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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11-13, 15, 19, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2013/0210682, hereinafter Eltoukhy in view of United States Application Publication No. 2009/0279093, hereinafter Van Herpen.
Regarding claim 1, Eltoukhy teaches an apparatus (figures 3 and 4) comprising: a sensor (item 424) with an active surface having a plurality of reaction sites (item 414) where at least one designated reaction may occur along the active surface (optional and is taught in paragraph [0134]), a lid (items 404 and 200), and a flow channel (item 410) formed at least by the active surface of the sensor and a surface of the lid (figure 7), a heater (item 266) separate from the illumination source (figure 3), where the heater are embedded within the lid (figures 3 and 4).
Eltoukhy fails to teach the lid comprises an illumination source and is embedded within the lid.
Van Herpen teaches an integrated biosensing device which has an LED integrated into the top layer of the device (Van Herpen, paragraph [0049]) which has a prism which allow for the redirection of light (Van Herpen, paragraph [0046]) so that the light is not directly shine onto the sensors and only shines where there is no sensor (Van Herpen, paragraph [0049]) to allow for the detection of emissions when the sample is illuminated (Van Herpen, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized an LED as an illumination source which is embedded in the lid with a prism which allows for the LED to be offset from the sensors so that light does not directly shine onto the sensors and only shines where there is no sensor (Van Herpen, paragraph [0049]) and to allow for the detection of emissions when the sample is illuminated (Van Herpen, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Eltoukhy teaches the sensor comprises a Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) detection device (paragraph [0142]), the CMOS detection device comprising a plurality of detection pixels configured to detect incident emission signals from the plurality of reaction sites (paragraph [0142]).
Regarding claim 4, Eltoukhy teaches the lid further comprises at least one of a non-transparent material or an opaque material (paragraph [0112] and figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Eltoukhy teaches wherein the lid further comprises a fluidic channel therein (the dotted lines as shown in figure 3), where the fluidic channel is in fluidic communication with the flow channel (figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Eltoukhy teaches the lid further comprises a reservoir (item 240) and wherein the reservoir comprises a reagent (item 240).
Regarding claim 11, Eltoukhy as modified above teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Eltoukhy is silent as to the specific type of thermal element utilized to heat the device.
Van Herpen teaches that it is known in the art to used resistor as the heating elements for an apparatus (Van Herpen, paragraph [0060]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., a restive heater), and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., heating the sample), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to combine a generic thermal element of reference Eltoukhy with a resistive heater of reference Van Herpen, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Eltoukhy teaches the lid is on an opposite side of the flow channel from the active surface of the sensor (figure 7).
Regarding claim 13, modified Eltoukhy teaches the illumination source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) (see supra).
Regarding claim 15, modified Eltoukhy the illumination source is located along a periphery of the lid (see supra) and wherein the lid comprises a plurality of light guides, whereby the light guides guide light from the illumination source toward the active surface of the sensor (see supra).
Regarding claim 19, modified Eltoukhy teaches the illumination source is on a bottom surface of the lid, where the bottom surface of the lid faces the active surface of the sensor (see supra).
Regarding claim 35, Eltoukhy teaches a device (figures 3 and 4) comprising: a sensor (item 424) with an active surface having a plurality of reaction sites (item 414) where at least one designated reaction may occur along the active surface (optional and is taught in paragraph [0134]), a lid (items 404 and 200), and a flow channel (item 410) formed at least by the active surface of the sensor and the lid (figure 7), where the lid comprises a heater (item 266 and figure 3).
Eltoukhy is silent as to the specific type of thermal element utilized to heat the device.
Van Herpen teaches that it is known in the art to used resistor as the heating elements for an apparatus (Van Herpen, paragraph [0060]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., a restive heater), and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., heating the sample), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to combine a generic thermal element of reference Eltoukhy with a resistive heater of reference Van Herpen, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 37, Eltoukhy teaches the sensor comprises a Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) detection device (paragraph [0142]), the CMOS detection device comprising a plurality of detection pixels configured to detect incident emission signals from the plurality of reaction sites (paragraph [0142]).
Regarding claim 39, Eltoukhy teaches further comprising a pump (item 244), where the pump is fluidically coupled to the flow channel (figure 3).
Regarding claim 41, Eltoukhy teaches the lid further comprises an outlet port (paragraph [0132]), wherein the pump is adjacent to the outlet port of the lid (figure 3).
Regarding claim 42, Eltoukhy teaches there is no removable connection between the flow channel and the pump (figure 3). If it is determined that Eltoukhy fails to teach teaches there is no removable connection between the flow channel and the pump, then Eltoukhy would fail to each this limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make it that there is not removable connection between the flow channel and the pump, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (V)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 9/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 11-13, 15 and 19 under 112(a) and claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11-13, 15, 19, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 under 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Eltoukhy and Van Herpen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights