DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Species A, Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-20, in the reply filed on 05/01/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: [para. 0022] in instant specification discloses: The material used to coat the nano particles may be, for example, silanes, silane-based compounds, polyethylene, or other kinds of polymers which have comparable hydrophobicity with the polymer matrix”. While instant claims 5 and 14 recite: “wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with materials with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the miniscule-sized particles”. Thus, there is an inconsistency on the coating material which have comparable hydrophobicity with the polymer matrix or have substantially similar hydrophobicity to the hydrophobicity of the miniscule-sized particles. Furthermore, “a nano-pattered top surface” in [para. 0003] should be “a nano-patterned top surface”.
Claim Objection
Claims 2-3, 9, 12-13 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 12: please amend “include miniscule-sized particles having a dielectric constant in the range of 7.5 to110” to -- include the miniscule-sized particles having a dielectric constant in [[the]] a range of 7.5 to110--.
Claims 3, 9, 13, 18: please amend “miniscule-sized particles” to – the miniscule-sized particles--.
Claim 9: please amend “the top surface” to –[[the]] a top surface--.
Claim 17: please amend “in the range of 7.5 to 110” to -- in [[the]] a range of 7.5 to 110--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 19, claims 5, 14 and 19 recite “substantially similar”, which is a relative term. The term “substantially similar” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instant claim, it is unclear what is the deviation/difference of the two hydrophobicities been considered as substantially similar. Therefore, the scopes of claims 5, 14 and 19 are indefinite.
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 19, claims 5, 14 and 19 recite “wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with materials with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the miniscule-sized particles”, while [para. 0022] in instant specification discloses: The material used to coat the nano particles may be, for example, silanes, silane-based compounds, polyethylene, or other kinds of polymers which have comparable hydrophobicity with the polymer matrix”. Thus, there is a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In reHammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970) [see MPEP 2173.03]. Therefore, the scopes of claims 5, 14, and 19 are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhitomirsky (US20210149184A1), and in view of Shen et al. (Enhanced dielectric and hydrophobic properties of poly(vinylidene fluoride-trifluoroethylene)/TiO2 nanowire arrays composition film surface modified by electrospinning, Polymers, 2021, 13(105), 1-12). Jolivet et al. (Structural, optical, and electrical properties of TiO2 thin films deposited by ALD: Impact of the substrate, the deposited thickness and the deposition temperature, Applied Surface Science, 2023, 608, 155214) is an evidence for claims 2, 12 and 17.
Regarding claim 1, Zhitomirsky teaches a device (an active EWOD device as shown in Fig.2 [para. 0017]), comprising:
a substrate (a plurality of driving electrodes 205 are disposed on the substrate [para. 0017; Fig.2]);
an electrode layer configured on top of the substrate (a plurality of driving electrodes 205 are disposed on the substrate [para. 0017; Fig.2]).;
a dielectric layer configured on the electrode layer (a dielectric layer 208 disposed on the electrode layer 205 as shown in Fig.2 [para. 0017]);
a top plate (top electrode 206 and top hydrophobic layer 207 in Fig.2 [para. 0020]); and
a micro-fluidic channel configured between the top plate and the dielectric layer (Fig.2 shows a microfluidic channel filled with an oil 202 and at least one aqueous droplet 204 disposed between the top plate and the dielectric layer, and the cell spacer is typically in the range 50 to 200 μm [para. 0017]) comprises a nano-patterned top surface (Hydrophobic layers of moderate contact angle typically include one or a blend of fluoropolymers. Coatings having higher contact angles may be fabricated one or more superhydrophobic materials. Biomimetic superhydrophobic coatings rely on a delicate micro or nano structure for their repellence [para. 0024-0025]. Each hydrophobic layer is typically 20 to 60 nm thick and prevents the droplet from wetting its respective surface [para. 0017]. Thus, surfaces of the hydrophobic layers 207 facing the microfluidic channel in Fig.2 are deemed as the nano-patterned top surface).
Zhitomirsky is silent to wherein the dielectric layer comprises polymers embedded with miniscule-sized particles.
Shen teaches an EWOD device as shown in Fig.1 comprising a hydrophobic layer arranged on a dielectric layer which is dispose don an electrode layer. Shen further teaches wherein the dielectric layer comprises polymers embedded with miniscule-sized particles (TiO2 nanowire arrays embedded in polymers of PVTNF-PVT, as shown in Fig.2). The permittivity of the composite is nearly 3 times higher than pure P(VDF-TrFE), and the contact angle of the composite was greatly enhanced from pure P(VDF-TrFE) (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dielectric layer of the EWOD device of Zhitomirsky with a composite dielectric layer comprising polymers of PVTNF-PVT embedded with miniscule-sized particles (TiO2 nanowire arrays), as taught by Shen, since the composite dielectric layer would enhance both the permittivity and contact angle of the EWOD (abstract in Shen).
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the polymers embedded with miniscule-sized particles include the miniscule-sized particles having a dielectric constant in a range of 7.5 to 110 (As evidenced by Jolivet: TiO-2 has dielectric constant between 80 and 110 in the rutile phase or between 40 and 55 in anatase phase [the 2nd paragraph in Col. 2 on page 1]; Furthermore, Table 1 of instant specification also lists the dielectric constant of TiO2 is between 80-110).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the polymers are embedded with the miniscule-sized particles comprising TiO2 (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the miniscule-sized particles comprise TiO2).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the device of claim 1, and “wherein the miniscule-sized particles are embedded in the dielectric layer using at least one of spray coating, spin coating, and dip coating” is a product by process claim. The determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In instant case, there is no evidence the steps of the recited process impart any additional structure on the miniscule-sized particles that is not already present or substantially similar to that of modified Zhitomirsky. Furthermore, Examiner notes that Shen does teach spin-coating P(VDF-TrFE) polymers on the TiO2 nanowire array, as shown in Fig.2.
Regarding claim 9, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the dielectric layer has a graded concentration of the miniscule-sized particles with a concentration near the electrode layer being higher than the concentration near the top surface of the dielectric layer (Fig.2 in Shen shows TiO2 nanowire arrays are embedded in a spin-coated P(VDF-TrFE) layer at 180 oC heat treatment, followed by electrospinning another top layer of P(VDF-TrFE). Thus, the formed dielectric layer has a graded concentration of the miniscule-sized particles with a concentration near the electrode layer [FTO glass] being higher than the concentration near the top surface of the dielectric layer [the top P(VDF-TrFE) layer without TiO2]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the device of claim 1, and Zhitomirsky teaches further comprising a hydrophobic layer on top of the dielectric layer (a hydrophobic layer 207 on top of the dielectric layer 208 as shown in Fig.2).
Regarding claim 11, Zhitomirsky teaches an electrowetting on dielectric device (EWOD) (an EWOD as shown in Fig.2 [para. 0017]), comprising:
a substrate (a plurality of driving electrodes 205 are disposed on the substrate [para. 0017; Fig.2]);
an electrode layer configured on top of the substrate (a plurality of driving electrodes 205 are disposed on the substrate [para. 0017; Fig.2]).;
a dielectric layer configured on the electrode layer (a dielectric layer 208 disposed on the electrode layer 205 as shown in Fig.2 [para. 0017]);
a top plate (top electrode 206 and top hydrophobic layer 207 in Fig.2 [para. 0020]);
a micro-fluidic channel configured between the top plate and the dielectric layer (Fig.2 shows a microfluidic channel filled with an oil 202 and at least one aqueous droplet 204 disposed between the top plate and the dielectric layer, and the cell spacer is typically in the range 50 to 200 μm [para. 0017]) comprises a nano-patterned top surface (Hydrophobic layers of moderate contact angle typically include one or a blend of fluoropolymers. Coatings having higher contact angles may be fabricated one or more superhydrophobic materials. Biomimetic superhydrophobic coatings rely on a delicate micro or nano structure for their repellence [para. 0024-0025]. Each hydrophobic layer is typically 20 to 60 nm thick and prevents the droplet from wetting its respective surface [para. 0017]. Thus, surfaces of the hydrophobic layers 207 facing the microfluidic channel in Fig.2 are deemed as the nano-patterned top surface); and
a hydrophobic layer on top of the dielectric layer (bottom hydrophobic layer 207 on top of the dielectric layer 208 in Fig.2 [para. 0017]).
Zhitomirsky is silent to wherein the dielectric layer comprises polymers embedded with miniscule-sized particles.
Shen teaches an EWOD device as shown in Fig.1 comprising a hydrophobic layer arranged on a dielectric layer which is dispose don an electrode layer. Shen further teaches wherein the dielectric layer comprises polymers embedded with miniscule-sized particles (TiO2 nanowire arrays embedded in polymers of PVTNF-PVT, as shown in Fig.2). The permittivity of the composite is nearly 3 times higher than pure P(VDF-TrFE), and the contact angle of the composite was greatly enhanced from pure P(VDF-TrFE) (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dielectric layer of the EWOD device of Zhitomirsky with a composite dielectric layer comprising polymers of PVTNF-PVT embedded with miniscule-sized particles (TiO2 nanowire arrays), as taught by Shen, since the composite dielectric layer would enhance both the permittivity and contact angle of the EWOD (abstract in Shen).
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the EWOD of claim 11, wherein the polymers embedded with miniscule-sized particles include the miniscule-sized particles having a dielectric constant in a range of 7.5 to 110 (As evidenced by Jolivet: TiO-2 has dielectric constant between 80 and 110 in the rutile phase or between 40 and 55 in anatase phase [the 2nd paragraph in Col. 2 on page 1]; Furthermore, Table 1 of instant specification also lists the dielectric constant of TiO2 is between 80-110).
Regarding claim 13, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the EWOD of claim 11, wherein the polymers are embedded with the miniscule-sized particles comprising TiO2 (as outlined in the rejection of claim 11 above, the miniscule-sized particles comprise TiO2).
Regarding claim 16, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the EWOD of claim 11, “wherein the miniscule-sized particles are embedded in the dielectric layer using at least one of spray coating, spin coating, and dip coating” is a product by process claim. The determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In instant case, there is no evidence the steps of the recited process impart any additional structure on the miniscule-sized particles that is not already present or substantially similar to that of modified Zhitomirsky. Furthermore, Examiner notes that Shen does teach spin-coating P(VDF-TrFE) polymers on the TiO2 nanowire array, as shown in Fig.2.
Regarding claim 17, Zhitomirsky teaches an electrowetting on dielectric (EWOD) system (a digital microfluidic [DMF] system as shown in Fig.2 [para. 0014, 0017]), comprising:
a substrate (a plurality of driving electrodes 205 are disposed on the substrate [para. 0017; Fig.2]);
an electrode layer configured on top of the substrate (a plurality of driving electrodes 205 are disposed on the substrate [para. 0017; Fig.2]).;
a dielectric layer configured on the electrode layer (a dielectric layer 208 disposed on the electrode layer 205 as shown in Fig.2 [para. 0017]);
a top plate (top electrode 206 and top hydrophobic layer 207 in Fig.2 [para. 0020]); and
a micro-fluidic channel configured between the top plate and the dielectric layer (Fig.2 shows a microfluidic channel filled with an oil 202 and at least one aqueous droplet 204 disposed between the top plate and the dielectric layer, and the cell spacer is typically in the range 50 to 200 μm [para. 0017]) comprises a nano-patterned top surface (Hydrophobic layers of moderate contact angle typically include one or a blend of fluoropolymers. Coatings having higher contact angles may be fabricated one or more superhydrophobic materials. Biomimetic superhydrophobic coatings rely on a delicate micro or nano structure for their repellence [para. 0024-0025]. Each hydrophobic layer is typically 20 to 60 nm thick and prevents the droplet from wetting its respective surface [para. 0017]. Thus, surfaces of the hydrophobic layers 207 facing the microfluidic channel in Fig.2 are deemed as the nano-patterned top surface).
Zhitomirsky is silent to wherein the dielectric layer comprises polymers embedded with miniscule-sized particles having a dielectric constant in a range of 7.5 to 110.
Shen teaches an EWOD device as shown in Fig.1 comprising a hydrophobic layer arranged on a dielectric layer which is dispose don an electrode layer. Shen further teaches wherein the dielectric layer comprises polymers embedded with miniscule-sized particles (TiO2 nanowire arrays embedded in polymers of PVTNF-PVT, as shown in Fig.2). The permittivity of the composite is nearly 3 times higher than pure P(VDF-TrFE), and the contact angle of the composite was greatly enhanced from pure P(VDF-TrFE) (abstract).
As evidenced by Jolivet: TiO-2 has dielectric constant between 80 and 110 in the rutile phase or between 40 and 55 in anatase phase [the 2nd paragraph in Col. 2 on page 1]; Furthermore, Table 1 of instant specification also lists the dielectric constant of TiO2 is between 80-110.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dielectric layer of the EWOD device of Zhitomirsky with a composite dielectric layer comprising polymers of PVTNF-PVT embedded with miniscule-sized particles (TiO2 nanowire arrays), as taught by Shen, since the composite dielectric layer would enhance both the permittivity and contact angle of the EWOD (abstract in Shen). The disclosed TiO2 has a dielectric constant in a range of 7.5 to 110 (as evidenced by Jolivet above, the dielectric constant of TiO2 falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 18, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the polymers are embedded with the miniscule-sized particles comprising TiO2 (as outlined in the rejection of claim 17 above, the miniscule-sized particles comprise TiO2).
Regarding claim 20, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the system of claim 17, and “wherein the miniscule-sized particles are embedded in the dielectric layer using at least one of spray coating, spin coating, and dip coating” is a product by process claim. The determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In instant case, there is no evidence the steps of the recited process impart any additional structure on the miniscule-sized particles that is not already present or substantially similar to that of modified Zhitomirsky. Furthermore, Examiner notes that Shen does teach spin-coating P(VDF-TrFE) polymers on the TiO2 nanowire array, as shown in Fig.2.
Claims 5-6, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhitomirsky and Shen, as applied to claims 1, 11, and 17 above, and further in view of Hou et al. (Multiscale interface effect on homogeneous dielectric structure of ZrO2/Teflon nanocomposite for electrowetting application, Polymers, 2018, 10, 1119).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the device of claim 1, and is silent to wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with materials with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the miniscule-sized particles.
Hou teaches an EWOD as shown in Scheme 1 comprising mZrO2/AF1600 as a composite dielectric layer, wherein the ZrO2 nanoparticles are modified via surface coupling reaction of fluorinated silane coupling agent (see scheme 2 and section 2.2). Thus, Hou teaches wherein the miniscule-sized particles are ZrO2 nanoparticles coated with silane-based compounds with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the polymers (Teflon AF 1600) since both rely on low-surface-energy fluorine atoms to repel water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dielectric layer of modified Zhitomirsky with a dielectric layer comprising Telfon AF1600 embedded with modified ZrO2 nanoparticles, wherein the ZrO2 nanoparticles are coated with materials (fluorinated silane) with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the polymers, as taught by Hou, since Hou teaches a suitable alternative dielectric layer for EWOD applications (schemes 1 and 2 and section 2.2).
Note: based on [para. 0022] in the instant specification, examiner interprets “wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with materials with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the miniscule-sized particles” as “wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with materials with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the polymers”.
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the device of claim 1, and is silent to wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with at least one of silanes, silane- based compounds, and polyethylene.
Hou teaches a EWOD as shown in Scheme 1 comprising mZrO2/AF1600 as a composite dielectric layer, wherein the ZrO2 nanoparticles are modified via surface coupling reaction of fluorinated silane coupling agent (see scheme 2 and section 2.2). Thus, Hou teaches wherein the miniscule-sized particles are ZrO2 nanoparticles coated with silane-based compounds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dielectric layer of modified Zhitomirsky with a dielectric layer comprising Telfon AF1600 embedded with modified ZrO2 nanoparticles, wherein the ZrO2 nanoparticles are coated with silane- based compounds (fluorinated silane), as taught by Hou, since Hou teaches a suitable alternative dielectric layer for EWOD applications (schemes 1 and 2 and section 2.2).
Regarding claim 14, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the EWOD of claim 11, and is silent to wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with materials with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the miniscule-sized particles.
Hou teaches a EWOD as shown in Scheme 1 comprising mZrO2/AF1600 as a composite dielectric layer, wherein the ZrO2 nanoparticles are modified via surface coupling reaction of fluorinated silane coupling agent (see scheme 2 and section 2.2). Thus, Hou teaches wherein the miniscule-sized particles are ZrO2 nanoparticles coated with silane-based compounds with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the polymers (Teflon AF 1600) since both rely on low-surface-energy fluorine atoms to repel water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dielectric layer of modified Zhitomirsky with a dielectric layer comprising Telfon AF1600 embedded with modified ZrO2 nanoparticles, wherein the ZrO2 nanoparticles are coated with materials (fluorinated silane) with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the polymers, as taught by Hou, since Hou teaches a suitable alternative dielectric layer for EWOD applications (schemes 1 and 2 and section 2.2).
Note: based on [para. 0022] in the instant specification, examiner interprets “wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with materials with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the miniscule-sized particles” as “wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with materials with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the polymers”.
Regarding claim 15, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the EWOD of claim 11, and is silent to wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with at least one of silanes, silane- based compounds, and polyethylene.
Hou teaches a EWOD as shown in Scheme 1 comprising mZrO2/AF1600 as a composite dielectric layer, wherein the ZrO2 nanoparticles are modified via surface coupling reaction of fluorinated silane coupling agent (see scheme 2 and section 2.2). Thus, Hou teaches wherein the miniscule-sized particles are ZrO2 nanoparticles coated with silane-based compounds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dielectric layer of modified Zhitomirsky with a dielectric layer comprising Telfon AF1600 embedded with modified ZrO2 nanoparticles, wherein the ZrO2 nanoparticles are coated with silane- based compounds (fluorinated silane), as taught by Hou, since Hou teaches a suitable alternative dielectric layer for EWOD application (schemes 1 and 2 and section 2.2).
Regarding claim 19, modified Zhitomirsky teaches the system of claim 17, and is silent to wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with materials with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the miniscule-sized particles.
Hou teaches a EWOD as shown in Scheme 1 comprising mZrO2/AF1600 as a composite dielectric layer, wherein the ZrO2 nanoparticles are modified via surface coupling reaction of fluorinated silane coupling agent (see scheme 2 and section 2.2). Thus, Hou teaches wherein the miniscule-sized particles are ZrO2 nanoparticles coated with silane-based compounds with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the polymers (Teflon AF 1600) since both rely on low-surface-energy fluorine atoms to repel water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dielectric layer of modified Zhitomirsky with a dielectric layer comprising Telfon AF1600 embedded with modified ZrO2 nanoparticles, wherein the ZrO2 nanoparticles are coated with materials (fluorinated silane) with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the polymers, as taught by Hou, since Hou teaches a suitable alternative dielectric layer for EWOD applications (schemes 1 and 2 and section 2.2).
Note: based on [para. 0022] in the instant specification, examiner interprets “wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with materials with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the miniscule-sized particles” as “wherein the miniscule-sized particles are coated with materials with a hydrophobicity substantially similar to the hydrophobicity of the polymers”.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lammertyn et al. (US20200290009A1) teaches EWOD as shown in Fig.1. Kodani et al. (US20140016176A1) teaches hydrophobic dielectric film for EWOD. Cao et al. (Replaceable dielectric film for low-voltage and high-performance electrowetting-based digital microfluidics, Langmuir, 2023, 39, 10189-10198) teaches EWOD-based microfluidic device. Budlayan et al. (A review of nanostructures in electrowetting-on-dielectric systems: from nanostructured dielectric layers to nanofluids, Current Nanosciences, 2024, 20, 248-263; available online 01 Mar, 2024) teaches integration of nanostructures into EWOD-driven devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V. Van can be reached on (571) 272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights