DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. Claims 1-7 are being examined in this application.
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.
2. Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation " the optional neighboring hydrophilic regions" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gong et al. (US 2021/0379594).
Claim 1. Gong et al. teach a liquid column separation device (EWOD device for manipulating liquid droplets; [0007], comprising:
a first base material (first substrate), [0076];
a second base material disposed to oppose the first base material at a predetermined distance (second substrate disposed opposite to first substrate separated by space/gap; [0076][0061]); and
a liquid feed unit feeding two or more fluids to a gap between the first base material and the second base material (the device is coupled with droplet and reagent region which are mixed together and then provided in the space/gap; [0087]), wherein
a surface of the first base material opposing the second base material has a pattern of arraying a plurality of hydrophilic regions having hydrophilicity in a hydrophobic region having hydrophobicity, and representative length of the hydrophilic region is larger than the predetermined distance (first substrate has array of plurality of hydrophilic regions 48a surrounded by hydrophobic regions; [0076] and Fig 4A, the height of spacer is few microns [0061] and array of spots/grooves/well are about 1 micron [0077], thus the array of spots has larger length than the spacer which defines gap/space), and
wherein a plurality of liquid columns are formed respectively corresponding to the plurality of hydrophilic regions (plurality of microdroplets 26 are formed respectively corresponding to the hydrophilic regions 48a; [0076 and Fig 4A). Gong et al. teach droplet 26 is disposed in the environment of oil which is disposed/in contact between the first and second substrates [0076], thus as microdroplets 26’ are formed in the oil with movement of droplet 26, oil combined with microdroplets are in contact with the first base material and the second base material;
wherein a gap devoid of liquid is between each adjacent liquid column of the plurality of liquid columns (space between the hydrophilic regions 48a reads on gap and microdroplet sits on the hydrophilic region thus the space is devoid of liquid/droplet; see Fig 4A and [0076]).
Claim 2. Gong et al. teach a distance between the hydrophilic region of the first base material and the second base material is shorter than a distance between the hydrophobic region of the first base material and the second base material (Fig 4A shows the hydrophilic region is a protruding region 48a, thus it would be apparent distance between the protruding hydrophilic region and second substrate is shorter than distance between the plain hydrophobic region of first substrate and second substrate).
Claim 4. Gong et al. teach the first base material includes a plurality of independent electrodes disposed within the hydrophilic region (actuating electrodes are disposed within hydrophilic region to actuate the droplet from one hydrophilic region to the next; [0076]).
Claim 7. Gong et al. teach wherein a temperature control mechanism is provided in the hydrophilic region of the first base material (heater 2 is formed below the surface of array of EWOD device for maintaining and varying incubation temperature of the microdroplets; [0088]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jamshidi et al. (US 2016/0199832).
Claim 6. Gong et al. do not explicitly teach the hydrophilic region of the first base material is of silicon oxide or glass. However, Jamshidi et al. teach manipulation of droplets using hydrophilic regions flanked by hydrophobic interstitial regions on surface of substrate wherein the hydrophilic region is made up of glass [0060][0126].
Since Gong et al. and Jamshidi et al. are to same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Jasmshidi et al. to use glass as the material of choice for hydrophilic region of Gong et al. because selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (US 2021/0379594).
Claim 5, Gong et al. teach array of electrodes are embedded within both first and second dielectric layers to generate moving electric field and protruding hydrophilic regions are disposed on the dielectric layer [0076]. Gong et al. do not teach the second base material includes a hydrophilic region at a position opposing the hydrophilic region of the first base material. However, it would be obvious if not apparent, to dispose hydrophilic regions on second substrate at position opposing the hydrophilic region of the first substrate to generate moving electric field in order to actuate the droplet.
Claim 3. Gong et al. teach array of electrodes are embedded within both first and second dielectric layers to generate moving electric field and protruding hydrophilic regions are disposed on the dielectric layer (see Fig 4A and [0076]). Gong et al. do not explicitly teach resistive element disposed between the hydrophilic regions of the first base material. However, Gong et al. teach in a different embodiment, the array of electrodes is separated by spacers 29c (reads on resistive element) and connecting the first base material and the second base material ([0068] and Fig 2F). Therefore, it would have been obvious to dispose spacers in the embodiment of Fig 4A to attain proper distance/gap between the substrates for actuating the droplet therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 10 of remarks that cited prior art, Gong et al. do not teach plurality of liquid columns are formed onto to corresponding plurality of hydrophilic regions which are in contact with the first base material and second base material. Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion. As stated above in the rejection, Gong et al. teach droplet 26 is disposed in the environment of oil which is disposed/in contact between the first and second substrates [0076], thus as microdroplets 26’ are formed in the oil with movement of droplet 26, oil combined with microdroplets are in contact with the first base material and the second base material.
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 GURPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7895. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/GURPREET KAUR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights