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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/19/2026 has been entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 11-18, 23, 24, 27, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kautz et al. (US 2007/0117212) in view of Chatterjee et al. (US 2022/0252536), or Kleinschmidt et al. (US 2013/0109575).
Regarding claim 1, Kautz et al. teach:
1. A fluidic assembly comprising a fluid analysis apparatus (Abstract+), the fluid analysis apparatus comprising:
a fluid measurement device, wherein the fluid measurement device is a nuclear magnetic resonance probe (e.g., microcoil NMR probe, Abstract, 0027, 0048+);
a fluidic device including a flow cell (see Figs. 4A, 5, 8 for example) arranged in a measurement region of the fluid measurement device, a fluidic tubing constructed of at least one first fluoropolymer material (see ¶ 0039, 0041 for example), the flow cell including a channel (see Figs. 4A, 5, 8 for example), the channel containing a sample segment (e.g., 6) that is carried in a fluorinated fluid carrier (see e.g., 8 & ¶ 0027, 0033), wherein the sample segment and fluorinated fluid carrier are immiscible (¶ 0027, 0033).
Regarding claim 1, Kautz et al. teach: a fluid measurement device, wherein the fluid measurement device is a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) probe, and a fluidic tubing constructed of at least one first fluoropolymer material (see ¶ 0014, 0039, 0041, 0048+ for example). However, the reference does not explicitly teach: the fluid measurement device is a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer; the flow cell constructed of at least one first fluoropolymer material.
Chatterjee et al. teach: A fluidic assembly comprising a fluid analysis apparatus, the fluid analysis apparatus comprising:
a fluid measurement device, wherein the fluid measurement device is a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer (¶ 0171+);
a fluidic device including a flow cell (e.g., 100) arranged in a measurement region (see i.e., region of the upper sensing area 140 in Figs. 1-6) of the fluid measurement device (¶ 0127+), the flow cell constructed of at least one first fluoropolymer material (¶ 0136), the flow cell including a channel (e.g., 132), the channel containing a sample segment that is carried in a fluorinated fluid carrier (see Table 1).
Kleinschmidt et al. teach: A fluidic assembly comprising a fluid analysis apparatus, the fluid analysis apparatus comprising:
a fluid measurement device, wherein the fluid measurement device is a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer (¶ 0106);
a fluidic device including a flow cell, the flow cell constructed of at least one first fluoropolymer material (¶ 0069, 0080), the flow cell including a channel (see Figs. 3-8), the channel containing a sample segment that is carried in a fluorinated fluid carrier (¶ 0054).
It is well-known in the art that an NMR probe is a component of an NMR spectrometer, where the NMR spectrometer and probe function together to provide detailed molecular information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate an NMR spectrometer, as taught by Chatterjee et al.; and Kleinschmidt et al., with the NMR probe, in order to generate magnetic field for operation and intended use of the NMR probe (i.e., sample interaction and signal detection).
In addition, the use of a fluoropolymer material is well-known in the fluidic art (see Kautz ¶ 0014, 0048+). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the flow cell constructed of at least one first fluoropolymer material, as a fluoropolymer material may be easily stored and/or transported to a different laboratory for microcoil NMR analysis or other microfluidic analytical methods (Kautz ¶ 0068). In addition, it would have been obvious to have selected fluoropolymer material to construct the flow cell, for the material that is inert to a fluid flowed through the port (Chatterjee ¶ 0136); and/or to prevent material (e.g., cells and other particles or molecules) from adhering to the sides of the channels (Kleinschmidt et al. ¶ 0080).
With regard to limitations in claims 13, 14, 23 (e.g., wherein the sample segment, the fluorinated fluid carrier and a characteristic length of the channel correspond to a Bond number that corresponds to the sample segment staying intact as the sample segment is carried by the fluorinated fluid carrier through the channel, etc.), these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claims 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15-18, 23, 24, modified Kautz et al. teach:
4. The fluidic assembly according to claim 1 wherein the fluidic device is a microfluidic device (Abstract+).
6. The fluidic assembly according to claim 1 wherein the sample segment is a solvent or a deuterated solvent (¶ 0007-0008).
8. The fluidic assembly according to claim 1 wherein the fluorinated fluid carrier is a fluorocarbon oil carrier (¶ 0033).
11. The fluidic assembly according to claim 1 wherein the flow cell includes a plurality of channels, and the plurality of channels are arranged to define parallel fluid flow paths, intersecting fluid flow paths or a combination of parallel fluid flow paths and intersecting fluid flow paths through the flow cell (see Fig. 8B for example).
12. The fluidic assembly according to claim 1 wherein the flow cell includes a plurality of channels, and the plurality of channels are configured within a monolithic flow cell structure (see Fig. 8A for example).
15. The fluidic assembly according to claim 1 wherein the flow cell comprises at least two discrete fluidly connected flow cell components, each flow cell component comprising a first fluoropolymer material (see ¶ 0039 & Fig. 8A for example).
16. The fluidic assembly according to claim 15 wherein the flow cell comprises at least two discrete releasably and fluidly connected flow cell components and/or wherein the flow cell comprises at least two discrete non- releasably and fluidly connected flow cell components (see ¶ 0039 & Fig. 8A for example).
17. The fluidic assembly according to claim 1 wherein the flow cell comprises: a flow cell inlet connector defining an inlet comprising a fluid connection to a first fluid conduit (i.e., inlet of the capillary tubing 4); a flow cell outlet connector defining an outlet comprising a fluid connection to a second fluid conduit (i.e., outlet of the capillary tubing 4); and a flow cell chamber including an intermediate chamber (i.e., chamber formed between upstream and downstream in Fig. 4A) arranged between inlet and outlet portions, the inlet portion of the flow cell chamber fluidly connected to the flow cell inlet connector, the outlet portion of the flow cell chamber fluidly connected to the flow cell outlet connector (see Figs. 4A, 5 for example).
18. The fluidic assembly according to claim 17 wherein the inlet portion of the flow cell chamber comprising a releasable and fluid connection to the flow cell inlet connector, and/or wherein the outlet portion of the flow cell chamber comprises a releasable and fluid connection to the flow cell outlet connector (this claim appears to be sufficiently broad to have read on Figs. 4A, 5).
23. The fluidic assembly according to claim 17 wherein the flow cell inlet connector comprises a first frame portion, the flow cell outlet connector comprises a second frame portion, and the first and second frame portions are capable of being engaged with each other (this claim appears to be sufficiently broad to have read on Figs. 4A, 5).
24. The fluidic assembly according to claim 1 including first and second fluid conduits that each comprise a second fluoropolymer material (see ¶ 0039, 0041 for example), wherein the fluidic device further comprises an inlet and an outlet, wherein the inlet is fluidly coupled to the first fluid conduit, and the outlet of the fluidic device is fluidly coupled to the second fluid conduit (see Fig. 8 for example).
Regarding claim 5, Kautz et al. do not explicitly teach: 5. The fluidic assembly according to Claim 1 wherein the at least one first fluoropolymer material is polychlorotrifluoroethylene.
Chatterjee et al. teach: wherein the at least one first fluoropolymer material is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), or the like (¶ 0136).
Kleinschmidt et al. teach: wherein the at least one first fluoropolymer material is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (¶ 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the fluidic device of Kautz et al. with an alternative of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), such as polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE), as PCTFE is generally known to have dimensional stability and mechanical strength at lower temperatures.
Regarding claims 27, 30, Kautz et al. teach:
27. A method of configuring a fluidic assembly, the fluidic assembly in accordance with claim 1, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a fluid measurement device (e.g., microcoil NMR probe, Abstract, 0027, 0048+);
providing a flow cell (see Figs. 4A, 5, 8 for example) constructed of at least one first fluoropolymer material (see ¶ 0039, 0041 for example), the flow cell including a channel (see Figs. 4A, 5, 8 for example);
arranging the flow cell in a measurement region of the fluid measurement device (see Figs. 4A, 5 for example); and
supplying a sample segment (e.g., 6) carried in a fluorinated fluid carrier (see e.g., 8 & ¶ 0027, 0033) into the channel of the flow cell, wherein the sample segment and fluorinated fluid carrier are immiscible (¶ 0027, 0033).
30. The method according to Claim 27 including the step of performing a machining process or an additive manufacturing or 3D printing process or an injection moulding, compression moulding or thermoforming process to construct at least one component of the flow cell from the at least one first fluoropolymer material (see ¶ 0032 for example).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The Applicant’s arguments have been considered and have been addressed within the above art rejection(s).
Applicant is thanked for their thoughtful amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN KWAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7072. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 4:30 am - 2:30 pm 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, CHARLES CAPOZZI can be reached at (571)270-3638. 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.
/DEAN KWAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
DEAN KWAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights