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 .
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.
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(s) 1-4 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman et al (WO 2011/057091 A1).
Hartman discloses a microfluidic system as shown in figure 1 including a device 10 having a channel 12 in which a fluid 14 flows, having an acoustic energy source generating acoustic energy 24 (ultrasonic) (page 6, 12-29; page 9, line 5-17).
Hartman discloses that the channel having different portions. These portions are coated by different materials including metals and glass and resin materials such as PTFE, and silicone (page 16, line 11-13; page 25, lines 18-27; page 26, line 20 to page 27, line 8).
Hartman discloses on page 27, lines 9-21 that different walls of the channel can be fabricated with different materials. For example, a base portion including the bottom wall and side walls can be fabricated with transparent materials such as glass and the top wall is fabricated with silicon (page 27, line 9 to page 29, line 33; also see paragraph 0040 figure 4 of the specification of this application).
Hartman does not disclose specific materials including glass/metal and resin for wall sides and the relative location of standing wave between walls as recite in claim 1.
However, as disclosed by Hartman, and an example disclosed and discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hartman fluid device by employing appropriate materials as disclosed by Hartman for walls of the device as used by applicants to arrive at the claimed device since Hartman does not limit any specific materials including metals, resins, glasses for any specific wall of the device.
As discussed above, Hartman fluidic device has similar designs with walls are fabricated with different materials similar as to the materials used in in claimed device. Therefore, properties such as first reflectance and second reflectance as recited in claim 1, Z1/Zr and Zo/Ze as recited in claims 2-4 are expected to be inherent in the Hartman device except applicants can prove opposition.
Response to Arguments
The argument “Hartman, in FIG. 1, describes that the acoustic energy 24 can be applied to microfluidic channel 12 via the acoustic energy source 26. Hartman, in FIG. 1, further describes that the acoustic energy source 26 is on the top portion made of silicon. Hartman further describes that the waveform of the acoustic energy 24 comprises the sinusoidal waveform. Hartman further describes that the base portion including the bottom wall and the side walls are of glass or the transparent polymer. However, Hartman does not teach or suggest that the sinusoidal waveform is between the side walls formed using the glass, where the acoustic energy source 26 is on a wall of the side walls formed using glass.
Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that the Hartman does not teach, suggest, or render obvious at least, for example, the features of “the ultrasonic element is on the first wall portion, the each of the first wall portion and the second wall portion is formed using metal or glass, and the ultrasonic element generates the standing wave between the first wall portion and the second wall portion,” as recited in amended independent claim 1.” is not persuasive a discussed in the above rejection.
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 THUAN D DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Insuk C Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/THUAN D DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772