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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 15, line 1, between “lines” and “configured” the word – are – should be inserted;
b) in clam 15, line 2, between “of” and “plurality” the word – the – should be inserted; and
c) claim 16, line 1, “A’ should be replaced with – the --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Note that dependent claims will have the deficiencies of base and intervening claims.
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 9 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a second dielectric layer [italicizing by the Examiner]" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no first dielectric layer in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander Shenderov US 6,565,727 B1 (hereafter “Shenderov”) in view of Alexander Shendeov US 2002/0043463 A1 (Hereafter “Shenderov II”) .
Addressing claim 1, Shenderov discloses an electrowetting-on-dielectric (EWOD) device (See the title, Abstract, Figure 1, and col. 1:10-18), comprising:
a first substrate (bottom wafer 24 in Figure 1; col. 3:25); and
a second substrate opposite to the first substrate (top wafer 22 in Figure 1;
col. 3:25);
the first substrate comprising:
a plurality of first electrodes configured to be respectively controllably connected to signal lines (bottom control electrodes 32a in Figure 1; col. 3:30. That these electrodes are configured to be respectively controllably connected to signal lines is implied by the following, “The electrodes have electrical connections allowing an outside control circuit to change their potentials individually or in groups.” See
col. 414-16.);
a first hydrophobic layer disposed over the plurality of first electrodes (bottom hydrophobic insulating coating 28a in Figure 1;
col. 3:27 );
the second substrate comprising:
a second electrode configured to be connected to the signal lines (top control electrodes 32b in Figure 1; col. 3:31. That these electrodes are to be connected to the signal lines is implied by the following, “The electrodes have electrical connections allowing an outside control circuit to change their potentials individually or in groups.” See col. 414-16.);
a second hydrophobic layer disposed over the second electrode (top hydrophobic insulating coating 28b in Figure 1; col. 3:27 );
an internal space between the first substrate and the second substrate for receiving a droplet and a surrounding medium (the Examiner is construing the space in Figure 1 between the bottom surface of 28b and the top surface of 28a, in which droplets 26 (col. 3:26) and filler fluid (surrounding medium) 30 (col. 3:29) are located, as this internal space), the droplet surrounded by the surrounding medium (Figure 1),
wherein the surrounding medium is oil (col. 4:12-14).
Shenderov, though, does not mention having the oil (surrounding medium) be fluorinated, although Shenderov does disclose that it may be silicone oil. See Shenderov col. 4:12-14.
Shenderov II discloses an electrowetting-on-dielectric (EWOD) device (Figure 1a and paragraph [0007]) having an internal volume filled with a liquid immiscible with an electrolytic droplet (paragraph [0007]). “Exemplary [immiscible] liquids include oils such as silicone oil (which can be fluorinated or even perfluorinated), benzene, or any other non-polar, preferably chemically inert liquid. [italicizing by the Examiner]“ See paragraph [0033]. In light of this teaching of Shenderov II to have the silicone oil in Shenderov be a fluorinated or perfluorinated silicone oil is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element (droplet surrounding medium) for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Addressing claim 11, the additional limitation of this claim is implied by the following in Shenderov
PNG
media_image1.png
100
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see Shenderov col. 2:26-31).
In addition, see Shenderov II Figure 2(b0, which shows example time sequences of signals sent to transport electrodes of an EWOD device.
Addressing claim 17, Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the droplet comprises a biologic sample.” As a first matter, the Examiner notes that claim 17 does not actually require a droplet to be present in the claimed EWOD device, so the additional limitation of claim 17 is an intended use limitation. In any event, Shenderov appears silent as to particular sample types, so presumably at least allows the droplet to comprise a biologic sample. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have droplet to be used in the EWOD device of Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II comprise a biologic sample because Shenderov II discloses that EWOD devices are useful for performing bioassays as they require only very a small sample volume. See Shenderov paragraphs [0003]-[0005]
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenderov in view of Shenderov II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Theodore Winger US 2012/0044299A1 (hereafter “Winger”) and Udayan Umapathi
US 2019/02628290 A1 (hereafter “Umapathi”) or Geng et al., “ Antifouling digital microfluidics using lubricant infused porous film†,” Lab Chip, 2019, 19, 2275 (hereafter “Geng”); or Yamamoto et al., “Lubrication effects on droplet manipulation by electrowetting-on-dielectric (EWOD),” J. Appl. Phys. 132, 204701 (2022) with Supplemental Information (hereafter “Yamamoto”).
. Addressing claim 2, Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II does not disclose “. . . ., wherein at least one of the first hydrophobic layer and the second hydrophobic layer is covered by an infused liquid layer.”
Umapathi, Geng, Hao, and Yamamoto each disclose an EWOD device that in at least one embodiment comprises at least one hydrophobic layer covered by an infused liquid layer. See in Umapathi, the title, Abstract, Figures 3A and 9B-D, and paragraphs [0068], [0137]-0149]; in Geng see the title, abstract, and Figure 1b; in Hao see the title and Abstract, and Methods – Sample preparation, which is on page 6; and in Yamamoto see the title, Abstract, and Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have at least one of the first hydrophobic layer and the second hydrophobic layer of the EWOD device of Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II be covered by an infused liquid layer as taught by any of Umapathi, Geng, Hao , and Yamamoto because as taught by
Umapathi, “[0140] This molecular-level smooth surface may offer very little friction to droplet motion, and droplets may experience little to no droplet pinning. Droplets on such a smooth surface may have very small contact angle hysteresis (as low as 2°). The resulting low contact angle hysteresis and absence of droplet pinning may lead to very low actuation voltage (1V to 100V) with robust droplet manipulation…”;
as taught by Geng, “The major focus in this article experimentally proves this integration for antifouling with a variety of liquid solutions including DI water, saline solution, ionic liquid, DNA solution, protein solution, whole milk, sheep blood, honey, crude oil, propylene carbonate, and isopropyl alcohol.” See the last paragraph in the left column on page 2275, bridging to the right column. Also, in Geng
PNG
media_image2.png
282
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
224
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; and
as taught by Yamamoto,
PNG
media_image4.png
226
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Although not clearly needed to meet claim 2, the Examiner notes it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have the composition or properties from the surrounding medium be different from that of the infused liquid layer because they have different functions and requirements. For example, as known in the art, the surrounding medium functions to keep sample droplets separate in order to prevent undesired mixing or reaction and to prevent the droplets from evaporating.1 The surrounding medium is required be able to move with neighboring sample droplets. On the other hand, as discussed above, the infused liquid layer functions to minimizes contact between sample droplets, especially biochemical or biological sample droplets and the solid surfaces of the EWOD device, so avoiding bio-fouling, lower the necessary action voltage need to move a droplet, and increase the possible velocity at which droplets may be able to be moved. It is required that the infused liquid layer stay infused rather than it may easily be moved along with sample droplets. In this regard it should be noted that none of Umapathi, Geng, Hao, and Yamamoto require the infused liquid layer to comprise fluorinated oil. Umapathi, for example, discloses, “[0149] The lubricating oil may be any low-energy oil such as silicone oil, DuPont Krytox oil, Fluorinert FC-70 or other oil.“ One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select a suitable surrounding medium and a suitable infused liquid layer based on the composition of the sample droplets and on the physical and chemical characteristics of the solid surfaces of the EWOD device that will be contacted by the infused liquid layer.
Addressing claim 3, for the additional limitation of this claim see in Umapathi Figures 3A and 9B-D and paragraphs [0129]-[0132], and [0142]-[0148]; in Geng see the first sentence of Results – Sample preparation, which is on page 2, and Figure 1(a); and in Yamamoto see Figure 1(b).
Addressing claims 4-6, barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, determining the suitable relative viscosity of the surrounding medium to the viscosity of the infused liquid layer, and viscosity range for the surrounding medium and for the infused liquid layer is prima facie obvious as routine optimization of known result-effective variables (viscosity for the surrounding medium and for the infused liquid layer) as
Umapathi discloses, “The viscosity of the lubricating oil affects droplet mobility during electrowetting; with lower viscosity promoting higher mobility…” (see Umapathi paragraph [0149]);
Geng discloses , “The viscosity of honey is approximately 10 000 times larger than water, and it is prone to adhere to solid surfaces, rendering it challenging to operate by conventional EWOD microfluidics…” (see the left column on Geng page 2280);
Hao discloses, “ Meanwhile, we find that the damping effect associated with the EWOLF can be tailored by manipulating the viscosity and thickness of liquid lubricant…”(see the left column on Hao page 2), also
PNG
media_image5.png
138
406
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
98
404
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(see Hao page 5); and
Yamamoto discloses, “ We used five different oils of viscosity of 2–100mm2 s-1
(Shin-Etsu Silicone, Table S1 in the supplementary material)…” (see Yamamoto page 204701-3, left column); and
PNG
media_image7.png
242
376
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(see Yamamoto page 204701-4, right column).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenderov in view of Shenderov II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barman, Snigdha Roy; Khan, Imran; Chatterjee, Subhodeep; Saha, Subhajit; Choi, Dukhyun; Lee, Sangmin; and Lin, Zong-Hong (2020) "Electrowetting-on-dielectric (EWOD): Current perspectives and applications in ensuring food safety," Journal of Food and Drug Analysis: Vol. 28 : Iss. 4 , Article 8 (hereafter “Barman”).
Addressing claim 7, Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the first substrate further comprises a first dielectric layer disposed over the plurality of first electrodes.” In Shenderov the first hydrophobic layer is directly over the plurality of first electrodes. See Shenderov Figure 1.
Barman surveys EWOD relating to food safety; however, as a preliminary Barman describes the basic configuration of an EWOD device, which comprises one or two (opposing) stacked layers, each stack comprising one or more electrodes, a dielectric layer, and a hydrophobic layer. See Barman 2.2. Configurations of EWOD chip. Regarding the dielectric layer Barman discloses, “One of the key elements in EWOD microfluidic, chips is the dielectric layer, which separates the liquid droplet from the actuation electrodes. Choosing an accurate dielectric material is important for determining the lifetime and durability of EWOD devices [54,69,79-81].” Also, “Furthermore, the thickness of the dielectric layer is important for optimizing the
voltage required for droplet actuation using EWOD chips [25,83].” Additionally,
PNG
media_image8.png
206
338
media_image8.png
Greyscale
See Barman 2.4. Dielectric layer.
Regarding the hydrophobic layer Barman discloses, “The operation of the EWOD device relies on the application of the electric potential to change the wetting properties of the hydrophobic layer, resulting in a change in the contact angle and therefore actuating the droplet. “ See Barman 2.5. Hydrophobic layer.
So, the function of the hydrophobic layer and of the dielectric layer, if also provided, are different from each other.
In light of Barman, as just discussed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have the first substrate further comprise a first dielectric layer disposed over the plurality of first electrodes if the conductivity of the sample droplets is expected to be high as it will allow a higher actuation force to be used, if needed, yet prevent electrolysis of the droplets.
Addressing claim 9, Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the second substrate further comprises a second dielectric layer disposed between the second electrode and the second hydrophobic layer.”2
In Shenderov the second hydrophobic layer is directly over the plurality of second electrodes. See Shenderov Figure 1.
Barman surveys EWOD relating to food safety; however, as a preliminary Barman describes the basic configuration of EWOD, which comprises one or two (opposing) stacked layers, each stack comprising one or more electrodes, a dielectric layer, and a hydrophobic layer. See Barman 2.2. Configurations of EWOD chip. Regarding the dielectric layer Barman discloses, “One of the key elements in EWOD microfluidic, chips is the dielectric layer, which separates the liquid droplet from the actuation electrodes. Choosing an accurate dielectric material is important for determining the lifetime and durability of EWOD devices [54,69,79-81].” Also, “Furthermore, the thickness of the dielectric layer is important for optimizing the
voltage required for droplet actuation using EWOD chips [25,83].” Additionally,
PNG
media_image8.png
206
338
media_image8.png
Greyscale
See Barman 2.4. Dielectric layer.
Regarding the hydrophobic layer Barman discloses, “The operation of the EWOD device relies on the application of the electric potential to change the wetting properties of the hydrophobic layer, resulting in a change in the contact angle and therefore actuating the droplet. “ See Barman 2.5. Hydrophobic layer.
So, the function of the hydrophobic layer and of the dielectric layer, if also provided, are different from each other.
In light of Barman, as just discussed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have the second substrate further comprise a second dielectric layer disposed between the second electrode and the second hydrophobic layer if the conductivity of the sample droplets is expected to be high as it will allow a higher actuation force to be used, if needed, yet prevent electrolysis of the droplets.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenderov in view of Shenderov II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. US 2006/0146099 A1 (hereafter “Wang”).
Addressing claim 8, Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the first substrate has a structured surface facing to the second substrate.”
Wang discloses an EWOD device, which in three embodiments comprises a substrate having a structured surface. See in Wang the title, Abstract, and Figures 2B-D. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to similarly have the first substrate in the EWOD device of Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II have a structured surface as shown in any of Wang Figures 2B-D, which will face to the second substrate, because as taught by Wang “increase contact angles between a droplet and a surface thereunder”. See Wang paragraph [0023]. Increasing the contact angles will reduce the contact areas. “By reducing contact area between a droplet and a surface thereunder, designing the electrodes, and treating the surface of the micro droplet controlling device, the driving voltage can be lower than in a conventional electrowetting device.” See Wang paragraph [0032].
10. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenderov in view of Shenderov II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amos et al. US 9,841,402 B2 (hereafter “Amos”).
Addressing claim 12, Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II does not disclose “. . . , wherein the signal lines electrically connect to an alternative current (AC) voltage source.” However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have in the EWOD device of Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II the signal lines electrically connect to an alternative current (AC) voltage source because Amos discloses, “Whilst EWOD (and AM-EWOD) devices can be operated with either DC or AC actuation voltages, in practice there are many reasons for preferring an AC method of driving, as reviewed in the previously cited reference R. B. Fair, Microfluid Nanofluid (2007) (3:245-281). It may be noted that droplets can be actuated and manipulated for a wide range of AC driving frequencies ranging typically from a few hertz to several kHz. [italicizing by the Examiner]” See Amos col. 2:54-62.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenderov in view of Shenderov II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holden et al. US 2021/0008557 A1 (hereafter “Holden”).
Addressing claim 13, Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the signal lines electrically connect to a direct current (DC) voltage source…”, although it should be noted that Shenderov does appear to allude to this feature (see Shenderov col. 4:16-20) and Shenderov II does disclose DC signals being sent to the electrodes (see Shenderov II Figure 2(b)). Shenderov is silent as to whether the voltage source is DC or AC. However, Holden, which is about droplet interfaces in electro-wetting devices, discloses,
PNG
media_image9.png
244
466
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
146
450
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Thus, to have in the EWOD device of Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II the signal lines electrically connect to a direct current (DC) voltage source, if not already the case, is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element (EWOD voltage source) for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenderov in view of Shenderov II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pamula et al. US 2004/0055891 A1 (hereafter “Pamula”) and Sterling et al. US 2004/0231987 A1 (hereafter “Sterling”).
Addressing claim 14, Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the second electrode electrically connects to ground.”
Pamula and Sterling each discloses an EWOD device in which a second substrate, which faces a first substrate, has a second electrode electrically connected to ground. See in Pamula the title, the Abstract, Figure 1, and paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0083] and [0084]. In Stirling see the title, Abstract, Figures 1 and 3, and paragraphs [0006], [0007], [0046], and [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have the second electrode in the EWOD device of Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II electrically connected to ground because in light of Pamula and Sterling it is simple substitution of one known element (electrical connection to the second electrode) for another (if not already so connected) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Moreover, by having the second electrode in the EWOD device of Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II be electrically connected to ground one of ordinary skill in the art would infer from Pamula paragraph [0084], fist sentence, that the signals applied to the first electrode may then be either a DC signal or an AC signal, so allowing for better possibility of optimizing the first electrode electrical signals for the desired droplet operation(s) to be performed.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenderov in view of Shenderov II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sterling.
Addressing claim 15, Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the signal lines configured to read out signals from each electrode of plurality of first electrodes.”
Sterling discloses an EWOD device comprising, as shown in Figure 10, a feedback system 86. As this feedback system employs a set of position detection sensors 138, and row and column detection circuitry 140, 142, respectively, and the position detection sensors “may be pressure sensitive, resistivity sensitive, or capacitively sensitive…”, the signal lines are implicitly configured to read out signals from each electrode of plurality of first electrodes. See Sterling the title, Abstract, Figures 1 and 10, and paragraphs [0091] and [0092]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to provide a feedback system as taught by Sterling for the EWOD device of Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II, which would include having the signal lines configured to read out signals from each electrode of plurality of first electrodes, because as taught by Sterling, “By raster scanning through all rows and columns, data representing the location of bodies of fluid 22a, 22b can be provided to the active matrix display 56 to visually indicate the current location of the bodies of fluid 22a, 22b and/or to provide a feedback signal to control the drive electrodes 26 to adjust the motion of the bodies of fluid 22a, 22b. More generally, for any sensor system, the row and column detection circuitry 140, 142 receive electrical signals from the position detection sensors 138 and provide position information 144 to the computing system 14, identifying the position of one or more bodies of fluid 22a, 22b in the microfluidic structure 12. [italicizing by the Examiner]. See Sterling paragraph [0093].
Addressing claim 16, Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the droplet size is in a range from 0.01 nL to 50μL.” As a first matter, the Examiner notes that claim 16 does not actually require a droplet to be present in the claimed EWOD device, so the additional limitation of claim 16 is an intended use limitation. In any event, barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, to have the droplet size be range from 0.01 nL to 50μL for the EWOD device of Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II is prima facie obvious as a change in size of the droplet or of the spacing between the first substrate and the second substrate with no material effect on the operation of the EWOD device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)) as Shenderov discloses, “This invention relates generally to the fields of laboratory automation, microfabrication and manipulation of small volumes of fluids (microfluidics), in such a manner so as to enable rapid dispensing and manipulation of small isolated volumes of fluids under direct electronic control. [italicizing by the Examiner]” (see Shenderov col. 1:10-15),and Sterling, which discloses an EWOD device, states, “ [0034] The array of drive electrodes 26 and/or ground electrode 32 is driven to manipulate samples or bodies of fluid 22a, 22b to perform chemical, biochemical, or cellular/biological assays. The fluids 22a, 22b may be in the form of electrolytic drops or droplets ranging in size from picoliters to microliter. [italicizing by the Examiner]” See Sterling paragraph [0034].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenderov in view of Winger and Umapathi or Geng or Yamamoto et al., “Lubrication effects on droplet manipulation by electrowetting-on-dielectric (EWOD),” J. Appl. Phys. 132, 204701 (2022) (hereafter “Yamamoto”) , and as evidenced by Chempoint - Krytox™ Oils product overview (hereafter ‘Chempoint”) and the 3m Technical data publication for Fluorinert™ Electronic Liquid FC-70 (hereafter “3M”) .
Addressing claim 18, Shenderov discloses an electrowetting-on-dielectric (EWOD) device (See the title, Abstract, Figure 1, and col. 1:10-18), comprising:
a first substrate (bottom wafer 24 in Figure 1; col. 3:25); and
a second substrate opposite to the first substrate (top wafer 22 in Figure 1;
col. 3:25);
the first substrate comprising:
a plurality of first electrodes configured to be respectively controllably connected to signal lines (bottom control electrodes 32a in Figure 1; col. 3:30. That these electrodes are configured to be respectively controllably connected to signal lines is implied by the following, “The electrodes have electrical connections allowing an outside control circuit to change their potentials individually or in groups.” See
col. 414-16.);
a first hydrophobic layer disposed over the plurality of first electrodes (bottom hydrophobic insulating coating 28a in Figure 1;
col. 3:27 );
the second substrate comprising:
a second electrode configured to be connected to the signal lines (top control electrodes 32b in Figure 1; col. 3:31. That these electrodes are to be connected to the signal lines is implied by the following, “The electrodes have electrical connections allowing an outside control circuit to change their potentials individually or in groups.” See col. 414-16.);
a second hydrophobic layer disposed over the second electrode (top hydrophobic insulating coating 28b in Figure 1; col. 3:27 ); and
an internal space between the first substrate and the second substrate for receiving a droplet and a surrounding medium (the Examiner is construing the space in Figure 1 between the bottom surface of 28b and the top surface of 28a, in which droplets 26 (col. 3:26) and filler fluid (surrounding medium) 30 (col. 3:29) are located, as this internal space), the droplet surrounded by the surrounding medium (Figure 1).
Shenderov, though, does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the first hydrophobic layer is covered by an infused liquid layer, wherein at least one of the first hydrophobic layer and the second hydrophobic layer has a textured surface, wherein at least one of the first hydrophobic layer and the second hydrophobic layer comprises a fluoropolymer in a solid form, and wherein the infused liquid layer is fluorinated oil.”
As for the claim limitation “. . . ., wherein the first hydrophobic layer is covered by an infused liquid layer, . . . .”, Umapathi, Geng, Hao, and Yamamoto each disclose an EWOD device that in at least one embodiment comprises at least one hydrophobic layer covered by an infused liquid layer. See in Umapathi, the title, Abstract, Figures 3A and 9B-D, and paragraphs [0068], [0137]-0149]; in Geng see the title, abstract, and Figure 1b; in Hao see the title and Abstract, and Methods – Sample preparation, which is on page 6; and in Yamamoto see the title, Abstract, and Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have at least one of the first hydrophobic layer and the second hydrophobic layer of the EWOD device of Shenderov as modified by Shenderov II be covered by an infused liquid layer as taught by any of Umapathi, Geng, Hao , and Yamamoto because as taught by
Umapathi, “[0140] This molecular-level smooth surface may offer very little friction to droplet motion, and droplets may experience little to no droplet pinning. Droplets on such a smooth surface may have very small contact angle hysteresis (as low as 2°). The resulting low contact angle hysteresis and absence of droplet pinning may lead to very low actuation voltage (1V to 100V) with robust droplet manipulation…”;
as taught by Geng, “The major focus in this article experimentally proves this integration for antifouling with a variety of liquid solutions including DI water, saline solution, ionic liquid, DNA solution, protein solution, whole milk, sheep blood, honey, crude oil, propylene carbonate, and isopropyl alcohol.” See the last paragraph in the left column on page 2275, bridging to the right column. Also, in Geng
PNG
media_image2.png
282
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
224
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; and
as taught by Yamamoto,
PNG
media_image4.png
226
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for the claim limitation “. . . ., . . . ., wherein at least one of the first hydrophobic layer and the second hydrophobic layer has a textured surface, . . . .”, see in Umapathi Figures 3A and 9B-D and paragraphs [0129]-[0132], and [0142]-[0148]; in Geng see the first sentence of Results – Sample preparation, which is on page 2, and Figure 1(a); and in Yamamoto see Figure 1(b).
As for the claim limitation “. . . ., “. . . ., . . . ., wherein at least one of the first hydrophobic layer and the second hydrophobic layer comprises a fluoropolymer in a solid form, . . . .”, note the following in Shenderov
PNG
media_image11.png
174
434
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(see Shenmderov col. 3:10-18).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select an appropriate coating material form those disclosed by Shenderov, such as Teflon™, based on such factors as chemical compatibility with the sample, surrounding medium and infused liquid and expected voltage ranges for the electrodes.
As for the claim limitation “. . . ., and wherein the infused liquid layer is fluorinated oil...”, note in
Umapathi “[0149] The lubricating oil may be any low-energy oil such as silicone oil, DuPont Krytox oil, Fluorinert FC-70 or other oil. [italicizing by the Examiner]” As evidenced by Chempoint “Krytox™ oils are high-performance synthetic lubricants based on perfluoropolyether (PFPE) chemistry, . . . .” As evidenced by 3M Fluorinert FC-70, “3M™ Fluorinert™ Electronic Liquid FC-70 is a clear, colorless, fully-fluorinated liquid…”; and
Geng discloses, “Finally, the SLIPS is formed by dropping a Krytox-103 oil
(DuPont, immiscible to aqueous and hydrocarbon liquids) drop onto the porous PTFE surface and . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” See Geng page 2277, left column third full paragraph (“Finally, . . . .”). Also, see again Chempoint.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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:
a) in claim 10 the combination of limitations requires (underlining by the Examiner),
PNG
media_image12.png
128
530
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In contrast, although it is known in the EWOD art to use hexadecane for an infused liquid layer, it is as an alternative to an infused silicone oil layer not in addition not it. See, for example, Cao et al., “Electrowetting on liquid-infused membrane for flexible and reliable digital droplet manipulation and application,” Sensors & Actuators: B. Chemical 291 (2019) 470–477, the title, first paragraph and second paragraphs of 3.1. Effect of infused liquid materials on electrowetting performance of sessile droplets on LIMs, which is on page 472, and Figures 2(a) and 2(b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM EST.
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 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795 December 21, 2025
1 Winger discloses “Filler fluids may, for example, be doped with surfactants or other additives. For example, additives may be selected to improve droplet operations and/or reduce loss of reagent or target substances from droplets, formation of microdroplets, cross contamination between droplets, contamination of droplet actuator surfaces, degradation of droplet actuator materials, etc. Composition of the filler fluid, including surfactant doping, may be selected for performance with reagents used in the specific assay protocols and effective interaction or non-interaction with droplet actuator materials.” See Winger paragraph [0016].
2 Note that Examiner understands the phrase “a second dielectric layer” to not mean a dielectric layer in addition to a first dielectric layer in the second substate, but that there a single dielectric layer in the second substrate as claimed, “second” only indicating association with the second, rather the first, substrate.