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 .
Inventorship
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 11-14, 16-17, 19-20 and 32 have been considered regarding REDBUD (WO2019/195818A1) but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 11-14, 16-17, 19-20 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Superfine et al. (US9612185B2) and Tien et al. (US20220401950A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Superfine et al. teaches a microfluidics system (See the Abstract, Claim(s) 1-4, and see how the microfluidic portable device 400 includes an actuation system 402, a motion detection system 404, and a processing unit 406 in [Col. 2 lines 20-67]-[Col. 3 lines 1-16] in Fig. 1-11) comprising:
(a) a microfluidic device (See the portable device 400 in Fig. 4 in [Col. 9 lines 52-67]-[Col. 11 lines 1-8]; Also, see the device 600 in Fig. 6 in [Col. 12 lines 7-23]) comprising:
i. a reaction chamber (See the wells 300, i.e. a reaction chamber, in Fig. 3-4 in [Col. 9 lines 32-51] and in [Col. 12 lines 24-67] in Fig. 7A; Also, see how the high-throughput screening system 500 also includes a multiforce plate subsystem 506. Multiforce plate subsystem 506 may comprise a microtiter well plate, such as multiwell plate 600, shown in Fig. 6, which includes a plurality of specimen wells 300 in [Col. 11 lines 47-58] in Fig. 5-8B); and
ii. a magnetically-responsive active surface on an inner surface of the reaction chamber (See how the wells 300, i.e. a reaction chamber, have the magnetic micropost array 114, a magnetically-responsive active surface, in Fig. 3-4 in [Col. 9 lines 32-51], [Col. 10 lines 7-65] and in [Col. 12 lines 24-67] in Fig. 7A, wherein the active surface comprises one or more surface-attached magnetically-responsive microposts (See how the micropost array 114, a magnetically-responsive active surface, can aid in measuring the physical or rheological properties of a biofluid specimen is by applying a magnetic force to a micropost that includes magnetic material via magnetic fields in Fig. 3-4 in [Col. 9 lines 32-51], [Col. 10 lines 7-65]); and
(b) a magnetic-based actuation mechanism (See the actuation system 402 in [Col. 10 lines 7-65] in Fig. 3-4; Also, see how in a magnetic application, magnetic microposts can include paramagnetic or diamagnetic material, and in an electrical application, microposts of micropost array 114 can contain polarized, charged or chargeable particles in [Col. 12 lines 48-67] ),
wherein the magnetic-based actuation mechanism is configured to generate an actuation force (See in [Col. 4 lines 44-60], [Col. 5 lines 55-67]-[Col. 6 lines 1-43] in Fig. 1-11), wherein the actuation force is sufficient to compel at least one of the one or more surface-attached magnetically- responsive microposts to exhibit motion (See how the device 400 may be controlled by a user to apply the magnetic field to end portion 410 of tab 408, thereby causing motion (e.g., oscillation) of microposts on the end portion 410. As the microposts are compelled to move by actuation system 402, motion detection system 404 may measure and record the movement of the microposts on end portion 410 in [Col. 10 lines 37-65 in Fig. 3-4);
wherein the magnetic-based actuation mechanism comprises a rotatable magnet mounting surface (See the actuation system 402 includes a low-power system (i.e., which may be electrically powered by either a small battery or manual actuation produced by a small hand-crank), and can include a small spinning permanent magnet adapted to generate a time varying magnetic field in [Col. 10 lines 7-65] in Fig. 3-4) comprising at least two magnets mounted on the rotatable magnet mounting surface and arranged in a circular configuration concentric to an axis of rotation of the rotatable magnet mounting surface (See the combination of the excitation poles 708 attached to a magnetic flux return plate 706, i.e. a rotatable magnet mounting surface, in [Col. 12 lines 24-67] in Fig. 1-7B); Also, see how the magnetic block drive or exciter assembly 700 may include a plurality of excitation poles 708, each of which may include a coil 704. Coils 704, which generate the magnetic field, may include standard wire-wrapped bobbins or, alternatively, the coils may be patterned on a multilayer printed circuit board in [Col. 12 lines 24-67]-[Col. 16 lines 1-62] in Fig. 1-11) Note that what is discussed in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. The current claimed arrangement of the two or more magnets and the rotatable mounting surface, would render similar results as the system in the prior art; and
wherein rotation of the rotatable magnet mounting surface causes the actuation force to be directionally-fluctuating and time-varying relative to the active surface (See how the system 500 is capable of applying a force and measuring micropost responses by having a control and measurement subsystem 502, a multiforce generation subsystem 504, a multiforce plate subsystem 506, and an imaging and tracking optical subsystem 508 that can cause the actuation force to be directionally-fluctuating and time-varying relative to the active surface in [Col. 11 lines 8-67]-[Col. 12 lines 1-23] in Fig. 1-11 in Claim 1).
Superfine et al. fails to explicitly teach a microfluidics system wherein a rotatable magnet mounting surface comprising at least two magnets mounted on the rotatable magnet mounting surface and arranged in a circular configuration concentric to an axis of rotation of the rotatable magnet mounting surface; and wherein rotation of the rotatable magnet mounting surface causes the actuation force to be directionally-fluctuating and time-varying relative to the active surface.
However, in the analogous art of magnetic stirring devices and methods, Tien et al. teaches a system (See the Abstract and Claim(s) 5-9 in Fig. 3-34B), wherein a rotatable magnet mounting surface comprising at least two magnets mounted on the rotatable magnet mounting surface and arranged in a circular configuration concentric to an axis of rotation of the rotatable magnet mounting surface (See the multiple actuatable driver magnets consisting of disk magnets and ring magnets illustrated in Fig. 20-34B in [0096]-[0124], [0181]; Also, see the six magnets in [0074], [0097], [0103] in Fig. 30-32); and wherein rotation of the rotatable magnet mounting surface causes the actuation force to be directionally-fluctuating and time-varying relative to the active surface (See in [0096]-[0132], [0135]-[0138], [0174]-[0177], and [0181]-[0184] in Fig. 3-34B).
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary sill in the arts to modify the system of Superfine et al. by utilizing a rotatable magnet mounting surface comprising at least two magnets mounted on the rotatable magnet mounting surface and arranged in a circular configuration concentric to an axis of rotation of the rotatable magnet mounting surface; and wherein rotation of the rotatable magnet mounting surface causes the actuation force to be directionally-fluctuating and time-varying relative to the active surface (as taught by Tien et al.) for the benefit of magnetic-based actuation of microposts on a microfluidic device.
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Superfine et al. and Tien et al. teach the system limitations of claim 1.
Superfine et al. further teaches a microfluidics system (See the Abstract, Claim(s) 1-4, and see how the microfluidic portable device 400 includes an actuation system 402, a motion detection system 404, and a processing unit 406 in [Col. 2 lines 20-67]-[Col. 3 lines 1-16] in Fig. 1-11) wherein the rotatable magnet mounting surface comprises from 2 to 20 magnets (See how the actuation is caused by magnetic force, excitation poles 708 and field-forming poles 710 do not need to physically touch; once the excitation pole is brought into proximity of the field-forming pole, and the coil is activated, the magnetic circuit is complete, a magnetic field is generated and the magnetic microposts of micropost array 714 are actuated in [Col. 12 lines 24-67] in Fig. 7A-11).
Furthermore, Tien et al. teaches a system (See the Abstract and Claim(s) 5-9 in Fig. 3-34B), wherein the rotatable magnet mounting surface comprises from 2 to 20 magnets (See the six magnets in [0074], [0097], [0103] in Fig. 30-32).
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Superfine et al. and Tien et al. teach the system limitations of claim 1.
Tien et al. further teaches a system (See the Abstract and Claim(s) 5-9 in Fig. 3-34B), wherein the rotatable magnet mounting surface (i) is rotatable in a plane of rotation that is substantially parallel to a plane of the active surface (See the direction of magnetism parallel line 1026 in [0096]-[0100], [0083], [01091] in Fig. 18-21 in Claims 1 and 6), or (ii) is rotatable in a plane of rotation that is substantially vertical to a plane of the active surface (See in [0093]-[0100], [0113], [0117]-[0130], [0206] in Fig. 27A-29B).
Regarding Claim(s) 11-14, The combination of Superfine et al. and Tien et al. teach the system limitations of claim 1.
Tien et al. further teaches a system (See the Abstract and Claim(s) 5-9 in Fig. 3-34B), wherein the magnets are: equally spaced apart from each other in the circular configuration (See in [0096]-[0132], [0135]-[0138], [0174]-[0177], and [0181]-[0184] in Fig. 30-34B); arranged in the circular configuration such that a magnetic axis of each magnet intersects the axis of rotation of the rotatable magnet mounting surface (See in Fig. 11-12 and 30-34B); and wherein each magnet has a north pole and a south pole that are oriented substantially in the same plane (See in Fig. 11-12 and 30-34B);
wherein a north-south orientation of a north pole and a south pole of each adjacent magnet in the circular configuration alternates (See in Fig. 11, 25E-27B, and 30-34B);
wherein the at least two magnets mounted on the rotatable magnet mounting surface comprises one or more arc-shaped or wedge-shaped magnets arranged in a concentric configuration about the axis of rotation of the rotatable magnet mounting surface (See the central void 54, in [0039], [0087], [0153], [0175]-[0177] in Fig. 11, 19-21, and 30-33A in Claim 2); and
wherein the least two magnets mounted on the rotatable magnet mounting surface comprise two or more wedge-shaped magnets arranged in the circular configuration about the axis of rotation, wherein each of the two or more wedge-shaped magnets is symmetrically bisected by a line perpendicular to the axis of rotation, and wherein each wedge of the two or more wedge-shaped magnets is oriented towards the axis of rotation or away from the axis of rotation (See in Fig. 25A-34B).
Note that what is discussed in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art, and in MPEP § 2144 IV. A. concerning changes in the size or portions of a claimed invention. The current claimed arrangement and shape of the two or more magnets and the rotatable mounting surface, would render similar results as the system in the prior art.
Regarding Claim(s) 16-17, The combination of Superfine et al. and Tien et al. teach the system limitations of claim 13 and 14.
Tien et al. further teaches a system (See the Abstract and Claim(s) 1-9 in Fig. 3-34B), wherein the two or more wedge-shaped magnets comprise a first set of one or more wedge-shaped magnets oriented towards the axis of rotation and a second set of one or more wedge-shaped magnets oriented away from the axis of rotation (See in [0096]-[0132], [0135]-[0138], [0174]-[0177], and [0181]-[0184] in Fig. 30-34B in Claim 2), wherein each of the wedge-shaped magnets have an orientation opposite to an adjacent wedge-shaped magnet; wherein the least two magnets mounted on the rotatable magnet mounting surface comprise two or more arc-shaped magnets arranged in the circular configuration about the axis of rotation (See the central void 54, in [0039], [0087], [0153], [0175]-[0177] in Fig. 11, 19-21, and 30-33A in Claim 2), wherein each of the two or more arc-shaped magnets is symmetrically bisected by a line perpendicular to the axis of rotation, and wherein each of the two or more arc- shaped magnets has an arc apex that is oriented proximal to the axis of rotation or distal to the axis of rotation (See in Fig. 25A-34B). Note MPEP § 2144 VI. and IV.
Regarding Claim(s) 19-20 and 32, The combination of Superfine et al. and Tien et al. teach the system limitations of claim(s) 1 and 17.
Tien et al. further teaches a system (See the Abstract and Claim(s) 1-9 in Fig. 3-34B), wherein each arc apex is oriented proximal to the axis of rotation or distal from the axis of rotation in a direction opposite to its adjacent neighbor arc apex; wherein the at least two magnets mounted on the rotatable magnet mounting surface comprise one or more bar-shaped magnets (See in Fig. 13, 15, 25A-33B in claims 5-9); and
wherein the rotatable magnet mounting surface has a shape selected from the group consisting of disc-shaped, polygonal, star-shaped, and hub-and-spoke shaped (See the various shapes in [0103], [0105], [0123], [0154] in Fig. 30-32). Note MPEP § 2144 VI. and IV.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aizenburg et al. (US9121306B2) and REDBUD (WO2019/195818A1) teach similar microfluidic systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITNEY N WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:30pm CT.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797