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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
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 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “wherein 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 15 N/10 mm.” Since claim 1 recites a first base, a second base, and a “photocurable resin layer for adhering the first base and the second base”, it is unclear if the first base and second base are structurally required to be adhered in order to have a “peel strength”. As claimed, the BRI of claim 1 does not require the first base and second base to be adhered to each other, since the photocurable resin layer for adhering the first base and the second base is interpreted as an intended use of the photocurable resin. It is suggested to positively recite that the photocurable resin layer is between and adheres the first base to the second base.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abe et al. (US 20230311115 A1; cited in the IDS filed 01/20/2023; effectively filed 08/31/2020).
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) for adhering the first base and the second base to each other (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; 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).
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 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).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, 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)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 9283561 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Abe fails to explicitly teach: wherein 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 15 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. 1-300 N/10mm.
Since Takahashi teaches 180° peel strength of 1-300 N/10mm (column 21, lines 26-32), which overlaps with the claimed range of not less than 15 N/10 mm, i.e. 15-300 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 15 N/10 mm. I.e., it would have been prima facia obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 15-300 N/10mm) from the taught range of 1-300 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 1-300 N/10mm of Takahashi (column 21, lines 26-32) provide wherein 180° peel strength between the first base and the second base is not less than 15 N/10 mm. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving adhesive strength between the first and second base to prevent water leakage from the micro flow path.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 20030010737 A (herein, “KR ‘737”).
Regarding claim 6, 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 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lu et al. (US 20150075698 A1) teaches bonding of substrates with photo-curable adhesives (abstract; paragraph [0001]). Lu teaches the photo-curable adhesive includes: a photo initiator (paragraph [0066]), (meth)acrylate monomer and acrylic acid (paragraph [0067]). Lu teaches the oligomer can preferably be made from (meth)acrylic monomers and can preferably have a weight average molecular weight (Mw) within the range of about 1000 to 15000 (paragraph [0075]).
Kurup et al. (US 20230311116 A1; effectively filed 03/31/2022) teaches a flow cell (abstract); cured adhesives between two substrates (paragraph [0008]), a polyurethane backbone (paragraph [0039]); and a second adhesive may be cured by light (paragraph [0061]).
Abe et al. (US 20240024875 A1; effectively filed 11/27/2020) teaches a microchip (abstract). Abe teaches attachment is carried out using acrylic UV-curable adhesive agents (paragraph [0020]). Abe teaches adhesive of a COP plate material using ZEONOR 1060R (paragraph [0093]).
Hirano et al. (US 20110052446 A1) teaches a flowcell (abstract). Hirano teaches adhesively bonding comprises curing a uv-curable adhesive (paragraph [0009]).
Ito et al. (US 20210379586 A1) teaches a film for a microfluidic device (abstract). Ito teaches (meth)acrylic resin can be obtained by polymerizing or copolymerizing a monomer mixture containing one or more monomers having an acrylic group or methacrylic group (paragraph [0028]). Ito teaches polyfunctional monomers include, but are not limited to, polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomers, polyfunctional (meth)acrylic urethane monomers, and oligomers thereof (paragraph [0032]). Ito teaches the polyfunctional (meth)acrylic urethane monomers are urethane compounds having two or more (meth)acrylic groups in one molecule (paragraph [0034]).
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