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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/13/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Species A, Claims 1-3 and 5-13, without traverse in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objection
Claim 1-3, 8, 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-3 and 13: please amend “the electrode” to --the one or more electrodes--.
Claim 8: please amend “a upper portion” to – a upper portion of the electrode gap--; “a lower portion” to – a lower portion of the electrode gap--.
Claim 11: please amend “the electrodes” to – the one or more electrodes--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 7, claim 7 recites “two or more electrodes”, and claim 1 recites “one or more electrodes”. It is unclear if two or more electrodes is the same or different than the one or more electrodes. Thus, the scope of claim 7 is indefinite. Claims 8-9 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “the other electrode”, and it is unclear if “the other electrode” refers to a specific electrode other than the adjacent electrode or the rest electrode(s) of the one or more electrodes other than the adjacent electrode. Therefore, the scope of claim 11 is indefinite. Claim 12 is further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon and because it fails to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “a number of adjacent electrodes”. Claim 11 recites “an adjacent electrode … formed adjacent to the reservoir” and claim 12 depends from claim 11. It is unclear if “a number of adjacent electrodes” are part of the one or more electrodes. In claim 11, the adjacent electrode is defined to be adjacent to the reservoir, while in claim 12, it is unclear if the number of adjacent electrodes refer to electrodes adjacent to the reservoir or electrodes adjacent to each other. Thus, the scope of claim 12 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MSHTL (Basics of electrowetting-on-dielectric (EWOD), https://msht.utdallas.edu/Pages/EWOD_Basics.html, October 28, 2014), and in view of Pavesi et al. (How to embed three-dimensional flexible electrodes in microfluidic devices for cell culture applications, Lab on a chip, 2011, 11, 1593).
Regarding claim 1, MSHTL teaches a diagnostic apparatus (EWOD as shown in Figure 1.2) comprising:
a base plate including an insulator (the bottom plate consisting of array of distinct electrodes that can be actuated independently from outside voltage source as shown in Figure 1.2 [the 1st paragraph on page 2]; Figure 1.2 shows adjacent electrodes of the array of distinct electrodes are separate by the bottom plate; since the array of distinct electrodes can be actuated independently from outside voltage source, the bottom plate separating the adjacent electrodes must be insulator); and
one or more electrodes formed by penetrating through the base plate (Figure 1.2 shows array of distinct electrodes penetrating through the base plate) and causing a fluid located on a surface to be moved based on an applied voltage (Figure 1.2 shows drop motion located on a surface by EWOD based on an applied voltage, thus, the disclosed one or more electrodes are configured to perform the claimed function of causing a fluid located on a surface to be moved based on an applied voltage).
MSHTL is silent to wherein the one or more electrodes are made of conductive plastic.
Pavesi teaches one or more electrodes formed by penetrating through a base plate including an insulator (Fig. 1a-1d shows a conductive material injected into the lateral channels of a PDMS device to form electrodes, wherein the conductive material is a mixture of PDMS and MWCNT [the 2nd paragraph in Col. 1 on page 1594]. The PDMS device is deemed as the base plate including an insulator since PDMS is an insulator, and the conductive material is conductive plastic due to the presence of PDMS which is a type of plastic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electrode material of MSHTL with the electrode material of conductive plastic comprising a mixture of PDMS and MWCNT, as taught by Pavesi, since Pavesi teaches a conductive nanocomposite material of PDMS and MWCNT as a suitable alternative electrode material for microfluidic applications (the 2nd paragraph in Col. 1 on page 1594 in Pavesi). Furthermore, the 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 [MPEP § 2144.07].
The limitations “wherein the base plate is formed by injecting the insulator into a first space of a mold by a first injection gate, and the electrode is formed by injecting conductive plastic into a second space of the mold by a second injection gate distinct from the first injection gate” is a product by process limitation. The determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, as outlined in the rejection above, modified MSHTL teaches the structural elements of the base plate, the one or more electrodes made of a conductive plastic, and the one or more electrodes penetrating through the base plate. Thus, the disclosed product is the same as the claimed one. There is no evidence the steps of the recited process impart any additional structure on the apparatus that is not already present or substantially similar to that of modified MSHTL.
Regarding claim 5, modified MSHTL teaches the diagnostic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the conductive plastic comprises carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs [the 2nd paragraph in Col. 1 on page 1594 in Pavesi]).
Regarding claim 10, modified MSHTL teaches the diagnostic apparatus of claim 1, and MSHTL teaches further comprising a reservoir (a precisely controlled volume of liquid is generated from a liquid reservoir [the 1st paragraph on page 2]). The limitation “for dispensing the fluid contained in a housing” is a functional limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, MSHTL teaches a precisely controlled volume of liquid is generated from a liquid reservoir, thus the reservoir is configured to perform the claimed function of dispensing the fluid contained in a housing (a housing of the reservoir) to the top surface area of the electrode, as shown in Figure 1.2 of MSHTL.
Regarding claim 13, MSHTL teaches a diagnostic apparatus (EWOD as shown in Figure 1.2) comprising:
a base plate including an insulator (the bottom plate consisting of array of distinct electrodes that can be actuated independently from outside voltage source as shown in Figure 1.2 [the 1st paragraph on page 2]; Figure 1.2 shows adjacent electrodes of the array of distinct electrodes are separate by the bottom plate; since the array of distinct electrodes can be actuated independently from outside voltage source, the bottom plate separating the adjacent electrodes must be insulator); and
one or more electrodes formed by penetrating through the base plate (Figure 1.2 shows array of distinct electrodes penetrating through the base plate) and causing a fluid located on a surface to be moved based on an applied voltage (Figure 1.2 shows drop motion located on a surface by EWOD based on an applied voltage, thus, the disclosed one or more electrodes are configured to perform the claimed function of causing a fluid located on a surface to be moved based on an applied voltage).
MSHTL is silent to wherein the one or more electrodes are made of conductive plastic.
Pavesi teaches one or more electrodes formed by penetrating through a base plate including an insulator (Fig. 1a-1d shows a conductive material injected into the lateral channels of a PDMS device to form electrodes, wherein the conductive material is a mixture of PDMS and MWCNT [the 2nd paragraph in Col. 1 on page 1594]. The PDMS device is deemed as the base plate including an insulator since PDMS is an insulator, and the conductive material is conductive plastic due to the presence of PDMS which is a type of plastic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electrode material of MSHTL with the electrode material of conductive plastic comprising PDMS and MWCNT, as taught by Pavesi, since Pavesi teaches a conductive nanocomposite material of PDMS and MWCNT as a suitable alternative electrode material for microfluidic applications (the 2nd paragraph in Col. 1 on page 1594 in Pavesi). Furthermore, the 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 [MPEP § 2144.07].
The limitations “wherein the base plate is formed by injecting an insulator into a first mold, and the electrode is formed by injecting conductive plastic into a second mold distinct from the first mold” is a product by process limitation. The determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, as outlined in the rejection above, modified MSHTL teaches the structural elements of the base plate, the one or more electrodes made of a conductive plastic, and the one or more electrodes penetrating through the base plate. Thus, the disclosed product is the same as the claimed one. There is no evidence the steps of the recited process impart any additional structure on the apparatus that is not already present or substantially similar to that of modified MSHTL.
Claims 2, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MSHTL and Pavesi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gach et al. (US20190126279A1) and Banerjee et al. (Programmable electrowetting with channels and droplets, Micromachines, 2015, 6, 172-185).
Regarding claim 2, modified MSHTL teaches the diagnostic apparatus of claim 1, and is silent to wherein an upper width of the electrode is larger than a middle width of the electrode by a first reference size, and a lower width of the electrode is larger than the middle width of the electrode by a second reference size, and the first reference size is larger than the second reference size.
Gach teaches digital microfluidic systems and methods for droplet manipulation based on EWOD (title and [para. 0004]). Figs. 4F and 4H show the EWOD device comprises one or more electrodes (combined electrode 440, via 430, and the interconnection at the bottom of the via 430 is deemed as an electrode [para. 0046], and Figs. 4F and 4H show a plurality of electrodes) formed by penetrating through a base plate including an insulator (substrate 425, which may be glass, organic or inorganic polymers (e.g., liquid crystal polymers or polyimide), printed circuit boards, paper, etc. [para. 0043]). Figs. 4F and 4H show that wherein an upper width of the electrode is larger than a middle width of the electrode by a first reference size (upper width of the electrode 440 is larger than a middle with of the via 430), and a lower width of the electrode is larger than the middle width of the electrode by a second reference size (lower width of the interconnection is larger than the middle width of the via), and the first reference size is larger than the second reference size (Figs. 4F and 4H show the upper width is larger than the lower width, thus, the first reference size is larger than the second reference size).
Banerjee also teaches an EWOD device comprising one or more electrowetting electrodes embedded in a substrate, wherein an upper width of each electrode (“electrowetting electrodes [Cr]” in Fig.2a) is larger than a middle width of the electrode (via in Fig.2a) by a first reference size, and a lower width of the electrode (Interconnection in Fig.2a) is larger than the middle width of the electrode by a second reference size, and the first reference size is larger than the second reference size (see Fig.2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of each electrode in modified MSHTL such that an upper width of each electrode is larger than a middle width of the electrode by a first reference size, and a lower width of the electrode is larger than the middle width of the electrode by a second reference size, and the first reference size is larger than the second reference size, as taught by combined Gach and Banerjee, since both Gach and Banerjee teach the middle portion of the electrode inside the base plate (substrate) only serves as a contact via, and its width is smaller than the upper width and lower width of the electrode (see Fig.2a in Banerjee and Figs. 4F and 4H in Gach). Furthermore, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 7, modified MSHTL teaches the diagnostic apparatus of claim 1, and is silent to wherein an upper width of an electrode gap formed by two or more electrodes is smaller than a lower width of the electrode gap.
Gach teaches digital microfluidic systems and methods for droplet manipulation based on EWOD (title and [para. 0004]). Figs.4F and 4H show the EWOD device comprises one or more electrodes (combined electrode 440, via 430, and the interconnection at the bottom of the via 430 is deemed as an electrode [para. 0046], and Figs. 4F and 4H show a plurality of electrodes) formed by penetrating through a base plate including an insulator (substrate 425, which may be glass, organic or inorganic polymers (e.g., liquid crystal polymers or polyimide), printed circuit boards, paper, etc. [para. 0043]). Figs. 4F and 4H show wherein an upper width of an electrode gap formed by two or more electrodes is smaller than a lower width of the electrode gap.
Banerjee also teaches an EWOD device comprising one or more electrowetting electrodes embedded in a substrate, wherein an upper width of an electrode gap formed by two or more electrodes (gap between two adjacent “electrowetting electrodes” in Fig.2a) is smaller than a lower width of the electrode gap (gap between two adjacent “Interconnection” in Fig.2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of each electrode in modified MSHTL such that an upper width of an electrode gap formed by two or more electrodes is smaller than a lower width of the electrode gap, as taught by combined Gach and Banerjee, since both Gach and Banerjee teach an upper width of each electrode is larger than a lower width of the electrode and an upper width of an electrode gap formed by two or more electrodes is smaller than a lower width of the electrode gap, and the middle portion of the electrode inside the base plate (substrate) only serves as a contact via (see Fig.2a in Banerjee and Figs. 4F and 4H in Gach). Furthermore, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 9, modified MSHTL teaches the diagnostic apparatus of claim 7, and the limitation “wherein the base plate of the electrode gap is formed by injecting the insulator into a lower portion of the electrode gap” is a product by process limitation. The determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, as outlined in the rejection for claim 7 above, modified MSHTL teaches the electrode gap between adjacent electrodes is the base plate since the one or more electrodes penetrate through the base plate. Thus, the disclosed product is the same as the claimed one. There is no evidence the step of the recited process of forming the base plate of the electrode gap imparts any additional structure on the apparatus that is not already present or substantially similar to that of modified MSHTL.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MSHTL, Pavesi, Gach, and Banerjee, as applied to claims 2 and 7 above, and further in view of Jayaraman et al. (Defect-free metallization of through-glass vias with engineered geometry in additive-free electrolyte, Electrochemistry Communications, 2020, 120, 106823).
Regarding claim 3, modified MSHTL teaches the diagnostic apparatus of claim 2, and is silent to wherein a width of the electrode is tapered from an upper portion of the electrode to a middle portion and tapered from a lower portion of the electrode to the middle portion.
Jayaraman teaches a via tapered from an upper portion of the electrode to a middle portion and tapered from a lower portion of the electrode to the middle portion, as shown in Figs. 5d and 6e. Fig.2 shows R1 and R2 are the radii at the top and middle of the via, respectively (see caption of Fig.2). If the cross-section of the via is uniform ( i.e., Rav=R1=R2), conformal plating alone does not guarantee seamless filling (the first paragraph in Col. 2 on page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of each via (the middle part of the electrode embedded within the base plate) in modified MSHTL to conical cross-section in the middle such that a width of the electrode is tapered from an upper portion of the electrode to a middle portion and tapered from a lower portion of the electrode to the middle portion, as taught by Jayaraman, since it would ensure void-free filling (abstract and the first paragraph in Col. 2 on page 3 in Jayaraman). Furthermore, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 8, modified MSHTL teaches the diagnostic apparatus of claim 7, and Fig.2a in Banerjee and Figs. 4F and 4H in Gach show that the via (the middle portion of each electrode embedded in the base plate) has a uniform cross-section along the height direction. Thus, modified MSHTL is silent to wherein a width of the electrode gap is tapered from a middle portion of the electrode gap toward an upper portion and tapered from the middle portion of the electrode gap toward a lower portion.
Jayaraman teaches a via tapered from an upper portion of the electrode to a middle portion and tapered from a lower portion of the electrode to the middle portion, as shown in Figs. 5d and 6e. Fig.2 shows R1 and R2 are the radii at the top and middle of the via, respectively (see caption of Fig.2). If the cross-section of the via is uniform ( i.e., Rav=R1=R2), conformal plating alone does not guarantee seamless filling (the first paragraph in Col. 2 on page 3). Figs. 5d and 6e also show that a width of the electrode gap between two adjacent electrodes tapered from a middle portion of the electrode gap toward an upper portion and tapered from the middle portion of the electrode gap toward a lower portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of each via (the middle part of the electrode embedded within the base plate) in modified MSHTL to conical cross-section in the middle such that a width of the electrode is tapered from an upper portion of the electrode to a middle portion and tapered from a lower portion of the electrode to the middle portion, and a width of the electrode gap between two adjacent electrodes is tapered from a middle portion of the electrode gap toward an upper portion and tapered from the middle portion of the electrode gap toward a lower portion, as taught by Jayaraman, since it would ensure void-free filling (abstract and the first paragraph in Col. 2 on page 3 in Jayaraman). Furthermore, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MSHTL and Pavesi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gach et al. (US20190126279A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified MSHTL teaches the diagnostic apparatus of claim 1, and is silent to wherein the insulator comprises at least one of polycarbonate (PC), poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA), cyclic olefin polymer (COP), cyclic olefin copolymer (COC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyimide (PI), polyethylene (PE), acrylic, acrylonitrile butadienestyrene (ABS), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polystyrene (PS), polypropylene (PP), and polyvinyl chrloride (PVC).
Gach teaches digital microfluidic systems and methods for droplet manipulation based on EWOD (title and [para. 0004]). Figs.4F and 4H show the EWOD device comprises one or more electrodes (combined electrode 440, via 430, and the interconnection at the bottom of the via 430 is deemed as an electrode [para. 0046], and Figs. 4F and 4H show a plurality of electrodes) formed by penetrating through a base plate including an insulator (substrate 425, which may be glass, organic or inorganic polymers (e.g., liquid crystal polymers or polyimide), printed circuit boards, paper, etc. [para. 0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed material of the base plate in modified MSHTL with polyimide, as taught by Gach, since Gach teaches polyimide as a suitable material for the base plate for EWOD [para. 0043]. Furthermore, the 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 [MPEP § 2144.07]. With the base plate made of polyimide, the insulator that separating adjacent electrodes comprises polyimide.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MSHTL and Pavesi, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Srinivasan et al. (US20100120130A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified MSHTL teaches the diagnostic apparatus of claim 10, and MSHTL teaches wherein an adjacent electrode of the electrodes formed in the base plate (Figure 1.2 shows two electrodes of the array of distinct electrodes formed in the base plate and the left electrode is deemed as the claimed adjacent electrode). As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the one or more electrodes is formed in the base plate (see Figure 1.2 in MSHTL).
Modified MSHTL is silent to wherein the adjacent electrode is formed adjacent to the reservoir, has an upper width larger than an upper width of the other electrode.
Srinivasan teaches an EWOD as shown in Fig.4c, comprising adjacent electrode 422 of one or more electrodes (electrodes 416 and 422 in Fig.4c), wherein the adjacent electrode 422 is formed adjacent to the reservoir 434, has an upper width larger than an upper width of the other electrode 416 ([para. 0064]; Fig.4c). Reservoir electrode 422 is illustrated as being larger than droplet operations electrodes 416 [para. 0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the adjacent electrode that is formed adjacent to the reservoir, and has an upper width larger than an upper width of the other electrode, as taught by Srinivasan, since Srinivasan teaches the reservoir electrode (corresponding to the adjacent electrode) formed adjacent to the reservoir and is larger than the droplet operations electrodes (corresponding to the other electrode) for dispensing droplets [para. 0064].
Regarding claim 12, modified MSHTL teaches the diagnostic apparatus of claim 11, and MSHTL is silent to wherein a number of adjacent electrodes is determined based on a size of the reservoir.
Srinivasan further teach wherein Fig.4C shows the opening of the reservoir is substantially aligned with the reservoir electrode 422, and one reservoir electrode is arranged below the reservoir since the size of the reservoir electrode is a little bit larger than that the size of the reservoir [para. 0064]. Thus, the number of adjacent electrodes (corresponding to reservoir electrodes) is determined based on a size of the reservoir since the reservoir electrodes are patterned below the reservoir to intact with fluid 424 of the reservoir.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a number of adjacent electrodes been determined based on a size of the reservoir, which would allow to arrange the adjacent electrodes aligned with the upper reservoir [para. 0064 and Fig.4C in Srinivasan].
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Henry et al. (US20200286643A1) teaches thermoplastic carbon composite electrodes. Zhitomirsky et al. (US20210170413A1) teaches an EWOD device including an array of different sized electrodes. Wu (WO2014036915A1) teaches a microfluidic apparatus comprising an electrode array, wherein the widths of different first narrow electrodes may be different (claim 4), and wherein the spacings between different adjacent narrow electrodes may be different (claim 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Luan V. Van can be reached on (571) 272-8521. 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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795