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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2025 have been fully considered, however, in light of the amendment to claim 1, the 102 rejection in view of Lin et al. stands and has been modified herein.
The Applicant argues that Lin et al. fails to disclose a body formed of a block of material with an internal void formed within the block of material as recited by amended claim 1. Instead, Lin discloses a fundamentally different structural arrangement consisting of multiple assembled layers that define chambers between them.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of this argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reference of Lin et al. teaches that the housing 140 has a top surface and bottom surface, as depicted in newly added annotated Fig. 1B wherein the housing has internal chambers that contact a thin film 150 that contains a differential calorimeter, see [0070]. The housing 140 of Lin et al. accomplishes all of the listed functions of the claimed body; therefore, Lin reads on the newly amended claim limitation.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-19 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 2-9. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The claims contain limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed invention. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114. Note that functional limitations are emphasized in italics herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11-13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2014/0092935).
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al. teaches a sample chip for use with a differential scanning calorimeter (microdevice used for calorimetric measurements, see Fig. 1A and [0065]) the sample chip comprising:
a body having a first surface formed of a block of material having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the second surface configured to contact a sample platform of a differential scanning calorimeter (singly formed housing 140 with first and second surface, see Annotated Fig. 1B, where the second surface contacts the thin film 150 containing calorimeter, see [0070])
an internal void formed within the block of material (microchambers 110 and 120) disposed between the first surface and the second surface and extending from a first port on the first surface (microchambers 110/120 are disposed between housing surface 140 and extend from inlet port 111/121, see Figs. 1A-1C and [0065]), the internal void configured to receive a sample to be analyzed by the differential scanning calorimeter (microchambers 110/120 receive sample from port where the chambers are analyzed using differential scanning calorimetry, see [0014], [0064] – [0065]).
Contacting a sample platform of a differential scanning calorimeter is a limitation with respect to an intended use of the body. An intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). The apparatus of Lin et al. is identical to the presently claimed structure and therefore, would have the ability to perform the use recited in the claim since it is also configured to contact a calorimeter and is constructed of a thermally stable material that can withstand high temperatures, see [0067].
Regarding claim 2, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 1, further comprising a second port for the internal void on the first surface (outlet 112/122, see Fig. 1A-C and [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 1, wherein the internal void is a microfluidic channel (microchamber 110/120 acts as channel as fluid flows from inlet to outlet, see Fig. 1A and [0065]).
Regarding claim 5, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 1, wherein the body is comprised of a chemically inert material (the housing 140 is constructed of PDMS, which is a thermally stable, or chemically inert material, see [0065]).
Regarding claim 6, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 1, further comprising a layer of material formed on the second surface and having a thermal conductivity that is greater than a thermal conductivity of the body (thin film 150 that contacts second surface comprises a Chromium/Gold (conductive) layer comprising microheaters 180 and sensors 190, see Fig. 1A-2E and [0071]- [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 3, wherein the microfluidic channel includes a chamber defined along a length of the fluidic channel (microchamber 110/120 is located within channel as fluid flows from inlet 111/121 to outlet 112/122, see Fig. 1A and [0065]).
Regarding claim 11, Lin et al. teaches a sample chip for use with a differential scanning calorimeter (microdevice used for calorimetric measurements, see Fig. 1A and [0065]) the sample chip comprising:
a body having a first surface formed of a block of material having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the second surface configured to contact a sample platform of a differential scanning calorimeter (singly formed housing 140 with first and second surface, see Annotated Fig. 1B, where the second surface contacts the thin film 150 containing calorimeter, see [0070]).
an internal void formed within the block of material (microchambers 110 and 120) disposed between the first surface and the second surface and extending from a first port on the first surface (microchambers 110/120 are disposed between housing surface 140 and extend from inlet port 111/121, see Figs. 1A-1C and [0065]), the internal void configured to receive a sample to be analyzed by the differential scanning calorimeter microchambers 110/120 receive sample from port where the chambers are analyzed using differential scanning calorimetry, see [0014], [0064] – [0065]), wherein the second surface is planar and continuous across its entire area except for the internal void (see annotated Fig. 1B).
Contacting a sample platform of a differential scanning calorimeter is a limitation with respect to an intended use of the body. An intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). The apparatus of Lin et al. is identical to the presently claimed structure and therefore, would have the ability to perform the use recited in the claim since it is also configured to contact a calorimeter and is constructed of a thermally stable material that can withstand high temperatures, see [0067].
Regarding claim 12, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 1, further comprising a second port for the internal void on the first surface (outlet 112/122, see Fig. 1A-C and [0065]).
Regarding claim 13, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 1, wherein the internal void is a microfluidic channel (microchamber 110/120 acts as channel as fluid flows from inlet to outlet, see Fig. 1A and [0065]).
Regarding claim 15, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 1, wherein the body is comprised of a chemically inert material (the housing 140 is constructed of PDMS, which is a thermally stable, or chemically inert material, see [0065]).
Regarding claim 16, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 1, further comprising a layer of material formed on the second surface and having a thermal conductivity that is greater than a thermal conductivity of the body (thin film 150 that contacts second surface comprises a Chromium/Gold (conductive) layer comprising microheaters 180 and sensors 190, see Fig. 1A-2E and [0071]- [0072]).
Regarding claim 18, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 3, wherein the microfluidic channel includes a chamber defined along a length of the fluidic channel (microchamber 110/120 is located within channel as fluid flows from inlet 111/121 to outlet 112/122, see Fig. 1A and [0065]).
Regarding claim 20, Lin et al. teaches a sample chip for use with a differential scanning calorimeter (microdevice used for calorimetric measurements, see Fig. 1A and [0065]) the sample chip comprising:
a body having a first surface formed of a block of material having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the second surface configured to contact a sample platform of a differential scanning calorimeter (singly formed housing 140 with first and second surface, see Annotated Fig. 1B, where the second surface contacts the thin film 150 containing calorimeter, see [0070]).
an internal void formed within the block of material (first microchamber 110) disposed between the first surface and the second surface and extending from a first port on the first surface (microchambers 110 is disposed between housing surface 140 and extend from inlet port 111, see Figs. 1A-1C and [0065]), the internal void configured to receive a sample to be analyzed by the differential scanning calorimeter (microchamber 110 receives sample from port where the chamber is analyzed using differential scanning calorimetry, see [0014], [0064] – [0065]), wherein the internal void is a single chamber having a uniform cross-sectional area along its length (chamber 110 is molded to have continuous shape with uniform height of 200 µm, see [0096]).
Contacting a sample platform of a differential scanning calorimeter is a limitation with respect to an intended use of the body. An intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). The apparatus of Lin et al. is identical to the presently claimed structure and therefore, would have the ability to perform the use recited in the claim since it is also configured to contact a calorimeter and is constructed of a thermally stable material that can withstand high temperatures, see [0067].
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2014/0092935).
Regarding claim 4, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 3, wherein the microfluidic channel has a path, but the current embodiment of the invention does not teach a serpentine path.
However, a later embodiment of the prior art of Lin et al. teaches a device where the sample chamber is a serpentine path that allows for more thermal isolation (see [0073]).
Therefore, a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been motivated to modify the previous embodiment of Lin et al. to include the serpentine path of the second embodiment for the explicit benefit of providing a greater number of thermopile junctions that allow for improved thermal isolation. Furthermore, the modification of the microchamber of the first embodiment of Lin et al. to include the serpentine chamber of the second embodiment would have ultimately led to the predictable result of moving fluid from an inlet to an outlet.
Claims 7, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2014/0092935) as applied above, and further in view of Monaselidze (WO 2017/122174) .
Regarding claim 7, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 1, wherein the body inherently has a thickness, but does not explicitly teach that the thickness of the body is in a range from about 0.5 mm to about 1.5 mm.
However, in the analogous art of sample devices within a differential scanning calorimeter, Monaselidze et al. teaches an upper end 828 (body) that is between 0.5mm- 1mm which is within the instant range (see [0067]).
It would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the housing of Lin et al. to have the relatively thin walls within the range of 0.5-1mm as exemplified by Monaselidze et al. to accommodate liquid within the channel, see [0065]- [0067]. Further, the modification of the device of Lin et al. to include the particular dimensions of Monaselidze et al. would have had the reasonable expectation of successfully facilitating the flow of fluid through a cavity in a material.
Regarding claim 10, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 1, but does not teach the instant application’s limitation of further comprising a seal secured to the first surface of the body.
However, in the analogous art of sample devices within a differential scanning calorimeter, Monaselidze et al. teaches a channel sealer 819 used to seal each channel to prevent fluid escape and maintain adequate pressure within the channel (see [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the device of Lin et al. to add the channel seal of Monaselidze for the benefit of preventing fluid escape from the sample or reference channels of the invention (see [0059] – [0061] of Monaselidze). Furthermore, the modification of the invention of Lin et al. to incorporate the channel seal of Monaselidze would have resulted in no change to either invention’s respective function and would have had the reasonable expectation of facilitating a seal between the outside environment and the microfluidic device.
Regarding claim 17, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 1, wherein the body inherently has a thickness, but does not explicitly teach that the thickness of the body is in a range from about 0.5 mm to about 1.5 mm.
However, in the analogous art of sample devices within a differential scanning calorimeter, Monaselidze et al. teaches an upper end 828 (body) that is between 0.5mm- 1mm which is within the instant range (see [0067]).
It would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the housing of Lin et al. to have the relatively thin walls within the range of 0.5-1mm as exemplified by Monaselidze et al. to accommodate liquid within the channel, see [0065]- [0067]. Further, the modification of the device of Lin et al. to include the particular dimensions of Monaselidze et al. would have had the reasonable expectation of successfully facilitating the flow of fluid through a cavity in a material.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2014/0092935) as applied above, and further in view of Linder et al. (US 2009/0266421).
Regarding claim 9, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 3, wherein the microfluidic channel has a volume, but does not teach that the volume is in a range from about 10 µL to about 40 µL.
However, in the analogous art of microfluidic devices with flow control. Linder et al. teaches a device where the channel holds 10 µL and the entire system holds less than 25 µL to control flow velocity through the channel (see [0123], [0068] and [0137]).
Therefore, a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been motivated to alter the length (in this case, height) of the channel of Lin et al. to give the system a total volume of 10-25 µL to monitor a fluid’s progress through a constricted or serpentine channel, see [0137] in Linder et al. Additionally, the modification of the channel of Lin et al. to include the expanded length and volume of Linder et al. would have resulted in the successful facilitation of transporting a sufficiently sized sample into a microfluidic channel for heating and optical detection.
Regarding claim 19, Lin et al. teaches the sample chip of claim 3, wherein the microfluidic channel has a volume, but does not teach that the volume is in a range from about 10 µL to about 40 µL.
However, in the analogous art of microfluidic devices with flow control. Linder et al. teaches a device where the channel holds 10 µL and the entire system holds less than 25 µL to control flow velocity through the channel (see [0123], [0068] and [0137]).
Therefore, a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been motivated to alter the length (in this case, height) of the channel of Lin et al. to give the system a total volume of 10-25 µL to monitor a fluid’s progress through a constricted or serpentine channel, see [0137] in Linder et al. Additionally, the modification of the channel of Lin et al. to include the expanded length and volume of Linder et al. would have resulted in the successful facilitation of transporting a sufficiently sized sample into a microfluidic channel for heating and optical detection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5:00PM (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, 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.
/A.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights