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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/25/2024, 1/30/2024, and 1/30/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I and species A, Claims 1-20, without traverse in the reply filed on 2/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objection
Claims 7-8 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7-8: please amend “any of claim” to –
Claim 20: please amend “the particles” to – the plurality of particles --; “ the outer outlet channels” to -- the at least two outer outlet channels--.
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 6 and 20 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 6, claim 6 recites “wherein the alignment region comprises a textured bottom surface sufficient to induce at least one of eddies or vortexes in a fluid passing through the alignment region”, wherein “sufficient” is a relative term which also renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” 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. In this instant claim, it is unclear what is the standard to be considered as sufficient to induce at least one of eddies or vortexes.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “wherein the plurality of outlet channels comprises an odd number of outlet channels, a center outlet channel and at least two outer outlet channels”, and it is unclear if a center outlet channel and at least two outer outlet channels are part of the odd number of outlet channels. Thus, the scope of claim 20 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Almasri et al. (US20160299138A1).
Regarding claim 1, Almasri teaches a dielectrophoresis (DEP) device (a biosensor apparatus 100 as shown in Fig.1 [para. 0031]) comprising:
an alignment region (focusing region 102 in Fig.1 [para. 0031]; The p-DEP and hydrodynamic forces arising from the rampdown orientation of electrodes 200 operate to push the bacteria toward the center of the rampdown channel [e.g., see center line 208] and direct this concentration of bacteria in the central portion of the rampdown channel toward the detection region 104 [see the arrow of center line 208] [para. 0039]; since the sample is pushed/focused in the central portion of the channel, this focusing region is deemed as the alignment region);
a DEP region (the regions of the trapping electrode array 110 as shown in Figs.1 and 3A; the trapping electrode array 110 comprises a first pair of opposing vertical electrodes 310 and a second pair of opposing vertical electrodes 312, and the trapping electrodes 310 and 312 provide trapping effects on the bacteria within the fluid material via negative DEP [para. 0046-0047]); and
an analysis region (the region of the detection array as shown in Figs. 1 and 3A; The detection electrode array 108 includes opposing pairs of electrodes 300 and finger electrodes 302 connected horizontally 300 [para. 0044]; this impedance change can then be measured by an impedance analyzer circuit that is connected to the detection electrode array 108 via contacts/bonding pads 122 to determine and quantify a presence of bacteria in the fluid material [para. 0043]).
Regarding claim 2, Almasri teaches the DEP device of claim 1, wherein the alignment region, the DEP region, and the analysis region are connected by a fluid channel (Fig.1 shows the alignment region, the DEP region, and the analysis region are connected by a fluid channel through which the fluid material flows from an inlet 112 to an outlet 116 [para. 0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Almasri teaches the DEP device of claim 2, wherein the fluid channel is formed on a single DEP device chip (Fig.1 shows the fluid channel is formed on a single DEP device chip; Fig.8 shows the biosensor apparatus fabricated on a glass substrate [para. 0053]).
Regarding claim 4, Almasri teaches the DEP device of claim 2, wherein the fluid channel is formed in a single substrate (Fig.1 shows the fluid channel is formed in a single substrate, and Fig.8 shows the fluidic channel is formed in a single glass substrate [para. 0053]).
Regarding claim 11, Almasri teaches the DEP device of claim 1, further comprising at least one sensor (The detection electrode array 108 includes opposing pairs of electrodes 300 and finger electrodes 302 connected horizontally 300 [para. 0044]; this impedance change can then be measured by an impedance analyzer circuit that is connected to the detection electrode array 108 via contacts/bonding pads 122 to determine and quantify a presence of bacteria in the fluid material [para. 0043]).
Regarding claim 12, Almasri teaches the DEP device of claim 11, wherein the at least one sensor is an impedance detector (this impedance change can then be measured by an impedance analyzer circuit that is connected to the detection electrode array 108 via contacts/bonding pads 122 to determine and quantify a presence of bacteria in the fluid material [para. 0043]).
Regarding claim 13, Almasri teaches the DEP device of claim 12, wherein the impedance detector comprises at least one working electrode and at least one counter electrode (The IDE array may comprise opposing pairs of electrodes 300 and finger electrodes 302 connected horizontally 300 [para. 0044; Fig.3A]; one of the IDE electrode pair is deemed as a working electrode and the other of the IDE electrode pair is deemed as a counter electrode); and
the limitation “adapted to comprise an electric field therebetween when an alternating current signal is applied to the at least one working electrode and the at least one counter electrode” is a functional recitation. 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, Almasri teaches the magnitude and phase of the impedance across the detection electrode array 108 can be measured as a function of frequency using an impedance analyzer for various concentrations in order to determine the lowest measurable concentration. A modulated AC voltage (sine wave) can be applied to the detection electrode array 108 at a frequency in a range of 10 Hz.-10 MHz [para. 0043]. Thus, the detection electrode array is configured to perform the claimed function of comprising an electric field therebetween when an alternating current signal is applied to the at least one working electrode and the at least one counter electrode for impedance measurement.
Regarding claim 14, Almasri teaches the DEP device of claim 13, and the limitation “wherein the alternating current signal is a summation of multiple alternating current frequency signals” further limits the AC signal applied to the at least one working electrode and the at least one counter electrode, and the AC signal is a functional limitation, as outlined in the rejection of claim 13 above. Thus, the disclosed detection electrode array is configured to perform the claimed function when the alternating current signal is a summation of multiple alternating current frequency signals.
Regarding claim 15, Almasri teaches the DEP device of claim 11, wherein the at least one sensor is located in an outlet channel (Fig.1 shows the detection electrode array 108 is located in an outlet channel 116).
Regarding claim 16, Almasri teaches the DEP device of claim 2, wherein the DEP region comprises the fluid channel and a plurality of electrodes (Figs. 1 and 3A shows the DEP region comprises the fluid channel [see flow direction 314 in Fig.3A], a first pair of opposing vertical electrodes 310, and a second pair of opposing vertical electrodes 312 [para. 0046]), and
the limitation “adapted to emit a non-uniform electric field within the fluid channel” is a functional recitation. 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, Almasri teaches the trapping electrodes 310 and 312 provide trapping effects on the bacteria within the fluid material via negative DEP (n-DEP). In the example of Fig.3A, the electrodes 310 and 312 are configured to produce the n-DEP forces via a non-uniform electric field created by applying an alternating voltage at a specified frequency across the trapping electrode pairs 310 and 312 [para. 0047]. Thus, the trapping electrodes 310 and 312 are configured to perform the claimed function of emitting a non-uniform electric field within the fluid channel by applying an alternating voltage at a specified frequency across the trapping electrode pairs 310 and 312.
Regarding claim 17, Almasri teaches the DEP device of claim 16, wherein the plurality of electrodes are electrically connected to an alternating current signal (the electrodes 310 and 312 are configured to produce the n-DEP forces via a non-uniform electric field created by applying an alternating voltage at a specified frequency across the trapping electrode pairs 310 and 312 [para. 0047]).
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 1-2, 5-10, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (High-throughput continuous dielectrophoretic separation of neural stem cells, Biomicrofluidics, 2019, 13, 064111), and in view of Davalos et al. (US20080105565A1). Jiang was provided in IDS filed on 1/25/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches a dielectrophoresis (DEP) device (HOAPES device with hydrophoretic and DEP modules [Figs. 1 and 3; Device Design Principles]) comprising:
an alignment region (hydrophoretic module in Fig.1; at the end of the hydrophoretic module, cells are in 2 streams along the channel edges and exit the two outer channels [caption of Fig.3e]); and
a DEP region (Dielectrophoretic module in Figs. 1 and 3).
Jiang further teaches wherein the device comprises three outlet channels (inner channel and two outer channels in Fig.1A) located at the downstream of the DEP module, as shown in Fig. 1A.
Jiang is silent to an analysis region.
Davalos teaches a microfluidic device integrating DEP module with impedance measurements at the outlet channels for analyte detection (abstract and Fig.1). Fig.1 shows a microfluidic device comprising an upstream DEP region (iDEP 105a) to concentrate the analyte and an analysis region (detection areas 109 and 111 located, respectively, at each outlet channel 102) for sensing the concentrated analyte. The impedance of the detection area 109 having analytes concentrated therein measured by a pair of sensing electrodes 110a and 110b is compared with the impedance of the control area 111 having no analytes measured by a second pair of sensing electrodes 112a and 112b [para. 0053-0054]. Thus, Davalos teaches an impedance sensor is arranged at each outlet channel located at downstream of the DPE module for sensing the concentrated analyte which is concentrated by the upstream DEP module.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 device of Jiang by providing an impedance sensor arranged at each outlet channel located at downstream of the DEP module for sensing the concentrated analyte, as taught by Davalos, since it would allow for continuous concentration and detection of analytes [para. 0012 in Davalos].
With the above modification, each of the outlet channels (the inner channel and the two outer channels in Fig.1A of Jiang) has an impedance sensor (annotated Fig.1A in Jiang schematically shows the added “sensor” to each outlet channel), which forms an analysis region (a region of the fluidic channel including downstream of the DEP module and three outlet channels, as shown by the dashed box region as the “analysis region” in annotated Fig.1A in Jiang).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1, and wherein the alignment region, the DEP region, and the analysis region are connected by a fluid channel (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, each of the outlet channels [the inner channel and the two outer channels in Fig.1A of Jiang] has an impedance sensor. Annotated Fig.1A in Jiang shows the alignment region [hydrophoretic module], the DEP region [DEP module], and the analysis region are connected by a fluid channel [Materials and methods on page 5 in Jiang]; the hydrophoretic module consists of a serpentine channel, and the chevron shape of the electrode array couples with fluid flow in the channel to enable continuous sorting of cells [abstract in Jiang]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1, and Jiang teaches wherein the alignment region comprises a channel having a plurality of bends (Fig.1A shows the hydrophoretic module comprises a channel having a plurality of bends; the hydrophoretic module consists of a serpentine channel [abstract]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1, and Jiang teaches wherein the alignment region comprises a textured bottom surface (see Ridge and Trench in Figs.1B and 2); and
the limitation “sufficient to induce at least one of eddies or vortexes in a fluid passing through the alignment region” is a functional recitation. 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, Jiang teaches the textured bottom surface as shown in Figs. 1B and 2, and Fig.1C shows the fluid flow (red arrows in Fig.1C) is diverged when a fluid passing through the hydrophoretic module. The cell trajectories
of Figs.3D and 3E show that cells are gradually directed into 2 streams along the channel edges, and at the end of the hydrophoretic module, cells are in 2 streams along the channel edges as they enter the DEP module (captions of Figs. 1 and 3 in Jiang). Since the fluid flow and the cell trajectories are diverged, the disclosed textured bottom surface is sufficient to perform the claimed function of inducing at least one of eddies or vortexes in a fluid passing through the alignment region to diverge the fluid flow and cell trajectories.
Regarding claim 7, modified Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 5, and “wherein a plurality of particles within the alignment region are linearized, respectively, on one or more walls of the alignment region” is a functional recitation. 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, Jiang teaches the cell trajectories of Figs.3D and 3E show that cells are gradually directed into 2 streams along the channel edges, and at the end of the hydrophoretic module, cells are in 2 streams along the channel edges as they enter the DEP module (caption of Fig.3). Thus, the disclosed hydrophoretic module is configured to perform the claimed function of linearizing a plurality of particles within the alignment region on one or more walls of the alignment region (Figs. 3D and 3E in Jiang shows cells are linearized into 2 streams along the channel edges of the hydrophoretic module).
PNG
media_image2.png
333
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, modified Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 7, and Jiang teaches wherein the alignment region has an alignment region inlet (see annotated Fig.3B in Jiang) and an alignment region outlet (see annotated Fig.3B in Jiang) and the plurality of particles within the alignment region are more linearized at the alignment region outlet than at the alignment region inlet (Figs. 3D and 3E show that the plurality of particles [cells] within the alignment region are more linearized at the alignment region outlet [see Fig.3E] than at the alignment region inlet [see Fig.3D]; In the hydrophoretic module, cell trajectories show that cells are gradually directed into 2 streams along the channel edges. Arrows indicate the direction of fluid flow [caption of Fig.3D]; At the end of the hydrophoretic module, cells are in 2 streams along the channel edges as they enter the DEP module [caption of Fig.3E]. Thus, the disclosed alignment region is configured to perform the claimed function).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1, wherein the analysis region comprises a plurality of outlet channels (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, each of the outlet channels [the inner channel and the two outer channels in Fig.1A of Jiang] has an impedance sensor. Thus, the analysis region comprises a plurality of outlet channels [the inner channel and the two outer channels in Fig.1A of Jiang]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 9, wherein the plurality of outlet channels are symmetric across a longitudinal center line of the DEP device (as shown in Fig.1A of Jiang, the two outer channels and the inner channel are symmetric across a longitudinal center line of the DEP device [the horizontal center line of the dielectrophoretic module and the Inner Channel in Fig.1A of Jiang]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 2, and Jiang teaches wherein the DEP region comprises the fluid channel (see Figs.1A and 1E) and a plurality of electrodes (see electrode array in dielectrophoretic module in Figs. 1A and 1E) adapted to emit a non-uniform electric field within the fluid channel (see the non-uniform electric field profile in Fig.1E [caption of Fig.1E]; the higher electric field regions are typically along the electrode edges for planar interdigitated electrodes [Fig.1E] [the 2nd paragraph in Col. 1 on page 4]. Thus, the disclosed electrode array in dielectrophoretic module is configured to perform the claimed function of emitting a non-uniform electric field within the fluid channel).
Regarding claim 18, modified Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 16, wherein the analysis region further comprises the fluid channel and a plurality of outlet channels (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the analysis region [the dashed box region in annotated Fig.1A in Jiang] further comprises the fluid channel [the fluid channel at the downstream of the DEP module] and a plurality of outlet channels [the inner channel and the two outer channels in annotated Fig.1A in Jiang]); and
The limitation “the non-uniform electric field is adapted to enact DEP forces on a plurality of particles within the DEP region such that the plurality of particles are moved into one of the plurality of outlet channels based on one or more electrical properties of the plurality of particles” is a functional recitation. 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, Jiang teaches wherein the DEP force acting on a cell is governed by equation (4), which is proportional to the gradient of the electric field squared, the real part of the CM factor which depends on permittivity and conductivity of the cell [equation 3], and volume of the cell R3. Coupling the induced DEP force with the viscous drag force parallel to the bulk fluid flow causes the cells to migrate along the electrodes and progressively move down the channel toward the outlets [Fig.1e, Fig.S3 and Movie 3 in the Supplementary material] (the first and 2nd paragraphs in Col. 1 on page 4). Thus, the non-uniform electric field is adapted to enact DEP forces [see equation 4] on a plurality of particles (cells) within the DEP region such that the plurality of particles are moved into one of the plurality of outlet channels based on one or more electrical properties of the plurality of particles (the DEP force depends on permittivity and conductivity of the cells [equation 3 for the CM factor]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 18, and the limitation “wherein the plurality of particles are linearized, respectively, entering each of the plurality of outlet channels” is a functional recitation. 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, Jiang teaches wherein the electrodes in the DEP region are chevron-shaped, creating an angled electrode array pointing toward the center of the channel (see Fig.1 and the 2nd paragraph in Col. 2 on page 9), and the shape of the electrodes in Jiang is the same as the shape of the electrodes in the DEP region of this instant application, as shown in Fig.2 of this instant specification. Fig.5C of Jiang also shows collected unfocused particles/cells from two outer channels and focused particles/cells from the Inner Channel. Since the disclosed electrodes in the DEP region are substantially the same as those used in this instant application, it is contented that the disclosed electrodes in the DEP region are capable of generating the non-uniform electric field that is adapted to enact DEP forces on the plurality of particles which are linearized, respectively, entering each of the plurality of outlet channels (see Fig.5C in Jiang).
Regarding claim 20, modified Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 18, wherein the plurality of outlet channels comprises an odd number of outlet channels (three outlet channels as shown in Fig.1A in Jiang), a center outlet channel (Inner Channel in Fig.1A of Jiang) and at least two outer outlet channels (two Outer Channels in Fig.1A of Jiang), and
“wherein the particles moved to the center outlet channel comprise different electrical properties than the particles moved to the outer outlet channels” is a functional recitation. 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, Jiang teaches wherein the electrodes in the DEP region are chevron-shaped, creating an angled electrode array pointing toward the center of the channel (see Fig.1 and the 2nd paragraph in Col. 2 on page 9), and the shape of the electrodes in Jiang is the same as the shape of the electrodes in the DEP region of this instant application, as shown in Fig.2 of this instant specification. Jiang further teaches the DEP force depends on the electrical properties of the particles (the CM factor in equation 4 depends on the permittivity and conductivity of the particles [equation 3]) and size of the particle (equation 4 shows the DEP force is proportional to R3 with R being the radius of the particle). Particles with different electrical properties have different CM factors (see equation 3 in Jiang) and accordingly different DEP forces (see equation 4 in Jiang), thus have different trajectories and are directed to different outlets. Since the disclosed electrodes in the DEP region are substantially the same as those used in this instant application, it is contented that the disclosed electrodes in the DEP region are capable of generating the non-uniform electric field that is adapted to enact DEP forces on the plurality of particles with different electrical properties such that the particles moved to the center outlet channel comprise different electrical properties than the particles moved to the outer outlet channels because particles having different electrical properties have different DEP forces and accordingly different trajectories.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Urakawa et al. (US20240359189A1) teaches a DEP device comprising a DEP region and an analysis region (Fig.1). Hayes et al. (US20220152629A1) teaches a DEP device comprise a DEP region and an analysis region (Fig.1). Yamamoto (US20120298511A1) teaches a DEP device comprising a DEP region (region between a pair of E1 and E2 in Fig.1D) and analysis region (outlet channels 12a/12b/12c with electrodes E3, E4 and E5 in Fig.1D).
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
Prosecution Insights