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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2024 and 6/16/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 14: please amend “the electrode portions” to --the plurality of electrode portions--.
Claims 3-4: please amend “the other electrode” to --the another electrode--.
Claims 6-7: please amend “the other insulation layer” to --the another insulation layer --.
Claim 11: please amend “the other pair” to --the another pair--.
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 5-8 and 12 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 claim 5, claim 5 recites “the electrode”, and claim 1 recites “each of the plurality of electrode portions having at least an electrode”. It is unclear which “the electrode” refers to the at least one electrode or a specific electrode of the at least one electrode. Thus, the scope of claim 5 is indefinite. Claims 6-8 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “the electrode”, and claim 10 recites “each of the plurality of electrode portions having at least an electrode”. It is unclear which “the electrode” refers to the at least one electrode or a specific electrode of the at least one electrode. Thus, the scope of claim 12 is indefinite.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (Microfluidic device with asymmetric electrodes for cell and reagent delivery, Proc. Of SPIE, 2006, 6415).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a separation chip (a separation chip is shown Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a substrate (a glass wafer [section 2.1]); and
a plurality of electrode portions disposed on one-side surface of the substrate (Figs. 1-3 shows interdigitated electrode array disposed on top surface of the glass substrate [section 2.1]), each of the electrode portions having at least an electrode (see interdigitated electrodes in Figs. 1-3), and extending in a first direction (Figs.1-3 shows the interdigitated electrodes extending in a width direction of the microfluidic channel), wherein the plurality of electrode portions are disposed adjacent to each other in a second direction intersecting the first direction (Figs. 1 and 3 show the interdigitated electrodes are disposed adjacent to each other in a second direction [length direction of the flow channel] intersecting the first direction); wherein
a channel through which a liquid containing dielectric particles is to flow in a flow direction intersecting the first direction is provided on one side of the plurality of electrode portions (Fig.1 shows a channel through which a liquid containing dielectric particles [cells] is to flow in a flow direction [from one reservoir to the other reservoir along the length direction of the channel] intersecting the first direction is provided on one side of the plurality of electrode portions [section 2.3 cell sample delivery]), and
at least one of the electrode portions and another one of the electrode portions are different from each other in a dimension in a cross section along the second direction (Figs. 1 and 3 show asymmetric electrode pairs with large and small electrode arrays along the length direction of the flow channel; the large and small electrodes were 26 µm and 4 µm in width respectively [section 2.2]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the separation chip according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the electrodes and another one of the electrodes are different from each other in a dimension in a cross section along the second direction (Figs.1 and 3 show asymmetric electrode pairs with large and small electrode arrays along the second direction [the length direction of the channel]; the large and small electrodes were 26 µm and 4 µm in width respectively [section 2.2]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the separation chip according to claim 2, wherein the at least one electrode and the other electrode are different from each other in an electrode width in the cross section along the second direction (Fig.3 shows the interdigitated electrodes are different from each other in an electrode width in the cross section along the second direction [see large and small electrodes in Fig.3]; the large and small electrodes were 26 µm and 4 µm in width respectively [section 2.2]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the separation chip according to claim 3, wherein the other electrode is disposed downstream of the at least one electrode in the flow direction (Figs. 1 and 3 show a small electrode is disposed downstream of a large electrode in the flow direction), and
the electrode width of the other electrode is smaller as compared to the electrode width of the at least one electrode (Fig.3 shows the electrode width of the small electrode is smaller as compared to the electrode width of the large electrode; the large and small electrodes were 26 µm and 4 µm in width respectively [section 2.2]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the separation chip according to claim 1, and the limitation “wherein ∇E2 between the electrodes adjacent to each other on the downstream side in the flow direction is larger as compared to ∇E2 between the electrodes adjacent to each other on the upstream side in the flow direction, and ∇E indicates a gradient of an electric field intensity” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Lee teaches the asymmetric interdigitated electrodes having different electrode widths, and Fig.6 shows the electric field strength distribution, wherein a gradient of an electric field intensity near the small electrode is higher than that near the large electrode. Thus the disclosed electrode configuration is capable of generating ∇E2 between the electrodes adjacent to each other on the downstream side in the flow direction (near small electrode on the downstream side) is larger as compared to ∇E2 between the electrodes adjacent to each other on the upstream side in the flow direction (large electrode on the upstream).
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mohanty (US20200256828A1) and Meier (US20240192163A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the separation chip according to claim 1, and is silent to wherein each of the electrode portions has an insulation layer disposed on one-side surface of the electrode, and at least one of the insulation layers and another one of the insulation layers are different from each other in at least one of a cross-sectional shape along the second direction, a dimension in a cross section along the second direction, and a material.
Mohanty teaches a chip comprising a plurality of electrode portions 1706 (interdigitated electrodes 1706A-1706F in Fig.17) disposed on one-side surface of a substrate 1710, and the electrodes 1706 are disposed within the fluid channel 1702 [para. 0104-0109 and Fig.17], wherein each of the electrode portions has an insulation layer disposed on one-side surface of the electrode (an insulation layer to isolate the measurement electrodes 1706 from the fluid channel 1702 [para. 0109]; the one or more electrodes comprise insulating barrier covering a portion of the one or more electrodes in fluid communication with the fluid chamber [para. 0020]).
Meier teaches a sensor device as shown in Fig.11 comprising an electrode 1104 partially covered by an insulating layer 228 with an opening portion (the middle part of 1104 that is not covered by the insulating layer 228) connects the electrode and the fluidic cavity 408 [para. 0100, Fig.11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each electrode by adding an insulation layer disposed on one-side surface of the electrode to cover a portion of the electrode, wherein the insulation layer has a middle opening portion leaving the middle portion of the electrode in fluid communication with the fluid chamber (corresponding to the fluid channel in Lee), as taught by combined Mohanty and Meier, since it would allow for AC measurements [para. 0114 in Mohanty].
Thus, Modified Lee teaches each of the large IDEs and small IDEs is covered by a corresponding insulating layer with a middle opening portion leaving the middle portion of the electrode exposed to the fluid channel. Lee further teaches the large and small electrodes were 26 µm and 4 µm in width, respectively (section 2.2). The asymmetric microelectrode pairs generate a non-uniform electric field with low actuation frequency resulted in a negative DEP force (abstract).
Since the width of the large electrode is more than 6 times the width of the small electrode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the insulating layers of the large and small electrodes are different from each other in a dimension in a cross section along the second direction to have the width of the open portion of the insulating layer of the large electrode being larger than the width of the open portion of the insulating layer of the small electrode to provide the asymmetric microelectrode pairs exposed to the fluid in the fluid channel in order to generate a non-uniform electric field with low actuation frequency resulted in a negative DEP force. If the widths of the open portions of the insulation layers for the large and small electrodes are the same, it would not have the advantages of the asymmetric microelectrode pairs adopted in Lee’s design.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches the separation chip according to claim 5, wherein each of the insulation layers has an opening portion that connects the electrode and the channel (as outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above, each insulation layer has an opening portion such that the middle portion of the electrode is exposed to the fluid channel through the open portion), and
the at least one insulation layer and the other insulation layer are different from each other in a width of the opening portion in the cross section along the second direction (as outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above, the width of the open portion of the insulation layer of the large electrode is larger than the width of the open portion of the insulation layer of the small electrode such that the large electrode has larger area to be exposed to the fluid channel than the small electrode in order to create a non-uniform electric field with low actuation frequency from the asymmetric microelectrode pairs [abstract in Lee]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee teaches the separation chip according to claim 6, wherein the other insulation layer is disposed downstream of the at least one insulation layer in the flow direction, and the width of the opening portion along the second direction of the other insulation layer is smaller as compared to the width of the opening portion along the second direction of the at least one insulation layer (as outlined in the rejection of claim 6 above, each of the large and small electrodes has an insulation layer with an opening portion to leave a middle portion of each electrode in fluid communication of the fluid in the fluid channel, and the width of the open portion of the insulation layer for the small electrode located at the downstream of the flow direction is smaller than the width of the opening portion of the insulation layer of the upstream large electrode to provide asymmetric microelectrode pairs for generating a non-uniform electric field with low actuation frequency).
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohanty (US20200256828A1), and in view of Liu et al. (US20090095630A1).
Regarding claim 10, Mohanty teaches a separation chip (a separation chip as shown in Fig.17 [para. 0104]) comprising:
a substrate (substrate 1710 in Fig.17 [para. 0104]); and
a plurality of electrode portions (interdigitated electrodes 1706 in Fig.17 [para. 0104]) disposed on one-side surface of the substrate (see Fig.17), each of the electrode portions having at least an electrode (1706A-1706F in Fig.17 [para. 0104]), and extending in a first direction (the width direction of the channel 1702 which is perpendicular to the flow direction 1704 as shown in Fig.17 [para. 0104]), wherein the plurality of electrode portions are disposed adjacent to each other in a second direction (length direction of the fluid channel 1702 which is the same as the flow direction 1704 in Fig.17) intersecting the first direction (see Fig.17); wherein
a channel (channel 1702 in Fig.17 [para. 0104]) through which a liquid containing dielectric particles is to flow in a flow direction intersecting the first direction is provided on one side of the plurality of electrode portions (a fluid channel 1702 through which a fluid [e.g., a solution including charged particles/hydrogel] flows in the direction indicated by 1704, and the fluid channel 1702 overlays the measurement electrodes 1706 [para. 0104]).
Mohanty further teaches the first set of measurement electrodes [1706A-1706C], the second set of measurement electrodes [1706D-1706F], or both can include different spacing configurations [para. 0104-0105]. But Mohanty does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between at least one pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other is different from a distance between another pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other.
Liu teaches a microfluidic chip using DEP to pump microparticles (abstract), comprising interdigitated arrays of electrodes in which the spacing between electrodes is different at various locations within the flow path. The electrodes can be closely spaced so as to increase particle and media velocity in a portion of the flow path, and in other portions of the flow path it may be helpful to have electrodes that are more widely spaced apart so that the particle velocity is reduced and the residence time increased [para. 0134].
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 spacings between adjacent electrode pairs to be different at various locations within the flow path, as taught by Liu, since it would allow to control the particles and media velocity [para. 0134 in Liu].
With the above modification, modified Mohanty teaches wherein a distance between at least one pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other is different from a distance between another pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other.
Regarding claim 11, modified Mohanty teaches the separation chip according to claim 10, and does not explicitly teach wherein the distance between the other pair of the electrodes of the downstream side in the flow direction is smaller as compared to the distance between the at least one pair of the electrodes on the upstream side in the flow direction.
As outlined in the rejection of claim 10 above, modified Mohanty teaches wherein a distance between at least one pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other is different from a distance between another pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other. Thus, there are only two options: (A) the at least one pair of widely spaced electrodes disposed on the upstream of the flow path, and the other pair of closely spaced electrodes disposed at the downstream; (B) the at least one pair of widely spaced electrodes disposed on the downstream of the flow path, and the other pair of closely spaced electrodes disposed at the upstream.
Since there are only two options: (A) the at least one pair of widely spaced electrodes disposed on the upstream of the flow path, and the other pair of closely spaced electrodes disposed at the downstream; (B) the at least one pair of widely spaced electrodes disposed on the downstream of the flow path, and the other pair of closely spaced electrodes disposed at the upstream, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try by choosing from the above finite number of identified solutions, which would lead to choose the option (A): the at least one pair of widely spaced electrodes disposed on the upstream of the flow path, and the other pair of closely spaced electrodes disposed at the downstream. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(E)).
Regarding claim 13, modified Mohanty teaches the separation chip according to claim 10, since modified Mohanty teaches wherein a distance between at least one pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other is different from a distance between another pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other, there are only two options: (A) the at least one pair of widely spaced electrodes disposed on the upstream of the flow path, and the other pair of closely spaced electrodes disposed at the downstream; (B) the at least one pair of widely spaced electrodes disposed on the downstream of the flow path, and the other pair of closely spaced electrodes disposed at the upstream.
Since there are only two options: (A) the at least one pair of widely spaced electrodes disposed on the upstream of the flow path, and the other pair of closely spaced electrodes disposed at the downstream; (B) the at least one pair of widely spaced electrodes disposed on the downstream of the flow path, and the other pair of closely spaced electrodes disposed at the upstream, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try by choosing from the above finite number of identified solutions, which would lead to choose the option (A): the at least one pair of widely spaced electrodes disposed on the upstream of the flow path, and the other pair of closely spaced electrodes disposed at the downstream. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(E)).
With the above modification, the distance between the other pair of the electrodes of the downstream side in the flow direction is smaller as compared to the distance between the at least one pair of the electrodes on the upstream side in the flow direction.
The limitation “wherein ∇E2 between the electrodes adjacent to each other on the downstream side in the flow direction is larger as compared to ∇E2 between the electrodes adjacent to each other on the upstream side in the flow direction, and ∇E indicates a gradient of an electric field intensity” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, modified Mohanty teaches wherein the distance between the other pair of the electrodes of the downstream side in the flow direction is smaller as compared to the distance between the at least one pair of the electrodes on the upstream side in the flow direction. The closely spaced electrodes at the downstream results in larger electric field intensity and accordingly increase the particle and media velocity [para. 0134 in Liu]. Thus, the disclosed electrode configuration is capable of generating ∇E2 between the electrodes adjacent to each other on the downstream side in the flow direction being larger as compared to ∇E2 between the electrodes adjacent to each other on the upstream side in the flow direction, wherein ∇E indicates a gradient of an electric field intensity.
Regarding claim 14, Mohanty teaches a separation chip (a separation chip as shown in Fig.17 [para. 0104]) comprising:
a substrate (substrate 1710 in Fig.17 [para. 0104]); and
a plurality of electrode portions (interdigitated electrodes 1706 in Fig.17 [para. 0104]) disposed on one-side surface of the substrate (see Fig.17), each of the electrode portions having at least an electrode (1706A-1706F in Fig.17 [para. 0104]), and extending in a first direction (the width direction of the channel 1702 which is perpendicular to the flow direction 1704 as shown in Fig.17 [para. 0104]), wherein the plurality of electrode portions are disposed adjacent to each other in a second direction (length direction of the fluid channel 1702 which is the same as the flow direction 1704 in Fig.17) intersecting the first direction (see Fig.17); wherein
a channel (channel 1702 in Fig.17 [para. 0104]) through which a liquid containing dielectric particles is to flow in a flow direction intersecting the first direction is provided on one side of the plurality of electrode portions (a fluid channel 1702 through which a fluid [e.g., a solution including charged particles/hydrogel] flows in the direction indicated by 1704, and the fluid channel 1702 overlays the measurement electrodes 1706 [para. 0104]).
Mohanty further teaches the first set of measurement electrodes [1706A-1706C], the second set of measurement electrodes [1706D-1706F], or both can include different spacing configurations [para. 0104-0105].
Liu teaches a microfluidic chip using DEP to pump microparticles (abstract), comprising interdigitated arrays of electrodes in which the spacing between electrodes is different at various locations within the flow path. The electrodes can be closely spaced so as to increase particle and media velocity in a portion of the flow path, and in other portions of the flow path it may be helpful to have electrodes that are more widely spaced apart so that the particle velocity is reduced and the residence time increased [para. 0134].
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 spacings between adjacent electrode pairs to be different at various locations within the flow path, as taught by Liu, since it would allow to control the particles and media velocity [para. 0134 in Liu].
With the above modification, modified Mohanty teaches wherein a distance between at least one pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other is different from a distance between another pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other.
The limitation “∇E2 between at least one pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other is different from ∇E2 between another pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other, and ∇E indicates a gradient of an electric field intensity” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, modified Mohanty teaches wherein a distance between at least one pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other is different from a distance between another pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other, as outlined in the rejection above. Since the distance between the at least one pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other is different from the distance between the another pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other with the flow path, the disclosed electrode configuration is capable of generating ∇E2 between at least one pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other being different from ∇E2 between another pair of the electrodes adjacent to each other, and ∇E indicates a gradient of an electric field intensity due to the presence of different spacing configuration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 12 would be allowable if they are rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee teaches the separation chip according to claim 6, wherein the one-side surface of the electrode has a first region and a second region different from the first region (as outlined in the rejection of claim 6 above, the one-side surface of the electrode has a first region [corresponding to the middle region that is not covered by the insulation layer] and a second region [the region covered by the insulation layer] different from the first region),
the insulation layer is disposed on the second region (see rejection above),
the first region is connected to the channel through the opening portion (the first region is not covered by the insulation layer and is connected to the channel through the opening portion of the insulation layer).
The prior art of the record does not teach and/or suggest “the first region is located closer to the substrate than the second region”, recited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, similar to claim 8 above, the prior art of the record does not teach and/or suggest “the first region is located closer to the substrate than the second region”, recited in claim 12.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Javanmard et al. (US20140102901A1) teaches a DEP-based separation chip as shown in Fig.20. Wu et al. (US20170108493A1) teaches a separation chip comprising IDEs of different electrode widths and different electrode spacings (see Fig.10) . Almasri et al. (US20160299138A1) teaches a separation chip as shown in Fig.1 comprising IDEs disposed on a substrate and a fluidic channel disposed over the IDEs. Golan et al. (US20090314644A1) teaches DEP-based device comprising IDEs.
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