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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
This office action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 18 March 2026.
Claims 1-27 are pending.
Claims 13-21 and 23-25 are withdrawn.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are newly added.
Claims 1 and 22 are amended.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites both “at least one fluid passageway” and “one or more fluid passageways” both being associated with the at least one fluid flow channel, wherein it is unclear if the latter recitation is intended to provide for additional passageways or merely refers to the already recited at least one fluid passageway. Applicant may wish to amend the claim to recite “one or more first/second fluid passageways” if the intent is multiple separately defined passageways.
Examiner further notes Applicant provides a duplicate recitation “one or more one or more” in line 15. The claim should be amended to remove the duplicate recitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 22, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (US 2011/0020179 A1), hereinafter “Yue,” in view of Hintsche et al. (WO 2010040748 A1; see English translation attached through Google Patents), hereinafter “Hintsche”, and Park et al. (US 2005/0230767 A1), hereinafter “Park”.
Regarding Claim 1, Yue teaches a fluid handling apparatus for a bioprocessing system ([0005]: “a system for distribution of a biological sample”), comprising:
a first plate 30 having a first surface and a second surface (Fig. 2B);
and a sealing layer 20 disposed over the first surface (Fig. 2B shows film 20 disposed over the first surface of plate 30.);
wherein at least one fluid flow channel 70 is formed in one of the first surface of the first plate or the sealing layer or both (Fig. 2B shows main flow channels 70 formed in the first surface of the plate 30.),
at least one valve recess is formed in one of the first surface of the first plate or the sealing layer (Fig. 38 shows an embodiment wherein a dissolvable plug 3900 is positioned within a recess of the first plate 3910. [0152] states that a burst valve or Timavo valve can be used in place of the plug.),
wherein the at least one fluid flow channel 70 includes one or more fluid passageways 110 (The flow channels 70 as seen through Fig. 2B include fluid passageways 110 as the central bore through which the sample fluid flows as discussed in para. [0109], acting as a defined path, route, or conduit for fluid to be transported from the sample ports 60 to the sample chambers 80, also being part of the passageways. – Applicant’s Fig. 2 similarly shows the flow channel having a branching arrangement forming various passageways.),
wherein the at least one fluid flow channel 70 has an input port 60 and an output port 40 (Fig. 2B and [0109]: “Venting chamber 90 contains gas-permeable membranes 50 and aligns with vents 40.” – As the above recitation indicates the at least one fluid flow channel includes one or more fluid passageways, interpreted herein as the channels 110 and chambers 80 through which fluid travels from the channel 70, the vents 40 are interpreted as being of the at least one fluid flow channel 70.), and
wherein the at least one valve recess is formed in the at least one fluid flow channel 70 (Fig. 38 shows an embodiment wherein a dissolvable plug 3900 is positioned within a recess of the first plate 3910. [0152] states that a burst valve or Timavo valve can be used in place of the plug. Further, the channel 3970 of Fig. 38 corresponds to the main channel 70 of Fig. 2B as the channel 3970 is a main channel that feeds a plurality of the side channels 3975 to fill the analysis chambers 3980 commensurately as in Fig. 2B and merely provided as a different arrangement. Thus, the valve recess is formed in the at least one fluid flow channel commensurately as claimed.),
as in Claim 1.
Further regarding Claim 1, Yue does not teach the device discussed above wherein the at least one valve recess cooperates with an actuator to prevent a flow of fluid through the at least one fluid flow channel, as in Claim 1.
However, Hintsche teaches a fluidic valve mechanism for use in microfluidics systems wherein a valve recess 6 is configured to cooperate and cooperates with an actuator 7 (i.e. 7a, 7b, and/or 7c) to prevent a flow of fluid through at least one fluid flow channel 5 (see abstract, Figs. 2A and 2B and accompanying disclosure thereof). This arrangement allows the valves to be opened at specific times as defined by a user, allowing more control over the device as opposed to passive one-time operations, as well as promoting multiple uses of the device as opposed to the single-use cartridge of Yue which loses a functioning valve element after the dissolvable plug 3900 is dissolved.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the burst valve mechanism of Yue with an actuator valve recess assembly such as taught by Hintsche to provide a structure capable of user-programmed control over the valve, thus enabling complex fluidic functions, and allows multiple-use of the valve and overall device that houses it, wherein said modification would have a reasonable expectation of success in Yue.
Further regarding Claim 1, Yue does not teach the device discussed above wherein the first plate includes a ridge protruding above the first surface along substantially an entire periphery of the at least one fluid flow channel, as in Claim 1.
However, Park teaches a respective microfluidic device (abstract) wherein a first plate 202/206 is formed with ridges 210 protruding above the surface of the first plate 202/206 along the periphery of channel 216, the ridges 210 being configured to contact a sealing layer 218 to form a fluid-tight seal (Fig. 7 -- see also [0104-0105] and [0109].).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the fluid handling device of Yue with peripheral protruding ridges such as taught by Park to as to achieve a fluid tight seal with the sealing layer.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Yue teaches the fluid handling apparatus discussed above wherein:
the at least one fluid flow channel is in the first surface of the first plate (Fig. 2B shows main flow channels 70 as in the first surface of the first plate 30.),
the at least one valve recess is in the first surface along the at least one fluid flow channel (Fig. 38 shows the valve 3900 as formed in the first surface of the first plate 3910 and along the fluid supply channel 3970.),
and the at least one fluid passageway extends through the first plate from the at least one fluid flow channel to the second surface (Fig. 28 shows an embodiment wherein a passageway connects sample chamber 2880 to a venting chamber 2890 which opens to the second surface of the first plate via through hole 2800.);
and wherein the sealing layer encloses the at least one fluid flow channel (Fig. 13 demonstrates how the film layer 1320 completely covers the substrate 1330 and thus encloses the main flow channels 1370 and all accessory channels.), as in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Further, Yue/Hintsche does not teach the fluid handling apparatus discussed above wherein the ridge is configured to contact the sealing layer to form a seal and a groove that substantially mirrors the ridge, as in Claim 3.
However, Park teaches a respective microfluidic device (abstract) wherein a first plate 202/206 is formed with ridges 210 protruding above the surface of the first plate 202/206 along the periphery of channel 216, the ridges 210 being configured to contact a sealing layer 218 to form a fluid-tight seal (Fig. 7 -- see also [0104-0105] and [0109].). (By contacting the sealing layer, the ridge 210 further forms a groove that substantially mirrors the ridge by deforming the sealing layer around the ridge ([0109]: “When MEMS device 200 is placed under compression, sealing layer 218 is compressed against patterned structure 206, causing ridge 210 to apply stress to and deform sealing layer 218 at contact areas along ridge 210.”). As such, the ridge is configured to contact the sealing layer to form a groove that substantially mirrors the ridge as claimed.)
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the fluid handling device of Yue with peripheral protruding ridges which form a groove in a sealing layer, such as taught by Park, so as to achieve a fluid tight seal with the sealing layer.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above. Further, Park teaches the sealing ridge protrusions discussed above wherein the ridge has an inverted v-shape or rounded profile (In this case, the ridge 210 has an inverted V-shape as shown in Fig. 7.), or comprises a plurality of spaced-apart ridges configured to contact the sealing layer to form a plurality of seals (Fig. 7 further demonstrates a plurality of ridges 210 to form a plurality of seals.), as in Claim 4. Park further teaches how this “knife’s edge” shape of the ridge provides the strongest contact with the flexible seal, resulting in a more reliable fluid-tight assembly ([0105]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize an inverted V-shaped ridge when modifying the fluid handling device of Yue with the ridge of Park so as to achieve the strongest fluid-tight seal with the sealing layer.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Further, Hintsche teaches the valve mechanism discussed above wherein the valve recess includes a valve ridge extending across the valve recess perpendicular to a direction of fluid flow (Fig. 2A shows a valve ridge formed as the edge connecting the upper fluidic channel 4a with the valve recess 6.), the valve ridge being configured to cooperate with the sealing layer to prevent a flow of fluid past the valve recess (Fig. 2B shows when the actuator compresses the film 2a, the film 2a comes into contact with the valve ridge edge, providing a more effective fluid seal.).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a valve ridge when adding the valve of Hintsche to the fluid handling system of Yue so as to provide a more effective fluid seal.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Further, Yue teaches the fluid handling apparatus discussed above wherein:
the first plate comprises a rigid material ([0084]: “the substrate that defines the sample-distribution network can be constructed from any solid material…including various plastic polymers and copolymers, such as polypropylenes, polystyrenes, polyimides, COP, COC, and polycarbonates. Inorganic materials such as glass and silicon are also useful.” – All of these are rigid materials.);
and the sealing layer comprises a flexible material ([0095]: “elastic properties of the film…” -- Fig. 3C further shows the film 320 as a flexible sheet.), as in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Yue teaches the fluid handling apparatus discussed above wherein:
the at least one fluid flow channel is a plurality of fluid flow channels (Fig. 2B shows a plurality of main flow channels 70 as well as sample introduction channels 110 which branch from the main channel.);
wherein at least one of the plurality of fluid flow channels intersects with at least another of the plurality of fluid flow channels (Fig. 2A shows that main flow channels 70 intersect with sample introduction channels 110.), as in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Yue teaches the fluid handling apparatus discussed above further comprising:
a second plate sandwiching the sealing layer against the first plate (Fig. 4 shows sealing plate 120 which sandwiches the sealing layer 20 against the plate.), as in Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 22, Yue teaches a fluid handling apparatus for a bioprocessing system ([0005]: “a system for distribution of a biological sample”), comprising:
a first plate having a first surface and a second surface (Fig. 2B);
a sealing layer in registration with the first surface (Fig. 2B shows film 20 disposed over the first surface of plate 30.);
at least one fluid flow channel 70 formed in at least one of the first surface and the sealing layer (Fig. 2B shows main flow channels 70 formed in the first surface of the plate 30.);
at least one valve recess formed in at least one of the first surface and the sealing layer along the at least one fluid flow channel (Fig. 38 shows an embodiment wherein a dissolvable plug 3900 is positioned within a recess of the first plate 3910. [0152] states that a burst valve or Timavo valve can be used in place of the plug. – The valve is shown as positioned along the flow channel 3970.);
and at least one fluid passageway extending through the first plate from the at least one fluid flow channel to the second surface (Fig. 28 shows an embodiment wherein a passageway connects sample chamber 2880 to a venting chamber 2890 which opens to the second surface of the first plate via through hole 2800.);
wherein the at least one fluid flow channel 70 includes one or more fluid passageways 110 (The flow channels 70 as seen through Fig. 2B include fluid passageways 110 as the central bore through which the sample fluid flows as discussed in para. [0109], acting as a defined path, route, or conduit for fluid to be transported from the sample ports 60 to the sample chambers 80, also being part of the passageways. – Applicant’s Fig. 2 similarly shows the flow channel having a branching arrangement forming various passageways.),
wherein the at least one fluid flow channel 70 has an input port 60 and an output port 40 (Fig. 2B and [0109]: “Venting chamber 90 contains gas-permeable membranes 50 and aligns with vents 40.” – As the above recitation indicates the at least one fluid flow channel includes one or more fluid passageways, interpreted herein as the channels 110 and chambers 80 through which fluid travels from the channel 70, the vents 40 are interpreted as being of the at least one fluid flow channel 70.), and
wherein the at least one valve recess is formed in the at least one fluid flow channel 70 (Fig. 38 shows an embodiment wherein a dissolvable plug 3900 is positioned within a recess of the first plate 3910. [0152] states that a burst valve or Timavo valve can be used in place of the plug. Further, the channel 3970 of Fig. 38 corresponds to the main channel 70 of Fig. 2B as the channel 3970 is a main channel that feeds a plurality of the side channels 3975 to fill the analysis chambers 3980 commensurately as in Fig. 2B and merely provided as a different arrangement. Thus, the valve recess is formed in the at least one fluid flow channel commensurately as claimed.),
as in Claim 22.
Further regarding Claim 22, Yue does not teach the device discussed above wherein the at least one valve recess cooperates with an actuator and the sealing layer to prevent a flow of fluid through the at least one fluid flow channel, as in Claim 22.
However, Hintsche teaches a fluidic valve mechanism for use in microfluidics systems wherein a valve recess 6 is configured to cooperate with and cooperates with an actuator 7 (i.e. 7a, 7b, and/or 7c) and a flexible membrane 2a to prevent a flow of fluid through at least one fluid flow channel 5 (see abstract, Figs. 2A and 2B and accompanying disclosure thereof). This arrangement allows the valves to be opened at specific times as defined by a user, allowing more control over the device as opposed to passive one-time operations, as well as promoting multiple uses of the device as opposed to the single-use cartridge of Yue which loses a functioning valve element after the dissolvable plug 3900 is dissolved.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the burst valve mechanism of Yue with an actuator valve recess assembly such as taught by Hintsche to provide a structure capable of user-programmed control over the valve, thus enabling complex fluidic functions, and allows multiple-use of the valve and overall device that houses it, wherein said modification would have a reasonable expectation of success in Yue.
Further regarding Claim 22, Yue does not teach the device discussed above wherein the first plate includes a ridge protruding above the first surface along substantially an entire periphery of the at least one fluid flow channel, as in Claim 22.
However, Park teaches a respective microfluidic device (abstract) wherein a first plate 202/206 is formed with ridges 210 protruding above the surface of the first plate 202/206 along the periphery of channel 216, the ridges 210 being configured to contact a sealing layer 218 to form a fluid-tight seal (Fig. 7 -- see also [0104-0105] and [0109].).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the fluid handling device of Yue with peripheral protruding ridges such as taught by Park to as to achieve a fluid tight seal with the sealing layer.
Regarding Claim 26, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Yue teaches the microfluidic device discussed above wherein the first plate includes a plurality of protrusions extending above the first surface and configured to serve as an alignment feature ([0136]: “Providing the blades 1122 as part of the carrier 1120 (e.g., an integral part of the carrier 1120) may facilitate manufacturing and alignment of the blades 1122, as the appropriate alignment can be assured prior to sealing the substrate 1110 with the carrier 1120.”), as in Claim 26.
Regarding Claim 27, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, as discussed above regarding Claim 1, one skilled in the art would find it obvious to modify the fluidic device of Yue with the peripheral ridge of Park so as to form a fluid tight seal surrounding the fluidic elements of the device. Therein, the ridges 210 of the substrate layer 202 form a complementary trough in the layer 218 into which they protrude, as can be seen through Fig. 7 and id discussed in para. [0109].
Thus, given that the valve recess of Yue comprises a fluid flow passageway, one skilled in the art would find it obvious that, when modifying Yue with the ridge/trough arrangement of Park, to include the valve recess as a structure having a trough formed opposite the ridge so as to maintain a fluid-tight seal as it is a fluid-handling element.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue in view of Hintsche and Park, as applied to Claims 1-8, 22, and 26 above, and in further view of Webster et al. (US 2005/0180891 A1), hereinafter “Webster.”
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Hintsche teaches the valve assembly discussed above wherein an actuator is extendable to bias the sealing layer into contact with a surface of the at least one valve recess to occlude or reduce fluid flow through the at least one fluid flow channel (Figs. 2A and 2B).
Hintsche does not teach a second plate having a through hole or aperture machined for an actuator to pass therethrough.
However, Webster teaches a respective microfluidic device wherein an actuator 24 is similarly configured to deform a flexible layer 23 against a recess 24 to act as a valve seal as in Hintsche. Webster additionally teaches a substrate 22 machined with a through hole/aperture 141 for the actuator 24 to pass therethrough and reach the flexible layer 23.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide a through hole to the substrate of Yue when modifying Yue to include the actuator of Hintsche to allow said actuator to pass therethrough and reach the film 20 of Yue so as to enable its function of compressing said film 20 to form a valve seal.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue in view of Hintsche and Park, as applied to Claims 1-8, 22, and 26 above, and in further view of Wang et al. (US 2013/0206597 A1), hereinafter “Wang.”
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 9 as discussed above. Further, Yue/Hintsche does not specifically teach the fluid handling apparatus discussed above wherein the second plate is mechanically joined to the first plate and compressed against the first plate.
However, Wang teaches a respective microfluidic device for actuating and handling droplets wherein a second plate 112 is mechanically joined to a first plate 110 and compressed against the first plate 110 (Figs. 1B and 1C). ([0095]: “The production process may consist of compressing the top substrate into the PCB (with the rubber material in between) and then heat stamping the overhanging cylindrical pegs of the top substrate into the PCB. This process allows the rubber material to be pressure fit into the droplet actuator assembly and also allows the assembly to be liquid tight.”)
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to compress the layers of Yue/Hintsche together such as taught by Wang so as to achieve a liquid-tight seal.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 10 as discussed above. Further, Yue/Hintsche does not specifically teach the fluid handling apparatus discussed above wherein said mechanical joining comprises plural securing pegs extending between the first and second plates through the sealing layer, said pegs each including a head to maintain said compression.
However, Wang teaches cylindrical pegs extending between the first plate (the droplet operations substrate 116), the second plate (thermoplastic top substrate 112), and the sealing layer (gasket 130), as shown in Figs. 1B and 1C. Said pegs each include a head (“the overhanging cylindrical pegs of the top substrate”) to maintain compression. (“In another embodiment, the droplet actuator assemblies may be produced using a…thermoplastic top substrate that has cylindrical pegs that fit into holes located in the droplet operations substrate…This process allows the rubber material to be pressure fit into the droplet actuator assembly and also allows the assembly to be liquid tight.” ([0095]).)
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the fluidic device of Yue/Hintsche with securing pegs such as taught by Wang so as to provide a structure for compressing the layers of the device together so as to achieve a liquid-tight seal.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 11 as discussed above. Further, Yue/Hintsche does not specifically teach the fluid handling apparatus discussed above wherein said heads are formed during assembly of the apparatus by melting the head at the same time as compressing the first and second plates together.
However, Wang teaches heat stamping of the heads of the cylindrical pegs while compressing the plates together, “The production process may consist of compressing the top substrate into the PCB (with the rubber material in between) and then heat stamping the overhanging cylindrical pegs of the top substrate into the PCB. This process allows the rubber material to be pressure fit into the droplet actuator assembly and also allows the assembly to be liquid tight.” ([0095]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to produce the fluid handling apparatus of Yue/Hintsche using compression and heat stamping such as taught by Wang so as to achieve a liquid-tight seal.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103 – Yue, Hintsche, Park
Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that the cited references fail to teach at least one valve recess configured to cooperate with an actuator, the first plate including a ridge protruding substantially along a periphery of the flow channel, and wherein the flow channel includes one or more fluid passageways.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the at least one valve recess configured to cooperate with an actuator is provided for by the prior art of Hintsche; the first plate including a ridge protruding substantially along a periphery of the flow channel is provided for by the prior art of Park; and the flow channel including one or more fluid passageways is provided for by the prior art of Yue, as discussed above in the body of the action.
Applicant’s arguments are further on the alleged grounds that the cited references fail to suggest a fluid flow channel having an input port, an output port, and a valve recess formed therein.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Yue commensurately teaches the claimed inlet and outlet ports of the fluid flow channel: Fig. 2B and [0109]: “Venting chamber 90 contains gas-permeable membranes 50 and aligns with vents 40.” – As the above recitation indicates the at least one fluid flow channel includes one or more fluid passageways, interpreted herein as the channels 110 and chambers 80 through which fluid travels from the channel 70, the vents 40 are interpreted as being of the at least one fluid flow channel 70. Applicant’s instant Fig. 2 similarly shows a branching arrangement of the flow channel affording such an interpretation of the fluid passageways in Yue.
Further, Yue commensurately teaches the claimed valve recess as being positioned within the fluid flow channel: Fig. 38 shows an embodiment wherein a dissolvable plug 3900 is positioned within a recess of the first plate 3910. [0152] states that a burst valve or Timavo valve can be used in place of the plug. Further, the channel 3970 of Fig. 38 corresponds to the main channel 70 of Fig. 2B as the channel 3970 is a main channel that feeds a plurality of the side channels 3975 to fill the analysis chambers 3980 commensurately as in Fig. 2B and merely provided as a different arrangement. Thus, the valve recess is formed in the at least one fluid flow channel commensurately as claimed.
Examiner further notes that Applicant’s recitation to a valve recess merely requires a recess be present and does not specifically require a valve actually be present. In the prior art of Yue, any portion of the channels may be considered a recess capable of interacting with an actuator to act as a valve. Yue merely additionally teaches a specific valve located in a recess utilized herein and in prior office actions to most clearly match Applicant’s intent of the recess configured for use as a valve. This is further seen through Claim 27 wherein the valve recess merely includes a trough on an opposite side of the ridge, not particularly having a valve structure formed therein the trough.
Applicant’s arguments are further on the alleged grounds that one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify the device of Yue as inspired by Hintsche as the addition of actuatable valves in Yue would allegedly render the sample chambers 880 as non-functional, and allegedly that the chambers of Yue do not include fluid passageways.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because there already exists a valve arrangement in Yue as shown by Fig. 38 showing the burst valve 3900 in the fluid flow channel 3970. Therein, the actuatable valve of Hintsche is merely relied upon for providing a simple substitution of the burst valve for a more precisely controllable actuatable valve, which would have a reasonable expectation of success in Yue given that Yue commensurately teaches a flexible top sealing film layer 20 capable of being compressed by an actuator to seal a channel. The valve of Hintsche is not provided to the chambers of Yue as argued by Applicant, and the device of Yue does include fluid passageways 110/80/100/90 included with the main flow channel 70.
Applicant further argues that the prior art of Park does not make up for the alleged deficiencies in Yue/Hintsche. However, as discussed above, the alleged deficiencies are not present in Yue/Hintsche, thus rendering Applicant’s argument regarding Park as moot.
Thus, in view of the discussion above, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claims 1-2, 5-8, 22, and 26 as unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over Yue in view of Hintsche and Park as discussed above in the body of the action.
35 USC 103 – Yue, Hintsche, Park, Webster
Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that Claim 1 is allowable, therefore Claim 9 is allowable for its dependence from Claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because, as discussed in the section above, Claim 1 is maintained rejected as unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over Yue in view of Hintsche and Park. Thus, Claim 9 is not allowable merely for its dependence on Claim 1.
As such, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claim 9 under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Yue, Hintsche, Park, and Webster.
35 USC 103 – Yue, Hintsche, Park, Wang
Similarly as above, Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that Claim 1 is allowable, therefore Claims 10-12 are allowable for their dependence from Claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because, as discussed in the section above, Claim 1 is maintained rejected as unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over Yue in view of Hintsche and Park. Thus, Claims 10-12 are not allowable merely for their dependence on Claim 1.
As such, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claims 10-12 under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Yue, Hintsche, Park, and Wang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN JOSEPH KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jill Warden, can be reached at telephone number (703)756-5501. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights