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, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on September 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 September 15, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner believes the term ”conducting” in line 2 should be “conductive”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner believes the term ”structure” in line 4 should be “structures”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lous (US 2024/0351028 A1).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With respect to claim 1 Lous discloses a flex foil for sealing a micro-fluidic cartridge, comprising a flexible carrier film (flex film FF, See Fig. 3 and Para. 0070) and an integrated photodetector circuit (photodetector circuit PC, See Fig. 3 and Paras. 0059 and 0072), comprising at least one photodetector (See abstract); wherein:
the carrier film comprises at least one optically transparent window (See Para. 0075),
the integrated photodetector circuit is arranged on the carrier film, such that the photodetector is aligned with the optically transparent window (See Para. 0078 for discussion of how the flex foil is attached to the integrated photodetector circuit and comprises a number of optical windows which align with the photodetectors), and
the integrated photodetector circuit is electrically and operatively connected to the flexible carrier film (See Para. 0021 and claim 3 for discussion of how the integrated photodetector circuit is arranged on and electrically connected to a flexible foil).
With respect to claim 2 Lous further discloses that
the carrier film comprises an array of optically transparent windows (See Para. 0075),
the integrated photodetector circuit comprises an array of photodetectors (See Para. 0078 for discussion of how the flex foil is attached to the integrated photodetector circuit and comprises a number of optical windows which align with the photodetectors), and
the integrated photodetector circuit is arranged on the carrier film, such that each photodetector is aligned with a respective optically transparent window (See Para. 0078).
With respect to claim 3 Lous discloses that
the carrier film comprises optically transparent and optically opaque material (See Paras. 0067, and
the carrier film is patterned (See Para. 0075), such that sections of the carrier film comprising the optically transparent material form the one or more the optically transparent windows, and/or that sections of the carrier film have cut-outs (See Paras. 0072 and 0078 for discussion of the foil/film comprising a number of cutouts).
With respect to claim 5 Lous discloses an integrated driver circuit (See Paras. 0024 and 0063), wherein:
the integrated driver circuit is arranged on the carrier film (See Para. 0025), and
the integrated driver circuit is electrically and operatively connected to the flexible carrier film (See Paras. 0025 and 0063).
With respect to claim 7 Lous discloses that
the carrier film comprises one or more glue joints to contact the carrier film to the integrated photodetector circuit and/or the integrated driver circuit (See para. 0078 for discussion of the use of anisotropic conducting tape to attach the flex foil to the integrated photodetector circuit and the driver circuit),
the carrier film comprises one or more structured spacer structures to contact the carrier film to the integrated photodetector circuit and/or the integrated driver circuit and/or to block optical cross talk between the photodetectors, or
the integrated photodetector circuit and/or the integrated driver circuit are embedded in the carrier film. Applicant should note that the incorporation of the term “or” is being interpreted such that only one of the above conditions must be met to satisfy the requirements of the claim.
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) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lous (US 2024/0351028 A1) in view of Reda et al (US 2015/0184235 A1).
With respect to claim 6 Lous fails to disclose the incorporation of electrically conducting wiring and an interface, wherein the wiring is operable to electrically access the integrated photodetector circuit and/or the integrated driver circuit via the interface.
Reda teaches a sensor carrier (1) contains a flexible film (1) supporting a plurality of functionalized sensor elements (4) each being formed by a functional layer (See Para. 0062). The film (1) has recesses in which electrical conductors 2 are embedded to form conductive tracks. These tracks or conductors (2) are manufactured using specific technology for ultra-high density flexible circuit boards. The electrical conductors are made of nickel with a thickness of 5.4 µm, which are coated with a gold layer of 0.1 to 0.2 µm thickness (See Para. 0066). The electrical conductors (2) of the sensor elements (4) are connected to an electrical connector (3) comprising a plurality of connector pads (201), wherein typically, each sensor element is connected to a single connector pad. This electrical connector (3) connects the conductors (2) of the sensor carrier (11, 21) with external electronics circuits (219) located in the readout instrument 90 (See Para. 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tracks and electrical connector of Lous into the film of Lous such that the film can be connected with external electronics circuits, such as that of a readout instrument (See Para. 0067 of Reda).
With respect to claim 8 Lous fails to disclose that the carrier film has a thickness between 10 to 200 µm.
Reda teaches a sensor carrier (1) contains a flexible film (1) supporting a plurality of functionalized sensor elements (4) each being formed by a functional layer. The functional layers are located on the same surface of the film within a window area (See abstract and para. 0062). The film (1) is typically produced by technologies used for flexible circuit boards (FCB) or similar, combined with chemical technologies used for coating the film surface with insulating layers and with layers exposing the immobilized reaction partners, referred to as 5'-end and 3'-end primers, or also referred to as forward (F) and reverse (R) primers (See Para. 0064). Thickness of the film 1 is 125 µm (See Para. 0065), and the film is flexible to allow movement of the window area relative to the surrounding area (See Paras. 0015-0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the disclosed film thickness of the flexible film of Reda into the film layer of the cartridge of Lous such that the film is flexible to allow movement of the window are relative to surrounding areas of the cartridge (See Paras. 0065 and 0015-0016 of Reda).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest cited prior art of reference fails to disclose or fairly teach:
the carrier film comprises at least one layer of the optically transparent material and at least one layer of the optically opaque material, and the carrier film is patterned, such that sections of the layers form the one or more the optically transparent windows (claim 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY I FISHER whose telephone number is (469)295-9182. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRITTANY I FISHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights