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
The Amendment filed 05/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application. Claims 8-9 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/12/2026. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US 20230311115 A1; cited in the IDS filed 01/20/2023; effectively filed 08/31/2020) in view of Ortner et al. (US 20190329251 A1) and Takahashi et al. (US 9283561 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Abe teaches a specimen analysis cartridge (abstract, “microchip for analyzing a component in a liquid sample”; Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a first base (Fig. 1A, substrate 1) having a micro flow path (Fig. 1A and paragraph [0042], flow path 11 that has a depth and width in micrometers, i.e. micro flow path) formed in at least one surface (Fig. 1A; paragraph [0039]);
a second base (Fig. 1C, film 2) disposed so as to oppose a surface at which the micro flow path of the first base is formed (Figs. 1A-1C; paragraph [0069] teaches film 2 is layered on substrate 1 to cover the top of the flow path, therefore film 2 opposes a surface at which flow path 11 of substrate 1 is formed); and
a photocurable resin layer (paragraphs [0072],[0076] and Fig. 1B teaches an adhesive agent is applied to the substrate surface; paragraph [0073] teaches adhesive agents include resins, such as a (meth)acrylic resin-based adhesive; paragraph [0075] teaches the adhesive agent is light-curing, i.e. photocurable) adhering the first base and the second base to each other (paragraph [0072] teaches the adhesive agent is used to attach film 2 onto substrate 1), wherein
the first base (Fig. 1A, substrate 1) and the second base (Fig. 1C, film 2) each contain at least one of cycloolefin polymer and cycloolefin copolymer (paragraph [0015] teaches the film is COP or COC; paragraph [0053] teaches the microchip, i.e. substrate, can include cyclo-olefin polymer and cyclo-olefin copolymer; therefore, the substrate and film each contain at least one of COP or COC).
Abe fails to teach: the photocurable resin layer is formed using a photocurable resin composition having a viscosity not less than 1.0 mPa*s and less than 50 mPa*s; and 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 20 N/10mm.
Ortner teaches a method for producing a cavity in a substrate (abstract), and a microfluidic cell (paragraph [0145]), wherein layer constructions typically find application in the field of microfluidics as microfluidic cells (paragraph [0145]). Ortner teaches producing a microfluidic cell, where a structured glass is bonded to a cover and a base by an adhesive (paragraph [0159]), where tightness of the microfluidic cell can be ensured by the use of adhesive-bonding technology (paragraph [0159]). Ortner teaches an adhesive is applied to the respective surfaces of the layers by printing, such as an inkjet print head, which allows for applying the adhesive to desired layers while omitting regions (paragraph [0168]; Fig. 16). Ortner teaches the viscosity of the adhesive can be adapted to the printing method, wherein low viscosities of less than 50 mPa*s is used in the case of the exemplary inkjet method (paragraph [0170]). Ortner teaches the adhesive can then be irradiated with light for curing, wherein the adhesive can include resins (paragraph [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photocurable resin layer of Abe to incorporate Ortner’s teachings of structures and methods of layered microfluidic cells that include using adhesives of low viscosities of less than 50 mPa*s to allow for controlled inkjet printing of the adhesive layer for bonding the layers of the microfluidic cells and adhesives including photocurable resin (Fig. 16; paragraphs [0159],[0168], [0170]-[0171]) to provide: the photocurable resin layer is formed using a photocurable resin composition having a viscosity not less than 1.0 mPa*s and less than 50 mPa*s. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving control of application of the photocurable resin to desired locations to improve adhering desired regions of the first and second bases.
Modified Abe fails to teach: 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 20 N/10mm.
Abe teaches 90 degree peel strength between the substrate and film was 1.1 N/26.2 mm and 3.02 N/26.2 mm (paragraph [0124]), wherein water did not leak out of the flow path, but flowed only in a flow path groove (paragraph [0124]). Abe teaches UV curing glueing agent can improve peel strength of a microchip (paragraph [0125]). Abe teaches peel strength between a substrate and film was 7.0 N/26.2 mm, wherein the peel strength of a microchip can be improved by using an adhesive agent around a flow path of a substrate (paragraphs [0133]-[0134]).
Takahashi teaches a liquid channel device including a base plate including a liquid channel (abstract). Takahashi teaches “adhesive force” as employed here is defined as the adhesive strength at 180° peeling from a stainless plate as specified in JIS Z 0237 (column 21, lines 62-64). Takahashi teaches a cover plate is adhered to base plate via adhered layers, which includes a strongly adhered layer (Fig. 3; column 10, lines 24-31). Takahashi teaches that it is preferable that the adhesive force of the adhesive agent forming the adhered layers be 0.1-30 N/cm (column 21, lines 26-32), i.e. 0.1-30 N/10mm.
Since Takahashi teaches 180° peel strength of 0.1-30 N/10mm (column 21, lines 26-32), which overlaps with the claimed range of not less than 20 N/10mm, i.e. 20-30 N/10mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photocurable resin layer of modified Abe to provide: 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 20 N/10mm. I.e., it would have been prima facia obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 20-30 N/10mm) from the taught range of 0.1-30 N/10mm (column 21, lines 26-32) (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photocurable resin layer of modified Abe to incorporate the teachings of peel strength of Abe (paragraphs [0124]-[0125],[0133]-[0134]) and the teachings of 180° peel strength of 0.1-30 N/10mm of Takahashi (column 21, lines 26-32) to provide: 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 20 N/10mm. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving adhesive strength between the first and second base to improve bonding and sealing of the first and second base of the cartridge, therefore preventing water leakage from the micro flow path.
Additionally, MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B) holds that a particular parameter that is recognized as a result effective variable (“a variable that achieves a recognized result”) would be one, but not the only motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. In the design and fabrication of microfluidic devices with layers, the selection of an adhesive with a peel strength would affect the adhesion and bond strength between the first and second base, and therefore affect the internal pressure strength of the cartridge (Abe, paragraph [0082]). Thus, the peel strength is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the peel strength of the specimen analysis cartridge of modified Abe to incorporate the teachings of peel strength of Abe (paragraphs [0124]-[0125],[0133]-[0134]) and the teachings of 180° peel strength of 0.1-30 N/10mm of Takahashi (column 21, lines 26-32) to provide: 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 20 N/10mm through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)). I.e., it would have been obvious to design and adjust the photocurable resin layer to modify the result-effective variables (e.g. 180° peel strength), and arrive at the claimed 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 20 N/10mm through routine optimization of workable peel strengths to optimize the adhesion and bond strength between the first and second base.
Regarding claim 2, Abe further teaches wherein the photocurable resin layer has a thickness of not less than 1.0 um and not greater than 100 um (paragraph [0077], 5-15 um).
Regarding claim 3, modified Abe fails to explicitly teach: wherein the micro flow path has a minimal flow path width of not greater than 200 um.
Abe teaches the width of the flow path is preferably from 10 um to 3 mm (paragraph [0042]). Abe teaches an embodiment where the flow path includes a width of 250 um (paragraph [0136]).
Since Abe teaches a flow path width of 10 um to 3 mm (paragraph [0042]), wherein the range of 10 um to 3 mm overlaps with the claimed range of not greater than 200 um, i.e. 10-200 um, and a specific embodiment of 250 um, which is within the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the micro flow path of Abe to provide wherein the micro flow path has a minimal flow path width of not greater than 200 um. I.e., it would have been prima facia obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 10-200 um) from the taught range of 10 um to 3 mm (paragraph [0042]) (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 4, Abe fails to explicitly teach: wherein 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 25 N/10 mm.
Abe teaches 90 degree peel strength between the substrate and film was 1.1 N/26.2 mm and 3.02 N/26.2 mm (paragraph [0124]), wherein water did not leak out of the flow path, but flowed only in a flow path groove (paragraph [0124]). Abe teaches UV curing glueing agent can improve peel strength of a microchip (paragraph [0125]). Abe teaches peel strength between a substrate and film was 7.0 N/26.2 mm, wherein the peel strength of a microchip can be improved by using an adhesive agent around a flow path of a substrate (paragraphs [0133]-[0134]).
Takahashi teaches a liquid channel device including a base plate including a liquid channel (abstract). Takahashi teaches “adhesive force” as employed here is defined as the adhesive strength at 180° peeling from a stainless plate as specified in JIS Z 0237 (column 21, lines 62-64). Takahashi teaches a cover plate is adhered to base plate via adhered layers (Fig. 3; column 10, lines 24-31). Takahashi teaches that it is preferable that the adhesive force of the adhesive agent forming the adhered layers be 0.1-30 N/cm (column 21, lines 26-32), i.e. 0.1-30 N/10mm.
Since Takahashi teaches 180° peel strength of 0.1-30 N/10mm (column 21, lines 26-32), which overlaps with the claimed range of not less than 25 N/10 mm, i.e. 25-30 N/10mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photocurable resin layer of Abe to provide: wherein 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 25 N/10 mm. I.e., it would have been prima facia obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 25-30 N/10mm) from the taught range of 0.1-30 N/10mm (column 21, lines 26-32) (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photocurable resin layer of Abe to incorporate the teachings of peel strength of Abe (paragraphs [0124]-[0125],[0133]-[0134]) and the teachings of 180° peel strength of 0.1-30 N/10mm of Takahashi (column 21, lines 26-32) to provide wherein 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 25 N/10 mm. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving adhesive strength between the first and second base to improve bonding and sealing of the first and second base of the cartridge, therefore preventing water leakage from the micro flow path.
Additionally, MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B) holds that a particular parameter that is recognized as a result effective variable (“a variable that achieves a recognized result”) would be one, but not the only motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. In the design and fabrication of microfluidic devices with layers, the selection of an adhesive with a peel strength would affect the adhesion and bond strength between the first and second base, and therefore affect the internal pressure strength of the cartridge (Abe, paragraph [0082]). Thus, the peel strength is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the peel strength of the specimen analysis cartridge of modified Abe to incorporate the teachings of peel strength of Abe (paragraphs [0124]-[0125],[0133]-[0134]) and the teachings of 180° peel strength of 0.1-30 N/10mm of Takahashi (column 21, lines 26-32) to provide: wherein 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 25 N/10 mm through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)). I.e., it would have been obvious to design and adjust the photocurable resin layer to modify the result-effective variables (e.g. 180° peel strength), and arrive at the claimed 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 20 N/10mm through routine optimization of workable peel strengths to optimize the adhesion and bond strength between the first and second base.
Regarding claim 5, Abe further teaches wherein the photocurable resin layer contains acrylic resin and/or methacrylic resin (paragraphs [0072],[0076] and Fig. 1B teaches an adhesive agent is applied to the substrate surface; paragraph [0073] teaches adhesive agents include resins, such as a (meth)acrylic resin-based adhesive; paragraph [0075] teaches the adhesive agent is light-curing, i.e. photocurable, and includes an acrylic UV curing adhesive agent).
Regarding claim 10, note that the limitation of “wherein the photocurable resin composition is applied to the first base by an inkjet method” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation (see MPEP 2113). Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. As discussed in claim 1, modified Abe teaches the claimed photocurable resin composition, which is the same as the claimed product. Thus, modified Abe teaches all of the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, note that the limitation of “wherein the thickness of the photocurable resin layer is based on the viscosity of the photocurable resin composition and a pressing pressure when adhering the first base and the second base to each other” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation (see MPEP 2113). Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. As discussed in claim 2, modified Abe teaches the claimed photocurable resin layer that has a thickness, which is the same as the claimed product. Thus, modified Abe teaches all of the limitations of claim 11.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Ortner and Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 20030010737 A (herein, “KR ‘737”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Abe fails to teach: wherein the photocurable resin layer is a cured product of a photocurable resin composition that contains (a) acrylic oligomer and/or methacrylic oligomer having a weight-average molecular weight of not less than 2000, (b) acrylic monomer and/or methacrylic monomer, and (c) a photo radical polymerization initiator.
Abe teaches an adhesive agent include a (meth)acrylic resin-based adhesive (paragraph [0073]), and a UV curing adhesive agent that includes acrylic UV curing adhesive or gluing agents (paragraph [0075]).
KR ‘737 teaches a microdevice having a laminated structure having an active energy ray-curable resin layer (paragraph [2]). KR ‘737 teaches curing of a coating film allows for adhering a film onto another member (paragraph [12]). KR ‘737 teaches an active energy ray polymerizable compound that is cured by an active energy ray and can include a radical polymerizable compound, such as a polymerization initiator (paragraph [65]). KR ‘737 teaches polyfunctional (meth)acrylic monomer can be used as the compound (paragraph [68]). KR ‘737 teaches the compound can comprise a polymerizable oligomer having an average molecular weight of 500-50000, and can include (meth)acrylic acid esters (paragraph [69]). KR ‘737 teaches maleimide monomers can be copolymerized with acrylic monomers (paragraph [70]). KR ‘737 teaches the compound may be a mixture of polyfunctional monomer and a monofunctional monomer for the purpose of controlling viscosity, increasing adhesiveness or adhesiveness in a semi-cured state (paragraph [71]), wherein monofunctional monomers include (meth)acrylic monomers (paragraph [72]). KR ‘737 teaches a compound including trifunctional urethane acrylate oligomer having an average molecular weight of about 2000 and a photopolymerization initiator, i.e. photo radical polymerization initiator (paragraphs [201],[209]). KR ‘737 teaches the active energy ray polymerization initiator that can be added to the composition, such as a radical polymerization initiator (paragraph [94]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photocurable resin layer of modified Abe to incorporate Abe’s teachings of (meth)acrylic resin-based adhesive (paragraph [0073]) and a UV curing adhesive agent that includes acrylic UV curing adhesive or gluing agents (paragraph [0075]) and KR ‘737’s teaching of an active energy ray-curable resin layer including a radical polymerizable compound ([2],[65],[94],[201],[209]), (meth)acrylic monomer ([68],[70],[71]-[72]), a polymerizable oligomer having an average molecular weight of 500-50000 ([69],[201],[209]), such as (meth)acrylic acid esters ([69]) to provide: wherein the photocurable resin layer is a cured product of a photocurable resin composition that contains (a) acrylic oligomer and/or methacrylic oligomer having a weight-average molecular weight of not less than 2000, (b) acrylic monomer and/or methacrylic monomer, and (c) a photo radical polymerization initiator. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing and controlling adhesiveness and viscosity of the photocurable resin layer as taught by KR ‘737 ([71]).
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. (a) acrylic oligomer and/or methacrylic oligomer having a weight-average molecular weight of not less than 2000, (b) acrylic monomer and/or methacrylic monomer, and (c) a photo radical polymerization initiator) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. adhesion between two films or substrates), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the claimed oligomer, monomer, and photo radical polymerization initiator would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling controlling of adhesiveness of two films or substrates). See MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 7, modified Abe fails to teach: wherein the (a) acrylic oligomer and/or methacrylic oligomer has a polyurethane backbone.
Abe teaches an adhesive agent or lugging agent includes a urethane resin-based adhesive (paragraphs [0073],[0074]).
KR ‘737 teaches polymerizable oligomers include polyurethane resins having (meth)acryloyl groups at the molecular terminals (paragraph [69]). KR ‘737 teaches an active energy ray polymerizable compound including trifunctional urethane acrylate oligomer (paragraphs [201],[209]). KR ‘737 teaches the compound may be a mixture of polyfunctional monomer and a monofunctional monomer for the purpose of controlling viscosity, increasing adhesiveness or adhesiveness in a semi-cured state (paragraph [71]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the (a) acrylic oligomer and/or methacrylic oligomer of modified Abe to incorporate Abe’s teachings of urethane based adhesive (paragraphs [0073],[0074]) and KR ‘737’s teachings of polyurethane resins and urethane acrylate oligomers (paragraphs [69],[201],[209]) to provide: wherein the (a) acrylic oligomer and/or methacrylic oligomer has a polyurethane backbone. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing and controlling adhesiveness and viscosity of the photocurable resin layer as taught by KR ‘737 ([71]).
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the acrylic oligomer and/or methacrylic oligomer has a polyurethane backbone) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. adhesion between two films or substrates), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the acrylic oligomer and/or methacrylic oligomer with polyurethane backbone would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling adhesion of two films or substrates). See MPEP 2143(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 02/12/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claims 3-4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103, specifically regarding amended claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Abe et al. (US 20230311115 A1; cited in the IDS filed 01/20/2023; effectively filed 08/31/2020) in view of Ortner et al. (US 20190329251 A1) and Takahashi et al. (US 9283561 B2).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references of Abe and Takahashi to arrive at the claimed peel strength (Remarks, pages 6-9), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, since Takahashi teaches 180° peel strength of 0.1-30 N/10mm (column 21, lines 26-32), which overlaps with the claimed range of not less than 20 N/10mm, i.e. 20-30 N/10mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photocurable resin layer of modified Abe to provide: 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 20 N/10mm. I.e., it would have been prima facia obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 20-30 N/10mm) from the taught range of 0.1-30 N/10mm (column 21, lines 26-32) (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photocurable resin layer of modified Abe to incorporate the teachings of peel strength of Abe (paragraphs [0124]-[0125],[0133]-[0134]) and the teachings of 180° peel strength of 0.1-30 N/10mm of Takahashi (column 21, lines 26-32) to provide: 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 20 N/10mm. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving adhesive strength between the first and second base to improve bonding and sealing of the first and second base of the cartridge, therefore preventing water leakage from the micro flow path.
Additionally, MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B) holds that a particular parameter that is recognized as a result effective variable (“a variable that achieves a recognized result”) would be one, but not the only motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. In the design and fabrication of microfluidic devices with layers, the selection of an adhesive with a peel strength would affect the adhesion and bond strength between the first and second base, and therefore affect the internal pressure strength of the cartridge (Abe, paragraph [0082]). Thus, the peel strength is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the peel strength of the specimen analysis cartridge of modified Abe to incorporate the teachings of peel strength of Abe (paragraphs [0124]-[0125],[0133]-[0134]) and the teachings of 180° peel strength of 0.1-30 N/10mm of Takahashi (column 21, lines 26-32) to provide: 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 20 N/10mm through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)). I.e., it would have been obvious to design and adjust the photocurable resin layer to modify the result-effective variables (e.g. 180° peel strength), and arrive at the claimed 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 20 N/10mm through routine optimization of workable peel strengths to optimize the adhesion and bond strength between the first and second base.
Thus, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the peel strength as claimed in view of Abe and Takahashi to improve adhesive strength between the first and second base, thus improving bonding and sealing of the first and second base of the cartridge, and therefore preventing water leakage from the micro flow path.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi (US 20160008812 A1) teaches a fluidic device (abstract) comprising a porous layer, a flow path wall provided in the porous layer, and a base material adjoining the porous layer and forming a flow path for a sample liquid together with the flow path wall (paragraph [0067]). Kobayashi teaches an inkjet printer using an ultraviolet curable resin ink, wherein in order for the liquid to be jetted from the head, the viscosity of the liquid needs to be as low as 15 mPa*s at the maximum; and hence easily spreads in the porous layer, making a large bleed (paragraph [0149]).
Neubert et al. (US 20090188791 A1) teaches a biosensor (abstract; Fig. 1) including a functional layer A1, functional layer A3, and double-sided pressure-sensitive adhesive tape A2 that joins functional layers A1 and A3 (abstract; Fig. 1). Neubert teaches a peel strength was tested under a peel angle of 180 degrees (paragraph [0103]), wherein the peel strength is 2.5-6.5 N/cm (paragraph [0118]).
Lee et al. (US 20100093105 A1) teaches a microfluidic device (abstract). Lee teaches bonding multiple layers using an adhesive (paragraph [0008]), which is photocurable (paragraph [0023]). Lee teaches the adhesive may be applied using various methods according to the viscosity of the adhesive, where an adhesive having a low viscosity may be applied using an inkjet method in which an inkjet printer (paragraph [0058]).
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 HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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 (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights