DETAILED ACTION
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 15-31 are objected to as being in improper format. In particular, while the claims recite many structural elements, no line indentations are provided in the text, which creates additional difficulties for proper understanding of the claimed invention. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate sub-combinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p). Correction is required.
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.
Claims 15-31 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 15, it is unclear from the claim language how the ‘braking barrier in a duct region’, as recited in lines 1-2, must be structurally inter-related with the ‘barrier film’ and other components introduced by the transitional phrase ‘comprising’. Further, the combination of a broader term and a narrower term, i. e. ‘fused’ and ‘bonded’, fails to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought [see also claim 27]. Moreover, it is unclear how the ‘section’ of the duct region must be structurally inter-related with the ‘part’ of the duct region recited in the preceding lines. It is further unclear from the claim language what structural features must configure the claimed structure for the intended functionality as recited, in particular, in the last paragraph. Additionally, ‘elastic’ is a relative term in the given context.
In claim 16, it is not clear what structural features of the substrate in the ‘edge region’ must provide for forming the ‘valve seat’ as recited.
In claim 17, it is not clear from the claim language whether or not the plurality of recesses must have a single and/or shared opening or a plurality of openings corresponding to each recess. Additionally, it is unclear how the opening recited in line 2, must be structurally inter-related with the opening of claim 15.
In claims 18-19, it is not clear what structural features must provide for the ‘pin element’ being ‘displaceable’ as recited.
Claim 22 is indefinite because a three-dimensional object can have an infinite number of cross-sections, the same consideration being applied to the ‘directions’’ of displacement, since there can be an infinite number of such ‘directions’, depending on particular size ratios of the components involved. See also claim 23 regarding the cross-section of the opening, as well as claim 29 regarding the ‘flow cross-section between the elastic layer and the barrier film’. Note that it is applicants’ responsibility to locate and correct all instances of the raised issues.
In claim 24, it is not clear what is meant by the ‘sealing position’ and what object the position must pertain to.
Claim 29 is indefinite, the term ‘loosely’ being relative in the given context.
In claim 30, it is unclear what structural features must provide for deforming the elastic layer ‘permanently’. It is also unclear whether the ‘layer’ is the same as the ‘elastic layer’. Consistent terminology may help to clarify the claim language. It is further unclear how the intended ‘flow passage’ must be inter-related with the ‘duct region’.
In claim 31, the ‘pushed-forward position’ is very unclear. Note that the features not positively recited as part of the claimed invention [such as the duct region, the valve seat, or the flow passage, Including all associated details], are not accorded patentable weight when evaluated for patentability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
. 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 15-21, 27-29 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weber et al., [US 20140000735].
With respect to claims 15-17, 21, 27-29 and 31, Weber discloses flow cell devices with predetermined breaking barriers in respective duct regions, comprising, as shown in Figures 9 a-b, substrate 1 having recesses 20, 20’, that form part of the duct region 4 and have a respective circular opening in an upper surface of the substrate; a barrier film 7 that hermetically seals the opening(s), the barrier film being bonded to the upper surface; and an elastic layer 3 arranged loosely above the barrier film and bonded to the barrier film in a surface region adjoining the section of the duct region, capable to function as recited. Figure 6-b also shows valve seat 6 arranged as recited.
Regarding claims 18-20, Figure 9-a shows at least one pin element 21 that can be part of an operating apparatus and can be displaced relative to the film and /or layer as recited. As to claim 30, it appears that elastic layer 3 is permanently deformed in the duct region section to form a flow passage between the layer and the barrier film. It is further emphasized that the features not positively recited as part of the claimed invention [such as the duct region, the valve seat, or the flow passage, Including all associated details], are not accorded patentable weight when evaluated for patentability.
Double Patenting
. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 15 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting s being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US 10173215. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all positively recited structural features of the instant claims are entirely within the scope of claims 1-20 of US 10173215.
Claim 15 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting s being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of US 11857964. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all positively recited structural features of the instant claims are entirely within the scope of claims 1-11 of US 11857964.
Claim 15 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting s being unpatentable over claims 1-7of US 11642673. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all positively recited structural features of the instant claims are entirely within the scope of claims 1-7of US 11642673.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, as well as any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention. Therefore, the ‘operating apparatus’ with integrated elastic layer, , the ‘duct region’, the ‘bounded section’ of the duct region, the ‘edge region’, the ‘surface region ‘, the opening ‘widened in the edge region’, the ‘pushed-forward’ position and the ‘valve seat’, as recited, must be clearly shown and properly referenced as such, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Additionally, due to a poor image quality, the drawings fail to clearly show the boundaries of the claimed components. Formal drawings, in particular, for Figures 1 and 2, are requested. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Natalia Levkovich whose telephone number is (571)272-2462. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 2.00 pm-10:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jill A Warden can be reached on 571-272-1267. 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.
/NATALIA LEVKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798