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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I comprising claims 1 – 11 in the reply filed on 6/5/5026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/5/2026.
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular sections, columns, line numbers, paragraphs and figures, in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 8, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Furtaw et al. (US 2022/0057360 A1; hereinafter “Furtaw”).
Regarding claim 1, Furtaw teaches a microfluidic device (device 100; paragraphs 61 and 87; figure 1), comprising:
a substrate (the substrate is broadly interpreted as any part of the body which holds the components of capillary electrophoresis tube 101 and capillary outlet 103, and including the outer body of the microfluidic pump chamber 109 having a nozzle outlet 114) having an outlet channel (nozzle outlet 114);
a microfluidic channel (capillary electrophoresis tube 101) arranged on the substrate such that an outlet (capillary outlet 103) of the microfluidic channel is positioned above at least a portion of the outlet channel (nozzle outlet 114); and
a set of piezoelectric actuators (impulsive pump element 111; paragraphs 63 and 81) arranged above the outlet channel (nozzle outlet 114) and adjacent to the outlet (capillary outlet 103), the set of piezoelectric actuators configured to eject a portion of a fluid out of the microfluidic channel (capillary electrophoresis tube 101) via the outlet (capillary outlet 103).
PNG
media_image1.png
810
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Furtaw teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein the outlet (capillary outlet 103) includes a hole that is formed through a thickness of the set of piezoelectric actuators (impulsive pump element 111 arranged on both sides of the microfluidic pump chamber 109; paragraphs 63 and 81) and enclosed by the set of piezoelectric actuators (impulsive pump element 111 arranged on both sides of the microfluidic pump chamber 109; paragraphs 63 and 81)
Regarding claim 3, Furtaw teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein the set of piezoelectric actuators (impulsive pump element 111 arranged on both sides of the microfluidic pump chamber 109; paragraphs 63 and 81) are arranged on a membrane (at least a portion of the microfluidic pump chamber comprises a deformable surface, which can be connected to the impulsive pump element 111; paragraph 80; see also paragraphs 135 and 137) above the outlet channel (nozzle outlet 114).
Regarding claim 5, Furtaw teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, further comprising a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are configured to provide actuation signals to the set of piezoelectric actuators, wherein the set of piezoelectric actuators are positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode (e.g., paragraphs 65 and 134).
Regarding claim 6, Furtaw teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, further comprising an optical layer, wherein the microfluidic channel is arranged between the optical layer and the substrate (the sidewalls of the capillary electrophoresis tube 101 can be made of fused silica, which is implicitly a transparent material that is interpreted to constitute the recited optical layer; paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 7, Furtaw teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, further comprising a polymer layer that defines at least a portion of the microfluidic channel (the capillary electrophoresis tube 101 can include a sieving matrix comprising a polymer layer, such as polyacrylamide; paragraph 71).
Regarding claim 8, Furtaw teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, further comprising one or more electrodes arranged adjacent to the microfluidic channel and configured to apply an electrical field to the fluid (e.g., to induce electrophoresis; paragraphs 61 and 75 – 79).
Regarding claim 10, Furtaw teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, further comprising a second set of piezoelectric actuators (impulsive pump element 111 arranged on both sides of the microfluidic pump chamber 109; paragraphs 63 and 81) arranged adjacent to an inlet (capillary inlet 102; paragraph 61) of the microfluidic channel (capillary electrophoresis tube 101).
Regarding claim 11, Furtaw teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, further comprising control circuitry (pump actuator 112; paragraph 63) electrically coupled to the set of piezoelectric actuators (impulsive pump element 111 arranged on both sides of the microfluidic pump chamber 109; paragraphs 63 and 81) and configured to provide actuation signals to the set of piezoelectric actuators.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furtaw et al. (US 2022/0057360 A1; hereinafter “Furtaw”) in view of Govyadinov et al. (US 2015/0273853 A1; hereinafter “Govyadinov”).
Regarding claim 4, Furtaw does not specifically teach the microfluidic device of claim 1, further comprising a passivation layer arranged between the set of piezoelectric actuators and the microfluidic channel.
However, piezoelectric actuators comprising a passivation layer are well known in the art as evidence by Govyadinov (e.g., paragraph 29). Consequently, as evidenced by Govyadinov, the incorporation of a passivation layer with a piezoelectric actuator would have been considered to be suitable and predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a passivation layer arranged between the set of piezoelectric actuators and the microfluidic channel.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furtaw et al. (US 2022/0057360 A1; hereinafter “Furtaw”) in view of Puebla Hellmann et al. (US 2022/0135399 A1; hereinafter “Puebla”).
Regarding claim 9, Furtaw does not specifically teach the microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein the substrate includes a silicon base layer and a buried oxide (BOX) layer, wherein the BOX layer separates the microfluidic channel from the silicon base layer.
However, Puebla teaches microfluidic devices comprising capillary structures and a silicon substrate comprising microchannels with a buried oxide layer that electrically isolates the two opposing sidewalls (e.g., paragraphs 23, 32 and 68). The incorporation of a buried oxide layer enables the fabrication of microfluidic structures to take advantage of electrical isolation properties and afford improved performance and function for the microfluidic device. Consequently, as evidenced by Puebla, the incorporation of a substrate comprising a silicon base layer with a buried oxide layer that separates the microfluidic channel walls from the silicon base layer would have been considered to be suitable and predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the substrate includes a silicon base layer and a buried oxide (BOX) layer, wherein the BOX layer separates the microfluidic channel from the silicon base layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J. SINES whose telephone number is (571)272-1263. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM EST M-F.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
BRIAN J. SINES
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/BRIAN J. SINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights