DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on 5/9/24, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-13, 15, 17, 23-26, 28-30, 32-33 and 37-38 are pending.
Claims 4, 7-8, 14, 16, 18-22, 27, 31 and 34-36 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-13, 15, 17, 23-26, 28-30, 32-33 and 37-38 are rejected.
Claims 10 and 32 are objected to.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 32-33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “the thickness of said cover is between than 2.5 µm and 50 µm’. For clarity consider rephrasing to ‘the thickness of said cover is between 2.5 µm and 50 µm’.
Claim 32 recites “said mounting structure”. For clarity, consider rephrasing to ‘said addressing structure’.
Claims dependent on an objected base claim are objected to because any claim in dependent form is construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
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.
Claims 1-3, 24-26 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gach (US20190126279).
With respect to claim 1, Gach teaches a microfluidics device (droplet chip 470 in [0048]) comprising:
a cover (dielectric layer 450 in [0046]) with a first side defining a working surface (surface of the dielectric 450 facing top plate 400) (see Fig. 4H);
a plurality of electrodes (electrodes 440 in [0045]) on a second side (see Fig. 4H) of said cover (dielectric layer 450) for manipulation of fluid droplets (droplet 145 in [0029]) on said working surface (surface of the dielectric 450 facing top plate 400) (see [0045]-[0047); and
an addressing structure (substrate 425 in [0043] and conductive vias 430 in [0043], which recites “substrate 425 and one or more contact vias 430 (e.g., a plurality of conducting vias or embedded conductive posts)”) (see also Fig. 4H) for contacting said second side (see Fig. 4H) of said cover (dielectric layer 450) and coupled to a voltage source (control chip in [0054]) to selectively apply voltage to individual ones of said plurality of electrodes (see [0054], which recites “as the voltage or current is applied through the one or more transistors of the control chip, the voltage or current is routed through the substrate of the bottom plate to corresponding one or more electrodes of the droplet chip. The applied voltage or current actuates the corresponding one or more electrodes of the droplet chip and allows changes in wettability of a droplet on or within the droplet chip”);
said cover (dielectric layer 450) mounted to said addressing structure (substrate 425 and conductive vias 430) to electrically couple said electrodes (electrode 440) to said addressing structure (substrate 425 and conductive vias 430) (see Fig. 4H).
With respect to claim 2, Gach teaches the microfluidics device of claim 1, wherein said addressing structure (substrate 425 together with conductive vias 430) comprises a plurality of electrode pads (contact pad 138 in [0028]) coupled to said voltage source (control chip) by a plurality of conductive traces (contact vias 430 in [0043]) through said addressing structure (substrate 425 together with conductive vias 430) (see also [0038] of Gach, which explains that Figs. 4A-4H of Gach illustrate fabrication of the device described with respect to Figs 1-3 of Gach).
With respect to claim 3, Gach teaches the microfluidics device of claim 2, wherein said addressing structure (substrate 425 and conductive vias 430) comprises a printed circuit board (see [0043], which recites “the substrate 425 may be … printed circuit boards (PCBs)”).
With respect to claim 24, Gach teaches a microfluidics method (method of droplet manipulation in [0012]), comprising:
mounting a cover (dielectric layer 450 in [0046]) atop an addressing structure (substrate 425 in [0043] and conductive vias 430 in [0043]) (by blanket depositing the dielectric layer 450 on the underlying substrate), said cover (dielectric layer 450) defining a working surface (surface of the dielectric 450 facing top plate 400) on a first side thereof (see Figs. 4F-4H) and having a plurality of electrodes (electrodes 440 in [0045]) on a second side (see Fig. 4H) thereof, said addressing structure (substrate 425 and conductive vias 430) configured to selectively couple ones of said electrodes (electrodes 440) to a voltage source (control chip in [0054]) to cause movement of fluid droplets (e.g. droplet 145 in [0029]) on said working surface (surface of the dielectric 450 facing top plate 400) (see [0045]-[0047], specifically [0046], which recites “forming the dielectric layer 450 may include using conventional processes. For example, a dielectric material may be blanket deposited on the substrate 425 and/or electrodes 440”).
With respect to claim 25, Gach teaches the microfluidics method of claim 24, wherein said addressing structure (substrate 425 and conductive vias 430) comprises a plurality of electrode pads (contact pads 138 in [0028]) coupled to said voltage source (control chip) by a plurality of conductive traces (contact vias 430 in [0043]) through said addressing structure (substrate 425 and conductive vias 430).
With respect to claim 26, Gach teaches the microfluidics method of claim 25, wherein said addressing structure (substrate 425 and conductive vias 430) comprises a printed circuit board (see [0043], which recites “the substrate 425 may be … printed circuit boards (PCBs)”).
With respect to claim 38, Gach teaches a microfluidics device (droplet chip 470 in [0048]) comprising:
a top plate (top plate 400 in [0050]);
a base (bottom plate 420 in [0050]), comprising:
a cover (dielectric layer 450 in [0046]) with a first side defining a working surface (surface of dielectric layer 450) facing said top plate (top plate 400) (see Figs. 4A-4H);
a plurality of electrodes (electrodes 440 in [0045]) on a second side (see Fig. 4H) of said cover (dielectric layer 450) for manipulation of fluid droplets (droplet 145 in [0029]) on said working surface (surface of dielectric layer 450 facing top plate 400) (see [0045]-[0047]); and
an addressing structure (substrate 425 in [0043] and conductive vias 430 in [0043], which recites “FIG. 4C shows a bottom plate 420 comprising a substrate 425 and one or more contact vias 430 (e.g., a plurality of conducting vias or embedded conductive posts)”) (see also Fig. 4H) comprising a plurality of electrode pads (contact pads 138 in [0028]) coupled to an electrical control system (control chip in [0028]) by a plurality of conductive traces (contact vias 430 in [0043]) through said addressing structure (substrate 425 and contact vias 430) (see Fig. 4C-4H which illustrates the corresponding bottom-plate fabrication);
said cover (dielectric layer 450) mounted to said addressing structure (substrate 425 and conductive vias 430) to electrically couple said electrodes (electrodes 440) to said addressing structure (substrate 425 and contact vias 430) (see Fig. 4H).
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.
Claims 5 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gach (US20190126279) in view of Lowe (US20210114020, cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated 5/9/24).
With respect to claim 5, Gach teaches the microfluidics device of claim 1.
Gach fails to teach a photoconductive layer.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Lowe teaches a photoconductive layer (photoconductive layer 416 in [0120], which recites “a photoresponsive (in this case, photoconductive) layer 416”) for selectively connecting ones of electrodes to a voltage source by application of light (see [0010], which recites “the substrate can further comprise a photoresponsive layer. The photoresponsive layer can have a first side that contacts the inner dielectric layer and a second side that contacts the at least one electrode. … illuminating any of a plurality of regions of the photoresponsive layer with a beam of light can reduce the electrical impedance of the photoresponsive layer at the illuminated region(s). … the photoresponsive layer comprises a plurality of conductors, each conductor controllably connectable to the at least one electrode of the substrate via a phototransistor switch”) (see also [0122], which recites “The individually addressable electrodes can be connectable to one or more AC voltage sources via corresponding transistor switches”).
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 microfluidics device disclosed by Gach by incorporating the photoconductive layer as disclosed by Lowe with a reasonable expectation of success, such that said addressing structure comprises a photoconductive layer for selectively connecting ones of said electrodes to a voltage source by application of light, for the benefit of enabling selective activation of the droplet manipulation electrodes using an applied light pattern (see [0010] of Lowe).
With respect to claim 28, Gach teaches the microfluidics method of claim 24. Gach fails to teach a photoconductive layer.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Lowe teaches a photoconductive layer (photoconductive layer 416 in [0120], which recites “a photoresponsive (in this case, photoconductive) layer 416”) for selectively connecting ones of electrodes to a voltage source by application of light (see [0010], which recites “the substrate can further comprise a photoresponsive layer. The photoresponsive layer can have a first side that contacts the inner dielectric layer and a second side that contacts the at least one electrode. … illuminating any of a plurality of regions of the photoresponsive layer with a beam of light can reduce the electrical impedance of the photoresponsive layer at the illuminated region(s). … the photoresponsive layer comprises a plurality of conductors, each conductor controllably connectable to the at least one electrode of the substrate via a phototransistor switch”) (see also [0122], which recites “The individually addressable electrodes can be connectable to one or more AC voltage sources via corresponding transistor switches”).
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 microfluidics method disclosed by Gach by incorporating the photoconductive layer as disclosed by Lowe with a reasonable expectation of success, such that said addressing structure comprises a photoconductive layer for selectively connecting ones of said electrodes to a voltage source by application of light, for the benefit of enabling selective activation of the droplet manipulation electrodes using an applied light pattern (see [0010] of Lowe).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gach (US20190126279) in view of Winger (US20160016403).
With respect to claim 6, Gach teaches the microfluidics device of claim 1, wherein said cover (dielectric layer 450) comprises a sheet of dielectric material (see [0046], which recites “the dielectric material may be patterned using conventional lithography and etching processes to form the dielectric layer 450 as shown in FIG. 4F”) (see [0027], which recites “the bottom plate 105 may comprise a patterned array of individually controllable electrodes 125 (droplet actuation electrodes”).
Gach fails to teach that said electrodes are patterned onto said sheet of dielectric material.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Winger (US20160016403) teaches electrodes (conductive ink reference electrode in [0041]) (see also [0043], which recites “conductive ink is patterned on substrate 112 and/or substrate 110 to form an arrangement of electrodes suitable for conducting one or more droplet operations”) are patterned onto sheet of dielectric material (bottom surface of top substrate 112 in [0041], which recites “top substrate 112 includes a conductive ink reference electrode patterned on a bottom surface of top substrate 112 so that the conductive ink reference electrode faces the droplet operations gap 114”) (see [0029], which recites “the material selected for substrate 112 is a dielectric material”).
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 microfluidics device disclosed by Gach such that the electrodes are patterned onto said sheet of dielectric material as disclosed by Winger, for the benefit of effectively conducting droplet operations with a dielectric support carrying patterned conductive electrodes (see [0045] of Winger, which recites “the layered structure will also include a dielectric layer. A dielectric layer is useful, for example, when the conductive ink is patterned to form electrodes for conducting droplet operations”).
Claims 9 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gach (US20190126279) in view of Hoffmeyer (US20140353157).
With respect to claim 9, Gach (US20190126279) teaches the microfluidics device of claim 1.
Gach fails to teach that said cover comprises a flexible film.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Hoffmeyer (US20140353157) teaches a cover (bottom layer 3 in [0151]) comprises a flexible film (see [0151], which recites “the bottom layer 3 … is … a flexible film”).
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 microfluidics device disclosed by Gach such that said cover comprises a flexible film as disclosed by Hoffmeyer with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of effectively manipulating droplets by providing an electrowetting surface conforming over an electrode array. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
With respect to claim 29, Gach teaches the microfluidics method of claim 24.
Gach fails to teach that said cover comprises a flexible film.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Hoffmeyer (US20140353157) teaches a cover (bottom layer 3 in [0151]) comprises a flexible film (see [0151], which recites “the bottom layer 3 … is … a flexible film”).
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 microfluidics method disclosed by Gach such that said cover comprises a flexible film as disclosed by Hoffmeyer with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of effectively manipulating droplets by providing an electrowetting surface conforming over an electrode array. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gach (US20190126279) in view of Umapathi (US20190262829).
With respect to claim 10, Gach (US20190126279) teaches the microfluidics device of claim 1.
Gach fails to teach that the thickness of said cover is between than 2.5 µm and 50 µm.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Umapathi (US20190262829) teaches a cover (thin polymer film 830 in [0119]) having a thickness overlapping the claimed range between than 2.5 µm and 50 µm (see [0119], which recites “a thin polymer film 830 (1 μm to 20 μm) may be used to form a smooth dielectric surface directly above the electrode array”, which overlaps the claimed range 2.5 µm and 50 µm).
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 microfluidics device disclosed by Gach by incorporating a cover (thin polymer film 830) as disclosed by Umapathi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of providing a thin smooth dielectric surface over the electrode array for effective electrowetting droplet manipulation (see [0119], which recites “a thin polymer film 830 (1 μm to 20 μm) may be used to form a smooth dielectric surface directly above the electrode array”).
With respect to claim 11, Gach (US20190126279) teaches the microfluidics device of claim 1.
Gach fails to teach that the thickness of said cover is between 7.5 µm and 12.5 µm.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Umapathi (US20190262829) teaches a cover (thin polymer film 830 in [0119]) having a thickness range encompassing the claimed range between 7.5 µm and 12.5 µm (see [0119], which recites “a thin polymer film 830 (1 μm to 20 μm) may be used to form a smooth dielectric surface directly above the electrode array” which encompasses the claimed range 7.5 µm and 12.5 µm).
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 microfluidics device disclosed by Gach by incorporating a cover (thin polymer film 830) as disclosed by Umapathi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of providing a thin smooth dielectric surface over the electrode array for effective electrowetting droplet manipulation (see [0119], which recites “a thin polymer film 830 (1 μm to 20 μm) may be used to form a smooth dielectric surface directly above the electrode array”).
Claims 12-13, 15, 17, 30 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gach (US20190126279) in view of Srinivasan (US20120261264).
With respect to claim 12, Gach teaches the microfluidics device of claim 1.
Gach fails to teach that said cover is removably mounted to said addressing structure.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Srinivasan (US20120261264) teaches a cover (removable film in [0079]) is removably mounted to an addressing structure (substrate in [0080], which recites “the removable film includes an adhesive backing which is suitable for binding the removable film to the substrate”) (see also [0079], which recites “the removable film … include … the dielectric layer and the electrodes”).
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 microfluidics device disclosed by Gach such that said cover is mounted to said addressing structure as disclosed by Srinivasan with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of securely retaining the cover during droplet operations while permitting release and replacement of the cover between operations.
With respect to claim 13, Gach in view of Srinivasan teaches the microfluidics device of claim 12 wherein said cover (removable film in [0079]) is removably mounted to an addressing structure (substrate in [0080]) (see also [0079], which recites “the removable film … include … the dielectric layer and the electrodes”) by application of vacuum pressure (see [0080], which recites “the removable film may be held in place … by vacuum … openings are provided in the substrate, and the film is held in place by a vacuum pressure applied through the openings”)
With respect to claim 15, Gach in view of Srinivasan teaches the microfluidics device of claim 13, wherein said addressing structure (substrate in [0080] of Srinivasan) includes a plurality of through-holes (openings in [0080], which recites “openings are provided in the substrate, and the film is held in place by a vacuum pressure applied through the openings”).
With respect to claim 17, Gach in view of Srinivasan teaches the microfluidics device of claim 13, wherein said cover (the removable film of Srinivasan is referred to as “fresh film” in [0081] of Srinivasan) is dispensed from a roll (see [0081], which recites “a reel-to-reel configuration may be provided to supply a fresh film as needed on the droplet actuator. A lubricant may be applied to the film as it rolls off of the supply roll to facilitate sliding of the film across the droplet actuator surface”).
With respect to claim 30, Gach teaches the microfluidics method of claim 24.
Gach fails to teach mounting said cover to said addressing structure by application of vacuum pressure.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Srinivasan (US20120261264) teaches
mounting a cover (removable film in [0079]) to an addressing structure (substrate in [0080]) (see also [0079], which recites “the removable film … include … the dielectric layer and the electrodes”) by application of vacuum pressure (see [0080], which recites “the removable film may be held in place … by vacuum … openings are provided in the substrate, and the film is held in place by a vacuum pressure applied through the openings”)
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 microfluidics method disclosed by Gach such that said cover is removably mounted to said addressing structure as disclosed by Srinivasan with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of securely retaining the cover during droplet operations while permitting release and replacement of the cover between operations.
With respect to claim 32, Gach in view of Srinivasan teaches the microfluidics method of claim 30. In addition, Srinivasan discloses removing said cover (removable film) from said mounting structure (substrate) and mounting a second cover atop said addressing structure (substrate) (see [0080] which recites “the vacuum may be applied during operation and removed to release the film and facilitate replacement of the film”).
With respect to claim 33, Gach in view of Srinivasan teaches the microfluidics method of claim 32, comprising dispensing said second cover by advancing a roll of film (see [0081] of Srinivasan, which recites “a reel-to-reel configuration may be provided to supply a fresh film as needed on the droplet actuator. A lubricant may be applied to the film as it rolls off of the supply roll to facilitate sliding of the film across the droplet actuator surface”).
Claims 23 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gach (US20190126279) in view of McRuer (US20080169197).
With respect to claim 23, Gach teaches the microfluidics device of claim 1, comprising a ground electrode (continuous ground electrode 410 in [0050]).
Gach fails to teach a plurality of ground electrodes patterned on said first side of said cover.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, McRuer (US20080169197) teaches a plurality of ground electrodes (plurality of ground electrode elements 5 in [0042]) patterned on a first side of a cover (first dielectric film 4 in [0042]) (see also [0004], which recites “electrodes patterned on a substrate”).
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 microfluidics device disclosed by Gach by incorporating the plurality of ground electrodes (plurality of ground electrode elements 5) disclosed by McRuer for the benefit of improving control of droplet movement (see [0004] of McRuer, which recites “by changing the wettability of each of the electrodes patterned on a substrate, liquid drops can be shaped and driven along a series of adjacent electrodes, making microscale liquid handling extremely simple both with respect to device fabrication and operation”).
With respect to claim 37, Gach teaches the microfluidics method of claim 24, comprising a ground electrode (continuous ground electrode 410 in [0050]).
Gach fails to teach that said cover comprises a plurality of ground electrodes patterned on said first side.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, McRuer (US20080169197) teaches a plurality of ground electrodes (plurality of ground electrode elements 5 in [0042]) patterned on a first side of a cover (first dielectric film 4 in [0042]) (see also [0004], which recites “electrodes patterned on a substrate”).
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 microfluidics method disclosed by Gach by incorporating the plurality of ground electrodes (plurality of ground electrode elements 5) disclosed by McRuer for the benefit of improving control of droplet movement (see [0004] of McRuer, which recites “by changing the wettability of each of the electrodes patterned on a substrate, liquid drops can be shaped and driven along a series of adjacent electrodes, making microscale liquid handling extremely simple both with respect to device fabrication and operation”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BORTOLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3179. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM till 6 PM EST Monday through Thursday.
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.
/JONATHAN BORTOLI/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights