. Instead, the transducer thickness is disclosed to be 1 mm (Example 4, Page 21).
Analogous art, Sparey-Taylor discloses an acoustofluidic device (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a substrate (12, Fig. 1) in which a microfluidic cavity (fluid duct 30 and 34, Fig. 1) is positioned;
an ultrasound transducer in acoustic contact with at least a part of a surface of the substrate (transducer 28, Fig. 1), wherein the ultrasound transducer can be thin film (Piezoelectric thin film transducers; para. [0033]). However, Sparey-Taylor does not disclose the thin film ultrasound transducer has a thickness of less than 10 microns.
Sparey-Taylor discloses the operating frequencies is between 6-200 MHz (para. [0014]) and the thickness of the film should be half or a fourth of the wavelength at the selected frequency (The piezoelectric thickness generally will need to be between one-fourth and one half the wavelength at the selected frequency depending on acoustic matches at the fluid interface to operate on the most efficient fundamental thickness resonance. Para. [0033]).
Analogous art Hood discloses modeling an operating frequency of thin film piezoelectric transducer using a 4 microns thick AIN (aluminum nitride) active layer on a glass substrate (1 mm) (Experimental Details, page 1705) for operating frequency between 60 and 350 MHZ.
The thickness can be determined by formula
f
=
v
2
d
Where f is operating frequency (1-200 MHz, 2e8 Hz), v is the acoustic velocity (5,600 m/s for AIN in Hood and 4400 m/s lead-zirconate-tianate (pzt, para. [0033]) in Sparey-Taylor), d is the wavelength.
d
=
v
2
f
d
=
5600
m
s
o
r
4,400
m
s
2
*
2
e
8
H
z
d = 14 microns for AIN or 11 for PZT
Sparey-Taylor discloses the actual thickness should be half or a fourth of the wavelength.
Actual thickness is 2.75 to 5.5 microns for PBT and 3.5 to 7 microns for AIN.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized substitute the transducers of Bruus with the thin film transducer of Sparey-Taylor device and thickness of less than 10 microns based on operating frequency and the material of transducer from disclosure of Hood to derive the claimed invention. Using a thinner film allows for higher operating frequency.
Regarding claim 23, Modified Bruus discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 16. Bruus discloses a drive circuit configured to actuate the thin film ultrasound transducer at a frequency f that corresponds to an acoustic resonance peak of the substrate including the microfluidic cavity when it is filled with a liquid or liquid suspension (a drive circuit connected to the at least one ultrasound transducer and being configured to actuate the at least one ultrasound transducer at a frequency f that corresponds to an acoustic resonance peak of at least the substrate, preferably including the microfluidic flow channel filled with a liquid suspension. Page 3, lines 17-22).
Regarding claim 24, Modified Bruus discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 23. Hood (after incorporation with Bruss) discloses the electrical circuit comprises an inductor (L coax, Fig. 7) in series with the transducer (inductance components, page 1707, left column, para. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
103
274
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Modified Bruus discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 23. Bruus discloses the acoustic resonance peak corresponds to three-dimensional volume resonance in the substrate including the microfluidic cavity, which three-dimensional volume resonance cannot be described as a one- or two-dimensional resonance in the substrate, and wherein the frequency f is a frequency other than a resonance frequency of the microfluidic cavity alone (This resonance could be a one- or two-dimensional standing wave, but is preferably a three-dimensional volume resonance of the whole substrate including the microchannel that may or may not be possible to describe as a one- or two-dimensional resonance or superposition of such resonances (This resonance could be a one- or two-dimensional standing wave, but is preferably a three-dimensional volume resonance of the whole substrate including the microchannel that may or may not be possible to describe as a one- or two-dimensional resonance or superposition of such resonances. Page 4, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 26, Modified Bruus discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 23. Bruus discloses the device comprises a further thin film ultrasound transducer (22A and 22B, Fig. 5A) and wherein the drive circuit is further configured to actuate the thin film ultrasound transducer and the further thin film ultrasound transducer at the frequency f out of phase with each other. (a drive circuit connected to the at least two ultrasound transducers and being configured to actuate, preferably out of phase or in antiphase, the at least two ultrasound transducers at a frequency f corresponding to a resonance peak of the acoustophoretic region of the polymeric main substrate, preferably including the microfluidic flow channel and/or a part of the polymeric lid substrate facing the acoustophoretic region. Claim 15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (WO 02/28523 A2) as cited in IDS discloses multiple force chips comprising acoustic transducers. In one disclosed embodiment, the piezoelectric elements are thin films deposited on the substrate, and may be patterned to produce individually addressable wave sources (i.e. a further acoustic transducer) (page 55, lines 18-24). This array implies more than one transducer on the same surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICKEY HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30 PM ET.
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 5712707698. 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.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1758 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights