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. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “250”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. It is noted that “250” and “350” have been employed in the specification to refer to “gap”. Claim Interpretation Content of Specification (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS : See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p). The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements or steps listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”. It is noted that the phrases “one or more” and “at least one” only requires one. Therefore, the phrase “one or more liquid droplets” only requires one liquid droplet. It is noted that the term “or” provides for alternative options, not requirements. It is noted that the (‘) comma after “particles” in the last line of claim 2 is unnecessary and should be deleted It is noted that “colloidal particles” are not specified in the claims being any specific particles and “solutes” are not defined as being any specific chemical, substance, matter, etc. It is noted it is noted that claim 3 is redundant in view of claim 1 because an acute angle by definition is an l ess than 90° . As to claim 8, the term “a” appears to be missing prior to the term “narrow” in line 1. I t is noted that the “wherein” clause does not provide for a further structural element/limitation because the phrase is directed to a conditional use/process step that that is never required to occur. No evaporation process is required to be performed. The apparatus is defined by the positively claimed structural elements, listed in the body of the claims on separate indented lines, not by process steps. As to claim 11, it is presumed that the phrase “at an angl e with” means at an angle relative to, respect to, and/or between. If so, it is suggested that the claim be amended to clearly recite such. As to claim 20, it is presumed the claim is referring to the last step of claim 1, the paragraph beginning with “providing”. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1- 20 are 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. As to claim 1, it is unclear if the “a first transport surface of the first plate” in the second paragraph is the same or different from the “a first transport surface” previous recited above. If the same, then the second paragraph should read as “the first transport surface of the first plate…” Dependent claims 2-10 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim. The term s “ narrow ” , “broad”, and “near” in claim s 4-5, 8, and 18 respectively are relative term s which renders the claim s indefinite. The term s “ “narrow”, “broad”, and “near” ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms “narrow”, “broad”, and “near” are each not defined as being any specific dimensions (distance, length values) nor by any specific, definitive structure nor definitive relative comparisons. It is noted that what may be considered as “narrow”, “broad”, and “near” to one person may not be considered as such to another and vice versa. As to claim 4, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require the first and second plate to be in structural contact because the phrase “make contact…” appears to be directed to what occurs during use rather than what is structurally required. Claims 6 and 13 contain the trademark/trade name Teflon. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a coating material (p olytetrafluoroethylene ) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. The term “ several ” in claim s 7 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim s indefinite. The term “ several ” is not defined by the claim s , the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no indication as to what values are and are not considered as several. What may be considered as several to one person may not be considered as such to another and vice versa. As to claim 11, it is unclear what is required by the phrase, “ near to the first end of the transport apparatus” because there is no relative basis of comparison (nearer than what?) provided for in the claim. As to claim 11, it is unclear if the last paragraph is attempting require that the liquid droplet moves because as result of the liquid droplet is being evaporated or if the liquid droplet is evaporated and is simultaneously or subsequently moved (via some unspecified means/force; capillary force, gravity, etc.) between the plates because the claim does not clearly recite such. Claims 12-20 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim. See also applicable rejections above. As to claim 20, it is unclear what is being referenced by the phrase “external driving force”, because the claim does not recited what such force is external to, a relative basis for “external” and force can be considered as being external relative to something. The same is applicable to “momentum”. It is noted that momentum is the quantity of motion of a moving body, measured as a product of its mass and velocity. Here, it is unclear what momentum of what (object) is being referenced in the claim because the claim does not provide for such. 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)(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. Claim(s) 1 - 3 , 5 , 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wong et al., US 2019 / 0126268 . As to claims 1-3, 6 and 8, Wong discloses method of transporting a droplet employing a device as shown in Figure 3A and 5A comprising a first plate and a second plate and a liquid (solute) droplet between in gap and in contact with respective transport surfaces of first and second transport surfaces. The second plate is positioned at an acute angle with respect to the first plate. The plates provide for hydrophobic transfer surfaces. (paragraph 0015, 42, 48, 52 , 70 and Figures 3A and 5A ). As to claim 5, it is note that a “narrow” gap is between the plates at a “narrow” end. As to claim 8, the claim does not provide for any further structural elements than claim 1. As such the claim is rejected based upon that above. 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) 4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al., US 2019/0126268 as applied to claim s 1-3, 5, 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Le Berre et al., US 20180250670 A1 . Wong does not disclose that the first plate and second plate are in contact near the narrow end ; the first plate and the second plate each have a length between tens of nanometers to several centimeters ; and the one or more liquid droplets have a volume between tens of nanoliters to tens of milliliters. The Applicant is advised that the Supreme Court recently clarified that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc. , 127 Sup. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143). Common sense, predictability, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art may suffice to establish obviousness. Le Berre disclose a device comprising first and second substrates in contact with each other for manipulating a liquid droplet between the substrates. See Figures 2b-2c and 3a. I t would have been obvious to and within c ommon sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Wong such that the first and second plates contact to manipulate the liquid droplet between the plates as taught by Le Berre. As to claims 7 and 8, the length value of the plates and volume value of the droplet are not novel and non-obvious. Manufacturing the plates to have a desired length does not require and special skills beyond that of one ordinary skill in the art. Wong discloses that that the volume of the sample chamber of device is less than about 5 mL and can range from about 10.sup.−6 mL to about 5 mL (paragraph 0009). I t would have been obvious to and within common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify length of the plates to be within the claimed ranged and the volume of the droplet to be recited in the claim range. Furthermore, it is noted that a mere change in the size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al., US 2019/0126268 as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Baroud et al., US 2015 / 0267246 . Wong does not disclose the transport plates as having a curved surface. Baroud discloses a microfluid device for manipulating fluid drops. (Abstract). The device comprise first and second plates having respective transport surfaces. A surface of the plates can be curved to control/manipulate the form and movement of the drop between the transport surfaces. (Figures 2-4B, 5B, 6B, 8-9, 11, 13). It would have been obvious to and within common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Wong to include curved transport surfaces to provide for manipulation and control movement of the droplet between the plates as taught by Baroud. Claim(s) 1 1-13, 15-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al., US 2019/0126268 as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Pollack et al., US 2011 / 0104816 . Pollack discloses a microfluid device and method for manipulating fluid drop lets . The device comprise first and second plates having respective transport surfaces. The method comprise performing droplet operations including transporting a droplet from one location to another in any direction and vaporizing a droplet . (paragraph 0024; Figures 1A-2B, 12A). It would have been obvious to and within common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate within the method of Wong vaporization of a droplet to move the droplet as taught by Pollack. Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al., US 2019/0126268 in view of Pollack et al., US 2011/0104816 as applied to claims 1-13, 15-16, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of Baroud et al., US 2015/0267246. Wong does not disclose the transport plates as having a curved surface. Baroud discloses a microfluid device for manipulating fluid drops. (Abstract). The device comprise first and second plates having respective transport surfaces. A surface of the plates can be curved to control/manipulate the form and movement of the drop between the transport surfaces. (Figures 2-4B, 5B, 6B, 8-9, 11, 13). It would have been obvious to and within common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified teachings of Wong in view of Pollack to provide for a device that includes curved transport surfaces to provide for manipulation and control movement of the droplet between the plates as taught by Baroud. As to claim 19, the length value of the plates a are not novel and non-obvious. Manufacturing the plates to have a desired length does not require and special skills beyond that of one ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to and within common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify length of the plates to be within the claimed ranged. Furthermore, it is noted that a mere change in the size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. 31. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al., US 2019/0126268 in view of Pollack et al., US 2011/0104816 as applied to claims 1-13, 15-16, 18, and 20 above, and further in view Le Berre et al., US 20180250670 A1. Wong does not disclose that the first plate and second plate are in contact near the narrow end. The Applicant is advised that the Supreme Court recently clarified that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Sup. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143). Common sense, predictability, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art may suffice to establish obviousness. Le Berre disclose a device comprising first and second substrates in contact with each other for manipulating a liquid droplet between the substrates. See Figures 2b-2c and 3a. It would have been obvious to and within common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Wong such that the first and second plates contact to manipulate the liquid droplet between the plates as taught by Le Berre. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ohta; Ricardo L. et al. ; GU; Le et al. ; KIM; Jin Tae ; Foley; Jennifer Olivia et al. ; PAOLINI, JR.; Richard J. et al. ; LARSEN; Niels Agersnap ; and Wang; Gary Chorng-Jyh disclose fluidic devices. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1258 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Charles Capozzi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /BRIAN R GORDON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798