DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 4, line 4, the word – the – should be inserted between “obtaining” and “frequency”; and
c) in claim 11, line 4, the word – the – should be inserted between “obtain” and “frequency”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Note that dependent claims will have the deficiencies of base and intervening claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention:
Claim 9 requires
PNG
media_image1.png
116
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, claim 8, from which claim 9 depends, requires
PNG
media_image2.png
186
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is not clear whether the control voltage is to be applied to both the pair of second electrodes and the pair of first electrodes or whether the control voltage is to be applied to the pair of second electrodes instead of to the pair of first electrodes. If the latter note that claim 9 is then not a proper dependent claim as it does not include all of the limitations of the claim it depends from. See 37 C.F.R. 1.75.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. US 9,109,197 B2 (hereafter “Yasuda”) in view of Azpiroz et al. US 2016/0367988 A1 (hereafter “Azpiroz”), Swami et al. US 2022/0091014 A1 (hereafter “Swami”), Masataka Shinoda US 2009/0109436 A1 (hereafter “Shinoda”), Giaver et al. US 5,187,096 (hereafter “Giaver”)Zhou et al. US 2014/0186941 A1 (hereafter “Zhou”) and Morgan et al. US 2012/0142032 A1 (hereafter “Morgan”)
Addressing claim 1, Yasuda discloses a fluid channel chip (Figure 8 in its entirety. Note that although Yasuda only refers to structural element 3001 as a chip
(col. 16:13-39) the Examiner is construing Figure 8 in its entirety as a channel chip.) comprising:
a substrate (3001 in Figure 8) ;
a liquid receiver (3005 in Figure 8. See also col. 16:41-47 ) which is disposed on one principal surface side of the substrate (its top surface) and into which a sample liquid or a reference liquid can be injected (again see col. 16:41-47, noting especially, “A sample liquid introduced from a sample liquid inlet 3102 is delivered through a dielectrophoretic force applying portion 3105 . . . .“);
a pair of second electrodes1 disposed between the principal surface of the substrate and the liquid receiver (note V-shaped interdigitated electrodes 3003 in
Figure 8. See also col. 16:47-51.) and can cause a dielectrophoretic force to act on dielectric particles contained in the sample liquid injected into the liquid receiver when a control voltage is applied (see Figures 9 and 10, and see also col. 5:39-49 and
col. 16:47 – col. 17:7).
In short, Yasuda discloses a device configured to cause a dielctrophoretric force to act on dielectric particles contained in a first fluid injected into a fluid chip.
Yasuda, though, does not disclose performing the steps of “measuring an impedance between a pair of first electrodes in the fluid chip through the first fluid or a second fluid; calculating a correction coefficient based on the measured impedance between the pair of first electrodes and a fluid impedance derived by a mathematical formula; and correcting the control voltage based on the correction coefficient, wherein the fluid impedance indicates an impedance of the first fluid or an impedance of the second fluid, the first fluid is a fluid containing the dielectric particles and other particles, and the second fluid is a fluid of the same type as a fluid obtained by excluding the dielectric particles and the other particles from the first fluid.”
Azpiroz discloses a microfluidic chip with dielectrophoretic electrodes extending in a hydrophilic flow path. See the title. In addition to the dielectrophoretic electrodes (E21, E22 (62)) the microfluidic chip also includes at least one pair of control electrodes (66) at a position different from that of the dielectrophoretic electrodes. See Figures 1, 11, and 3, and paragraphs [0063] and [0107]2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to provide at least one pair of control electrodes (that is, a pair of first electrodes) as taught by Azpiroz in the channel chip of Yasuda because Azpiroz discloses
PNG
media_image3.png
260
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See also Azpiroz Figure 10, noting therein step “S70: Control Electrodes Detect Liquid Property” and step “S75: Control Circuit Provides Feedback”. Such feedback correction of dielectrophoresis force based on impedance measurement implies use of a mathematical correction formula.
Moreover, Swami discloses a method and system for impedance-based quantification and microfluidic control. See the title. The system comprises “a microfluidic chip, the microfluidic chip comprising a microfluidic channel with one or more electric-field-generating structures located therein, including a first electric-field-generating structure (e.g., electrodes), wherein the one or more electric-field-generating structures is configured to selectively polarize or manipulate biologic or particle components flowing within the microfluidic channel; and measuring, via an on-chip impedance sensing element (e.g., on-chip resister), impedance spectra associated with at least one internal capacitive structure (e.g., parasitic voltage due to at least one capacitive structure) of the first electric-field-generating structure or characteristic of the biologic or particle components, . . . .” See paragraph [0012] and Figure 9. The on-chip impedance sensing element may comprise a set of electrodes located in the microfluidic channel. See paragraph [0041]. Sawmi discloses several beneficial uses of the on-chip impedance sensing element, such as, “ . . . .to measure and/or assess impedance spectra for the geometric or functional quantification of internal structures of the microfluidic chip and/or to measure and/or assess the impedance characteristics of the biologic or particle components to control polarization or manipulation of the biologic or particle components. See paragraph [0081]. Most relevant to the channel chip of Yasuda as modified by Azpiroz is that Swami discloses the following
PNG
media_image4.png
142
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
114
448
media_image5.png
Greyscale
More especially,
PNG
media_image6.png
196
456
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
469
446
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Such feedback correction of dielectrophoresis force based on impedance measurement implies use of a mathematical correction formula.
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to provide at least one pair of control (first) electrodes as taught by Azpiroz in the channel chip of Yasuda also because in light of Swami it can be used for real-time feedback compensation of a number of different operational deviations that may occur when using the channel chip.
Thus, light of Azpiroz and Swami as just discussed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to perform the steps of “measuring an impedance between a pair of first electrodes in the fluid chip through the first fluid or a second fluid; calculating a correction coefficient based on the measured impedance between the pair of first electrodes and a fluid impedance derived by a mathematical formula; and correcting the control voltage based on the correction coefficient, wherein the fluid impedance indicates an impedance of the first fluid or an impedance of the second fluid ,the first fluid is a fluid containing the dielectric particles and other particles, . . . .” because this would just be using the fluid channel chip of Yasuda as modified by Azpiroz and Swami.
As for the claim 1 limitation “. . . ., and the second fluid is a fluid of the same type as a fluid obtained by excluding the dielectric particles and the other particles from the first fluid…”, Shinoda discloses , “A method for measuring a micro-particle caused to flow through a flow channel, includes the steps of: measuring a property of a material to be measured as a micro-particle in a predetermined position of a flow channel for measurement, and measuring properties of one or more reference materials in a predetermined position of a flow channel for reference while the material to be measured is caused to flow through the flow channel for measurement, and the one or more reference materials are caused to flow through the flow channel for reference; and processing a result of the measurement of the material to be measured in accordance with a result of the measurements of the one or more reference materials.” See the Shinoda Abstract and Figure 1. The property may be an electrical property and the micro-particle may be a cell. See paragraphs [0006] and [0007]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have in the method of using the fluid channel chip of Yasuda as modified by Azpiroz and Swami the second fluid be a fluid of the same type as a fluid obtained by excluding the dielectric particles and the other particles from the first fluid (that is, be a reference fluid) because this would be expected to increase the accuracy of the impedance measurement by providing one or more updated baseline (sample free) measurements against which the sample measurements can be compared. See Shinoda paragraphs [0008], [0009], [[0039], and [0040].
Last, the Examiner notes that mathematical formulas for determining impedance of fluids containing cells were well known. See, for example, Giaver the title and
col. 8:21-38, Zhou the title and paragraphs [0076]-[0078] and Morgan the title, Abstract, and paragraphs [0075]-[0085].
Addressing claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have in the fluid channel chip of Yasuda as modified by Azpiroz, Swami, Giaver, Zhou, and Morgan the pair of first electrodes are disposed downstream of a flow of the first fluid or the second fluid with respect to a pair of second electrodes to which the control voltage is to be applied because
(1) barring a contrary showing, such as unexpected results, the placement of the pair of the first electrodes relative to the pair of second electrodes (upstream or downstream form it) will not affect the practice the method . That is, it is prima facie obvious as simple rearrangement of parts with no material effect of the method of Yasuda as modified by Azpiroz, Swami, Giaver, Zhou, and Morgan. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C); and
(2) Azpiroz, from which the pair of first electrodes are adopted in the rejection of underlying claim 1, discloses locating the control (impedance measuring) electrodes (68) downstream the dielectrophoresis electrodes (62). See Azpiroz Figure 11.
Addressing claim 6, for the additional limitations of this claim note that Giaver discloses a theoretical formula as claimed. See again Giaver the title and col. 8:21-38 (noting in line 35 “ρ is the resistivity of the solution”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to use the theoretical formula of Giaver because is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would preferably select an impedance formula that is convenient to use based on readily available data.
Although not needed to meet this claim because it is an optional alternative, note that to have the mathematical formula be empirical is alluded to by Morgan. See Morgan paragraph [0074], last sentence.
Addressing claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have in the method of Yasuda as modified by Azpiroz, Swami, Giaver, Zhou, and Morgan the correction coefficient be calculated every time a frequency of the control voltage is changed, and the control voltage is corrected based on the correction coefficient calculated according to a change in the frequency of the control voltage because Giaver, Zhou, and Morgan each discloses that the impedance is a function of the frequency of the control voltage. See Giaver the title, Figure 5, and col. 8:21-38 (noting “In these equations γ is the frequency of applied AC current I, . . . . “); Zhou paragraphs [0007] (noting “. . . ., ω is the angular frequency of an applied electric field.”) and [0076]-[0078]; and Morgan paragraphs [0075]-[0085] (noting ω in the equations in paragraphs [0081] and [0882], and in paragraph [0084], (“From the above, it can be seen that the impedance at low frequencies is dominated by the cell membrane (Cmem). As the frequency of the applied field increases . . . .” ).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urakawa et al. WO 2023/276791 A1 as evidenced by Urakawa et al. US 2024/0359189 A1 (hereafter “Urakawa”) and in view of Azpiroz, Swami, Giaver, Zhou, and Morgan. Note that although the base reference is WO 2023/276791 A1 all Urakawa et al. citations are to US 2024/0359189 A1 instead as it is a presumed faithful English language translation3.
Addressing claim 1, Urakawa discloses a control voltage method of causing a dielectrophoretic force to act on dielectric particles contained in a first fluid injected into a fluid chip (see Figure 1 and paragraphs [0022] and [0023]), the method comprising:
measuring an impedance between a pair of first electrodes in the fluid chip through the first fluid or a second fluid (for this step note the following in paragraph [0041] “The measurement voltage is, for example, an alternating voltage with a predetermined frequency. This enables measurement of an impedance between the first and second patterned electrodes 61, 62 of the sensor electrode 60. . . . . Therefore, it is possible to calculate the electric resistance of the suspension L1 from the impedance between the first and second patterned electrodes 61, 62 of the sensor electrode 60 relative to the measurement voltage. [italicizing by the Examiner]“);
wherein the fluid impedance indicates an impedance of the first fluid (L1), the first fluid is a fluid containing the dielectric particles and other particles (again, from paragraph [0041], “Therefore, it is possible to calculate the electric resistance of the suspension L1 from the impedance between the first and second patterned electrodes 61, 62 of the sensor electrode 60 relative to the measurement voltage. [italicizing by the Examiner]” Also, from paragraph [0022], “In the present embodiment, for making explanation easier, the suspension L1 is supposed to contain two types of dielectric particles P1, P2.”).
Urakawa, though, does not disclose performing the steps of “calculating a correction coefficient based on the measured impedance between the pair of first electrodes and a fluid impedance derived by a mathematical correction formula; and
correcting the control voltage based on the correction coefficient, . . . .”
Azpiroz discloses a microfluidic chip with dielectrophoretic electrodes extending in a hydrophilic flow path. See the title. In addition to the dielectrophoretic electrodes (E21, E22 (62)) the microfluidic chip also includes at least one pair of control electrodes (66) at a position different from that of the dielectrophoretic electrodes that control the dielectrophoretic force based on impedance measurements made by the control electrodes. See Figures 1, 11, and 3, and paragraphs [0063] and [0107]4. Such feedback correction of dielectrophoresis force based on impedance measurement implies use of a mathematical correction formula.
Swami discloses a method and system for impedance-based quantification and microfluidic control. See the title. The system comprises “a microfluidic chip, the microfluidic chip comprising a microfluidic channel with one or more electric-field-generating structures located therein, including a first electric-field-generating structure (e.g., electrodes), wherein the one or more electric-field-generating structures is configured to selectively polarize or manipulate biologic or particle components flowing within the microfluidic channel; and measuring, via an on-chip impedance sensing element (e.g., on-chip resister), impedance spectra associated with at least one internal capacitive structure (e.g., parasitic voltage due to at least one capacitive structure) of the first electric-field-generating structure or characteristic of the biologic or particle components, . . . .” See paragraph [0012] and Figure 9. The on-chip impedance sensing element may comprise a set of electrodes located in the microfluidic channel. See paragraph [0041]. Such feedback correction of dielectrophoresis force based on impedance measurement implies use of a mathematical correction formula.
In light of Azpirov and Swami it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to perform in the method of Urakawa “calculating a correction coefficient based on the measured impedance between the pair of first electrodes and a fluid impedance derived by a mathematical formula; and correcting the control voltage based on the correction coefficient” because
(1) Urakawa itself strongly suggests, if not implies, doing so as Urakawa discloses in paragraph [0024],
PNG
media_image8.png
294
430
media_image8.png
Greyscale
;
(2) Azpiroz discloses
PNG
media_image3.png
260
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See also Azpiroz Figure 10, noting therein step “S70: Control Electrodes Detect Liquid Property” and step “S75: Control Circuit Provides Feedback”; and
(3) Swami discloses the following
PNG
media_image4.png
142
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
114
448
media_image5.png
Greyscale
More especially,
PNG
media_image6.png
196
456
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
469
446
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As for the claim 1 limitations “wherein the fluid impedance indicates an impedance of the first fluid or an impedance of the second fluid, the first fluid is a fluid containing the dielectric particles and other particles, and the second fluid is a fluid of the same type as a fluid obtained by excluding the dielectric particles and the other particles from the first fluid…”, Shinoda discloses , “A method for measuring a micro-particle caused to flow through a flow channel, includes the steps of: measuring a property of a material to be measured as a micro-particle in a predetermined position of a flow channel for measurement, and measuring properties of one or more reference materials in a predetermined position of a flow channel for reference while the material to be measured is caused to flow through the flow channel for measurement, and the one or more reference materials are caused to flow through the flow channel for reference; and processing a result of the measurement of the material to be measured in accordance with a result of the measurements of the one or more reference materials.” See the Shinoda Abstract and Figure 1. The property may be an electrical property and the micro-particle may be a cell. See paragraphs [0006] and [0007]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have in the method of using the fluid channel chip of Urakawa as modified by Azpiroz and Swami the second fluid be a fluid of the same type as a fluid obtained by excluding the dielectric particles and the other particles from the first fluid (that is, be a reference fluid) because this would be expected to increase the accuracy of the impedance measurement by providing one or more updated baseline (sample free) measurements against which the sample measurements can be compared. See Shinoda paragraphs [0008], [0009], [[0039], and [0040].
Last, the Examiner notes that mathematical formulas for determining impedance of fluids containing cells were well known. See, for example, Giaver the title and
col. 8:21-38, Zhou the title and paragraphs [0076]-[0078], and Morgan the title, Abstract, and paragraphs [0075]-[0085].
Addressing claim 2, for the additional limitations of this claim see Urakawa
Figure 1 noting therein the relative location of pair of first electrodes (60) to that of the pair of second electrodes (50).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is allowed.
Claims 9-115 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
a) the Extended European search report issued on September 16, 2025 in connection with European Patent Application No.25162231.2 cites
WO 2003/276791 A1 as a ‘X” document against claims 1-14 of that application and cites JP 2012-068192 A as a “X” document against clams 8-14.
Regarding WO 2003/276791 A1, it has been used above to reject claims 1 and 2 of U.S. application 19/069344 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding JP 2012-068192 A, based on the English language translation provided by Applicant it discloses neither the “calculating” step nor the “correcting” step of claim 1 US application 19/069344 nor the “correction coefficient calculator” of independent claim 8.
b) in claim 3 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined limitations
PNG
media_image9.png
408
784
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In contrast, while Yasuda as modified by Azpiroz, Swami, Shinoda, Zhou, and Morgan does disclose imaging the dielectric particles, it does not seem that it would clearly be in in a region downstream of the flow with respect to the pair of second electrodes and upstream of the flow with respect to the pair of first electrodes. More importantly, perhaps, the correction coefficient would not be changed based on the imaging result. Instead, the imaging result is used for recognizing and sorting the dielectric particles (cells) in the first fluid. See Yasuda col. 5:26-38, col. 5:59 -col. 6:28, and col. 14:49 – col. 15:63.
In contrast, while Urakawa as modified by Azpiroz, Swami, Shinoda, Zhou, and Morgan does disclose imaging the dielectric particles in a region downstream of the flow with respect to the pair of second electrodes and upstream of the flow with respect to the pair of first electrodes, the correction coefficient would not be changed based on the imaging result. Instead, the imaging result is used for tracking the dielectric particles in the first fluid. See Urakawa Figure 1 and paragraphs [0056]-[0058].
c) claim 4 depends from allowable claim 3.
d) in claim 5 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined limitations
PNG
media_image10.png
132
760
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
442
750
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In contrast, in the method of Yasuda as modified by Azpiroz, Swami, Shinoda, Zhou, and Morgan the first fluid would not be injected into the channel of the fluid chip after injecting the second fluid into the channel of the fluid chip because as mentioned in the rejection of underlying claim 1 the first fluid is sample fluid coantyc8ing dielectric particles while the second fluid is reference fluid that is devoid of particles. If first fluid were to be injected into the channel of the fluid chip after injecting the second fluid into the channel of the fluid chip then the second fluid (reference fluid) would be “contaminated” by the first fluid.
Likewise, in the method of Urakawa as modified by Azpiroz, Swami, Shinoda, Zhou, and Morgan the first fluid would not be injected into the channel of the fluid chip after injecting the second fluid into the channel of the fluid chip.
e) in claim 8 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined limitations
PNG
media_image12.png
438
736
media_image12.png
Greyscale
e)(i) Yasuda discloses a dielectrophoresis apparatus (see the title,
Figure 8, and col. 5:39-48) comprising: a fluid chip (Figure 8 in its entirety. Note that although Yasuda only refers to structural element 3001 as a chip (col. 16:13-39) the Examiner is construing Figure 8 in its entirety as a channel chip.) which includes a pair of first electrodes (note V-shaped interdigitated electrodes 3003 in Figure 8. See also col. 16:47-51.) and to which a control voltage that causes a dielectrophoretic force to act on dielectric particles contained in a first fluid is to be applied (see Figures 9 and 10, and see also col. 5:39-49 and col. 16:47 – col. 17:7).
Yasuda, though, does not disclose “a measurer to measure an impedance between the pair of first electrodes through the first fluid or a second fluid; and a correction coefficient calculator to calculate a correction coefficient based on the measured impedance between the pair of first electrodes and a fluid impedance derived by a mathematical formula; and a voltage controller to correct the control voltage based on the correction coefficient, wherein the fluid impedance indicates an impedance of the first fluid or an impedance of the second fluid, the first fluid is a fluid containing the dielectric particles and other particles, and the second fluid is a fluid of the same type as a fluid obtained by removing the dielectric particles and the other particles from the first fluid.”
Azpiroz discloses a microfluidic chip with dielectrophoretic electrodes extending in a hydrophilic flow path. See the title. In addition to the dielectrophoretic electrodes (E21, E22 (62)) the microfluidic chip also includes at least one pair of control electrodes6 (66) at a position different from that of the dielectrophoretic electrodes. See Figures 1, 11, and 3, and paragraphs [0063] and [0107]7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to provide at least one pair of control electrodes (that is, a measurer to measure an impedance between the pair of first electrodes through the first fluid or a second fluid) as taught by Azpiroz in the channel chip of Yasuda because Azpiroz discloses
PNG
media_image3.png
260
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See also Azpiroz Figure 10, noting therein step “S70: Control Electrodes Detect Liquid Property” and step “S75: Control Circuit Provides Feedback”.
Moreover, Swami discloses a method and system for impedance-based quantification and microfluidic control. See the title. The system comprises “a microfluidic chip, the microfluidic chip comprising a microfluidic channel with one or more electric-field-generating structures located therein, including a first electric-field-generating structure (e.g., electrodes), wherein the one or more electric-field-generating structures is configured to selectively polarize or manipulate biologic or particle components flowing within the microfluidic channel; and measuring, via an on-chip impedance sensing element (e.g., on-chip resister), impedance spectra associated with at least one internal capacitive structure (e.g., parasitic voltage due to at least one capacitive structure) of the first electric-field-generating structure or characteristic of the biologic or particle components, . . . .” See paragraph [0012] and Figure 9. The on-chip impedance sensing element may comprise a set of electrodes located in the microfluidic channel. See paragraph [0041]. Swami discloses several beneficial uses of the on-chip impedance sensing element, such as, “ . . . .to measure and/or assess impedance spectra for the geometric or functional quantification of internal structures of the microfluidic chip and/or to measure and/or assess the impedance characteristics of the biologic or particle components to control polarization or manipulation of the biologic or particle components. See paragraph [0081]. Most relevant to the channel chip of Yasuda as modified by Azpiroz is that Swami discloses the following
PNG
media_image4.png
142
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
114
448
media_image5.png
Greyscale
More especially,
PNG
media_image6.png
196
456
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
469
446
media_image7.png
Greyscale
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to provide at least one pair of control electrodes measurer) as taught by Azpiroz in the channel chip of Yasuda also because in light of Swami it can be used for real-time feedback compensation of a number of different operational deviations that may occur when using the channel chip.
Thus, light of Azpiroz and Swami as just discussed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to also provide a correction coefficient calculator to calculate a correction coefficient based on the measured impedance between the pair of control electrodes and a fluid impedance derived by a mathematical formula; and a voltage controller to correct the control voltage based on the correction coefficient, wherein the fluid impedance indicates an impedance of the first fluid or an impedance of the second fluid.”
As for the claim 8 limitation “. . . ., the first fluid is a fluid containing the dielectric particles and other particles, and the second fluid is a fluid of the same type as a fluid obtained by removing the dielectric particles and the other particles from the first fluid…”
Shinoda discloses , “A method for measuring a micro-particle caused to flow through a flow channel, includes the steps of: measuring a property of a material to be measured as a micro-particle in a predetermined position of a flow channel for measurement, and measuring properties of one or more reference materials in a predetermined position of a flow channel for reference while the material to be measured is caused to flow through the flow channel for measurement, and the one or more reference materials are caused to flow through the flow channel for reference; and processing a result of the measurement of the material to be measured in accordance with a result of the measurements of the one or more reference materials.” See the Shinoda Abstract and Figure 1. The property may be an electrical property and the micro-particle may be a cell. See paragraphs [0006] and [0007]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have when using the dielectrophoresis apparatus of Yasuda as modified by Azpiroz and Swami the second fluid be a fluid of the same type as a fluid obtained by removing the dielectric particles and the other particles from the first fluid (that is, be a reference fluid) because this would be expected to increase the accuracy of the impedance measurement by providing one or more updated baseline (sample free) measurements against which the sample measurements can be compared. See Shinoda paragraphs [0008], [0009], [[0039], and [0040].
Last, the Examiner notes that mathematical formulas for determining impedance of fluids containing cells were well known. See, for example, Giaver the title and col. 8:21-38, Zhou the title and paragraphs [0076]-[0078] and Morgan the title, Abstract, and paragraphs [0075]-[0085].
However, in contrast to the electrophoresis apparatus of Applicant’s
claim 8 in the dielectrophoresis apparatus of Yasuda as modified by Azpiroz, Swami, Shinoa, Giaver, Zhou, and Morgan as just described the measurer to measure an impedance comprises a second pair electrodes distinct from the first pair of electrodes.
e)(ii) Urakawa combined with modified by Azpiroz, Swami, Shinoda, Zhou, and Morgan would result in a dielectrophoresis apparatus with a measurer to measure an impedance comprising a second pair electrodes distinct from the first pair of electrodes. See Urakawa Figure 1 noting first pair of electrodes (50) and the second pair of electrodes (60).
f) claims 9-14 depend directly or indirectly from allowable claim 8. Regarding claim 9 note that the Examiner understands the following underlined limitation
PNG
media_image13.png
148
678
media_image13.png
Greyscale
to mean that the control voltage is to be applied to the second pair of electrodes and also to the first pair of electrodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan Van can be reached on 571 272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 A pair of first electrodes are to be introduced later in this claim rejection.
2 In paragraph [0107] note especially, “A control circuit will comprise at least one pair of control electrodes 66, 68 extending transverse to the flow path, . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]”
3 See MPEP 1893.01(d).
4 In paragraph [0107] note especially, “A control circuit will comprise at least one pair of control electrodes 66, 68 extending transverse to the flow path, . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]”
5 Note the minor objection to claim 11 above under Claim Objections.
6 The control electrodes in Azpirpoz do not themselves apply a dielectrophoresis force, but instead make measurements, such as impedance measurements, that are used to control the dielectrophoresis electrodes.
7 In paragraph [0107] note especially, “A control circuit will comprise at least one pair of control electrodes 66, 68 extending transverse to the flow path, . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]”
Prosecution Insights