DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 9/3/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group (groups II and III), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/28/22, 3/15/23, 12/4/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-14, 17-25 are pending, with claims 1-2, 4, 7-14, 17-23 being examined and claims 24-25 deemed withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 7-14, 17-21, 23 are objected to because “A microfluidic chip according to claim …” has already been discussed and should read as “The microfluidic chip according to claim …”.
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 1-2, 4, 7-14, 17-23 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.
As to claim 1, it is unclear how the heat transfer sealing layer of lines 2-5 is contiguous with a sample and unclear what applicants are intending to define by the relationship of the layer with respect to a sample that is not part of the claimed microfluidic device. The sample that is to be tested is in no way described in relation to the microfluidic reservoir such that a relationship can be discerned between the heat transfer sealing layer and the rest of the microfluidic chip. Further, it is unclear what “contiguous with a sample” is intending to describe with respect to the reservoir. A potential infringer would not understand what sealing layers would or would not infringe on a device that included a reservoir since it is unclear how the sealing layer relates in any way to the reservoir. Claim 19 recites similar limitations and is also rejected similarly.
Claims 2, 4, 7-14, 17-21 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear whether there are multiple outlets/inlets required. Claim 17 recites a “second” inlet/outlet, yet there is no first inlet/outlet described anywhere in the preceding claims and therefore it is unclear whether or not multiples of these features are required or not.
With respect to claim 18, it is unclear how an aperture in the reservoir plate forms an inlet in the microfluidic reservoir. The reservoir and the reservoir plate are different structures, so it is unclera how an inlet is formed in the reservoir when the inlet is only defined as having an aperture in the plate. Is there a corresponding aperture in the reservoir as well?
As to claim 22, it is unclear how the heat transfer sealing layer of lines 2-5 is contiguous with a sample and unclear what applicants are intending to define by the relationship of the layer with respect to a sample that is not part of the claimed microfluidic device. The sample that is to be tested is in no way described in relation to the microfluidic reservoir such that a relationship can be discerned between the heat transfer sealing layer and the rest of the microfluidic chip. Further, it is unclear what “contiguous with a sample” is intending to describe with respect to the reservoir. A potential infringer would not understand what sealing layers would or would not infringe on a device that included a reservoir since it is unclear how the sealing layer relates in any way to the reservoir.
Claim 23 is rejected based on further claim dependency.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Sarofim et al (US 20080014615; hereinafter “Sarofim”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Sarofim teaches a microfluidic chip (Sarofim; Fig. 1, [24, 50]) comprising: at least one microfluidic reservoir having a wall portion and a heat transfer sealing layer cooperating with the wall portion for receiving a sample to be tested, the heat transfer sealing layer being arranged to be contiguous with the sample to be tested (Sarofim teaches a reservoir 6 formed by walls 7, and a heat sealing layer 5; Fig. 1, [24, 50].); and an active temperature control device arranged to provide structural support to the heat transfer sealing layer and operable to control a temperature of the sample via transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer (Sarofim teaches a temperature control 1-4; Fig. 1, [24, 40, 45, 50, 51, 63]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Sarofim teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, wherein the transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer includes transmission of heat from the sample to the active temperature control device (Sarofim; [24, 40, 45, 50, 51, 63]).
As to claim 4, Sarofim teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, wherein the heat transfer sealing layer comprises an adhesive layer or a metallic film, or is integral with the active temperature control device (Sarofim teaches a foil; Fig. 1, [24, 50]).
As to claim 22, Sarofim teaches a microfluidic chip( Sarofim; Fig. 1, [24, 50]) comprising: at least one microfluidic reservoir having a wall portion and a heat transfer sealing layer cooperating with the wall portion for receiving a sample to be tested, the heat transfer sealing layer being arranged to be contiguous with the sample to be tested (Sarofim teaches a reservoir 6 formed by walls 7, and a heat sealing layer 5; Fig. 1, [24, 50].); and a fluidic heat exchanger operable to control a temperature of the sample via transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer (Sarofim teaches a temperature control 1-4 which exchanges heat; Fig. 1, [24, 40, 45, 50, 51, 63]).
As to claim 23, Sarofim teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 22, wherein the heat transfer sealing layer includes a metal plate (Sarofim teaches a foil; Fig. 1, [24, 50]).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Le Berre, M (US 20190388887; hereinafter “Le Berre”).
As to claim 1, Le Berre teaches a microfluidic chip (Le Berre; Fig. 3A, 3C) comprising: at least one microfluidic reservoir having a wall portion and a heat transfer sealing layer cooperating with the wall portion for receiving a sample to be tested, the heat transfer sealing layer being arranged to be contiguous with the sample to be tested (Le Berre teaches a reservoir 45 surrounded by walls 43/44 and with a metal heat transfer sealing layer 42; Fig. 3A, 3C, [145, 146, 172].); and an active temperature control device arranged to provide structural support to the heat transfer sealing layer and operable to control a temperature of the sample via transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer (Le Berre teaches structures 11/41 as serving to control and transfer heat; Fig. 3A, 3C, [144, 145, 146, 147-152, 172]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Le Berre teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, wherein the transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer includes transmission of heat from the sample to the active temperature control device (Le Berre; Fig. 3A, 3C, [144, 145, 146, 147-152, 172]).
As to claim 4, Le Berre teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, wherein the heat transfer sealing layer comprises an adhesive layer or a metallic film, or is integral with the active temperature control device (Le Berre teaches aluminum film 42; Fig. 3A, 3C, [144, 145, 146, 147-152, 172]).
As to claim 22, Le Berre teaches a microfluidic chip (Le Berre; Fig. 3A, 3C) comprising: at least one microfluidic reservoir having a wall portion and a heat transfer sealing layer cooperating with the wall portion for receiving a sample to be tested, the heat transfer sealing layer being arranged to be contiguous with the sample to be tested (Le Berre teaches a reservoir 45 surrounded by walls 43/44 and with a metal heat transfer sealing layer 42; Fig. 3A, 3C, [145, 146, 172].); and a fluidic heat exchanger operable to control a temperature of the sample via transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer (Le Berre teaches structures 11/41 as serving to control and exchange heat; Fig. 3A, 3C, [144, 145, 146, 147-152, 172]).
As to claim 23, Le Berre teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 22, wherein the heat transfer sealing layer includes a metal plate (Le Berre teaches aluminum plate 42; Fig. 3A, 3C, [144, 145, 146, 147-152, 172]).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Trivedi, K (US 20190032114; hereinafter “Trivedi”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Trivedi teaches a microfluidic chip (Trivedi; Fig. 1A) comprising: at least one microfluidic reservoir having a wall portion and a heat transfer sealing layer cooperating with the wall portion for receiving a sample to be tested, the heat transfer sealing layer being arranged to be contiguous with the sample to be tested (Trivedi teaches a reservoir with sample 107 with walls 105 and with a heat sealing layer 116; Fig. 1A, [116, 250, 432, 439]); and an active temperature control device arranged to provide structural support to the heat transfer sealing layer and operable to control a temperature of the sample via transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer (Trivedi teaches a heat generator 103; Fig. 1A, [432, 436, 440]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Trivedi teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, wherein the transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer includes transmission of heat from the sample to the active temperature control device (Trivedi; [432, 436, 440]).
As to claim 4, Trivedi teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, wherein the heat transfer sealing layer comprises an adhesive layer or a metallic film, or is integral with the active temperature control device (Trivedi teaches a metal, metal alloy, or metal oxide as the passivation layer 116; Fig. 1A, [116, 250, 432, 439]).
As to claim 22, Trivedi teaches a microfluidic chip (Trivedi; Fig. 1A) comprising: at least one microfluidic reservoir having a wall portion and a heat transfer sealing layer cooperating with the wall portion for receiving a sample to be tested, the heat transfer sealing layer being arranged to be contiguous with the sample to be tested (Trivedi teaches a reservoir with sample 107 with walls 105 and with a heat sealing layer 116; Fig. 1A, [116, 250, 432, 439]); and a fluidic heat exchanger operable to control a temperature of the sample via transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer.
As to claim 23, Trivedi teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 22, wherein the heat transfer sealing layer includes a metal plate (Trivedi teaches a metal, metal alloy, or metal oxide as the passivation layer 116; Fig. 1A, [116, 250, 432, 439]).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 18, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Andreyev et al (US 20190022643; hereinafter “Andreyev”).
As to claim 1, Andreyev teaches a microfluidic chip (Andreyev; Fig. 43-44) comprising: at least one microfluidic reservoir having a wall portion and a heat transfer sealing layer cooperating with the wall portion for receiving a sample to be tested, the heat transfer sealing layer being arranged to be contiguous with the sample to be tested (Andreyev teaches reservoir/channel 6618 which is surrounded by walls on 6610 and with a heat transfer sealing layer 6614/6615; [257-259, 261-262, 265], Fig. 43-44); and an active temperature control device arranged to provide structural support to the heat transfer sealing layer and operable to control a temperature of the sample via transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer (Andreyev teaches a heater 6630 which contacts and transfers heat through 6615/6615 to the sample in the reservoir/channel; [257, 261, 265, 267, 358], Fig. 43-44. Andreyev teaches that the heater is on the lid to transfer heat; Fig. 36-37, [220-222]. Andreyev also teaches that the heater transfers the heat through the lid, and that the deeper the well, and therefore the further the sample from the lid, that the larger the heat gradient, meaning that the heater is on the lid; [261, 267]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, wherein the transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer includes transmission of heat from the sample to the active temperature control device (Andreyev teaches a heater 6630 which contacts and transfers heat through 6615/6615 to the sample in the reservoir/channel; [257, 261, 265, 267, 358], Fig. 43-44. Andreyev teaches that the heater is on the lid to transfer heat; Fig. 36-37, [220-222]. Andreyev also teaches that the heater transfers the heat through the lid, and that the deeper the well, and therefore the further the sample from the lid, that the larger the heat gradient, meaning that the heater is on the lid; [261, 267]).
As to claim 4, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, wherein the heat transfer sealing layer comprises an adhesive layer or a metallic film, or is integral with the active temperature control device (Andreyev teaches an adhesive for heat transfer sealing layer 6614/6615; [257-259, 261-262, 265], Fig. 43-44).
As to claim 7, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, wherein the wall portion defines a first microfluidic reservoir profile and wherein the first microfluidic reservoir profile comprises a first periodically oscillating section (Andreyev; [262, 262], Fig. 43-44).
As to claim 8, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 7, wherein the first microfluidic reservoir profile further comprises two or more substantially linear sections and a junction fluidically connecting the two or more substantially linear sections to the first periodically oscillating section (Andreyev teaches various linear sections as the inlet/outlet, or also as the very first straight portion before any of the middle serpentine/oscillating sections, which are connected by a junction as the arbitrary region of space that would connect to the middle serpentine channels to any of the linear portions; [262, 262], Fig. 43-44).
As to claim 9, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, wherein the wall portion defines a second microfluidic reservoir profile and wherein the second microfluidic reservoir profile comprises: a first periodically oscillating section; a second periodically oscillating section; a third section arranged between the first and second periodically oscillating sections, the third section having a non- oscillating configuration and comprising a first chamber region; first and second tapering portions which fluidically connect the first and second periodically oscillating sections, respectively, to the first chamber region; and a width, the width being greater at the first chamber region than in the first and second oscillating sections (Andreyev teaches a first periodically oscillating section on the left of Fig. 44, a second periodically oscillating section on the right of Fig. 44, and a third section between the two sections as the region of space near reference chamber 6618 which is the larger and non-oscillating singular chamber; Fig. 44. Andreyev teaches that the middle region of space denoted near 6618 has first and second tapers which connect the chamber, and where the chamber is larger than the oscillating/serpentine regions; [261]).
As to claim 11, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 9, wherein each of the first and second tapering portions is substantially straight (Andreyev teaches that the tapers are straight and diminish the thickness of the third section/chamber to the oscillating sections; Fig. 44).
As to claim 18, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1 further including a reservoir plate comprising: the wall portion and an edge surface, and wherein the at least one microfluidic reservoir comprises a third inlet comprising an aperture in the edge surface of the reservoir plate (As best understood, Andreyev teaches a reservoir plate with an inlet; Fig. 43, 44, [258]).
As to claim 22, Andreyev teaches a microfluidic chip (Andreyev; Fig. 43-44) comprising: at least one microfluidic reservoir having a wall portion and a heat transfer sealing layer cooperating with the wall portion for receiving a sample to be tested, the heat transfer sealing layer being arranged to be contiguous with the sample to be tested (Andreyev teaches reservoir/channel 6618 which is surrounded by walls on 6610 and with a heat transfer sealing layer 6614/6615; [257-259, 261-262, 265], Fig. 43-44); and a fluidic heat exchanger operable to control a temperature of the sample via transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer (Andreyev teaches a heater 6630 which contacts and transfers heat through 6615/6615 to the sample in the reservoir/channel; [257, 261, 265, 267, 358], Fig. 43-44. Andreyev teaches that the heater is on the lid to transfer heat; Fig. 36-37, [220-222]. Andreyev also teaches that the heater transfers the heat through the lid, and that the deeper the well, and therefore the further the sample from the lid, that the larger the heat gradient, meaning that the heater is on the lid; [261, 267]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreyev et al (US 20190022643; hereinafter “Andreyev”) alone or alternatively in view of Microfluidic Chip Shop (Lab-on-a-chip Catalogue; published 10/2019; hereinafter "Chip Shop").
As to claim 10, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 9, with the first and second tapering portions (see claim 9 above).
Andreyev does not specifically teach that the tapering portions are curved. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the tapering portions of the chamber to have been curved because a taper and curve are well known techniques to transition from a channel to a chamber, with each accomplishing the same function, since it has been held that changes in shape are not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). However, Chip Shop teaches the analogous art of microfluidic chips where chambers can be straight tapered (Chip Shop; Fig. 83-86) and rounded/curved tapered (Chip Shop; Fig. 163-166). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape of the tapered portion of Andreyev to be curved as in Chip Shop because Chip Shop teaches various microfluidic chambers with varying shapes as obvious variants, and because this would be a design choice of choosing from a finite number of options to move from a smaller channel to a larger chamber.
As to claim 13, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, herein the wall portion defines a third microfluidic reservoir profile comprising a first periodically oscillating section arranged to oscillate in a first direction; a second periodically oscillating section arranged to oscillate in the first direction; and a third periodically oscillating section positioned between and fluidically connected to the first and second periodically oscillating sections (Andreyev teaches arbitrary regions of space where there are various oscillating sections, such as a first periodically oscillating section on the left of Fig. 44, a second periodically oscillating section on the right of Fig. 44, and a third oscillating section between the two sections; Fig. 44).
Andreyev does not specifically teach that the third section that oscillates in a direction perpendicular to the other oscillating sections. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the direction of the middle third oscillating section to be perpendicular to the other oscillating sections in order to change the direction and therefore improve the mixing of the oscillating sections, since it has been held that changes in shape are not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). However, Chip Shop teaches the analogous art of microfluidic chips with various configurations, where there is a middle third oscillating section between and perpendicular to other oscillating sections (Chip Shop; Fig 155 on page 65 and Figs. 320, 322 on page 105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the two oscillating portions of Andreyev to have included a perpendicular oscillating portion between them as in Chip Shop because Chip Shop teaches various microfluidic flow channel configurations as obvious variants (Chip Shop; p. 65, 105), and because Chip Shop teaches that using oscillating sections that oscillate in different directions help achieve mixing (Chip Shop; p. 65).
Claims 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreyev et al (US 20190022643; hereinafter “Andreyev”) alone or alternatively in view of Wikswo et al (US 20180326417; hereinafter “Wikswo”).
As to claim 12, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 9, wherein the third section further comprises a chamber region with tapers connecting the first and second periodically oscillating sections, where the width of the chamber is greater than the oscillating sections (see claim 9 above).
Does not teach a second chamber with respective tapers that also connect to the oscillating sections. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the middle chamber with tapering portions to be two chambers with tapering portions in order to control sample flow since it has been held that changes in shape are not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). However, Wikswo teaches the analogous art of microfluidic chips where the input lines are split into multiple chambers and then rejoined and where the connecting portions are tapered (Wikswo; Fig. 5A, [140, 145]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the singular chamber that is larger than the respective oscillating sections and tapers to connect to the oscillating sections of Andreyev to have been a chamber that is split and then rejoins as in Wikswo because Wikswo teaches that splitting the chambers enables the control of fluid flow (Wikswo; [140, 141]) and because Wikswo teaches various fluidic organizations are obvious variants (Wikswo; [145]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreyev et al (US 20190022643; hereinafter “Andreyev”) in view of Gedig et al (US 20200164376; hereinafter “Gedig”).
As to claim 14, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, wherein the wall portion defines a fourth microfluidic reservoir profile and wherein the heat transfer sealing layer cooperates with the wall portion (As best understood, Andreyev teaches a reservoir profile; Fig. 43, 44. See also claim 1 above).
Andreyev does not specifically teach that an elastomeric seal surrounds the reservoir profile between the heat transfer sealing layer and wall portion. However, Gedig teaches the analogous art of a microfluidic device (Gedig; [1]) where the components are joined via an elastomeric seal and where the seal surrounds the reservoir profile (Gedig teaches a rubber seal 9 to seal the components together; Fig. 1, [63, 67]. Gedig teaches that the seal would surround the microfluidic reservoir; Fig. 1, 2B, [63, 67]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the heat transfer sealing layer and wall portion that connect each other of Andreyev to have been joined via an elastomeric seal as in Gedig because Gedig teaches that an elastomeric seal helps to join microfluidic components together (Gedig; [63, 67]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreyev et al (US 20190022643; hereinafter “Andreyev”) in view of Zhang et al (US 20170001196; hereinafter “Zhang”).
As to claim 17, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, wherein the at least one microfluidic reservoir comprises at least one of a second inlet and a second outlet (As best understood, Andreyev teaches an outlet and inlet; Fig. 43, 44, [258]).
Andreyeve does not teach an adhesive sealing layer arranged to seal at least one of the inlet or outlet. However, Zhang teaches the analogous art of a microfluidic chip with an adhesive sealing layer arranged to seal at least one of the inlet or outlet (Zhang teaches an adhesive sheet to seal off the chip; [116], Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the inlet or outlet of Andreyev to have included a seal as in Zhang because Zhang teaches that seals are used prior to shipment to customers (Zhang; [160]) and because Zhang teaches that adhesive sheets are known to be used to peel off the chips when ready to use (Zhang; [116]).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreyev et al (US 20190022643; hereinafter “Andreyev”) in view of Microfluidic Chip Shop (Lab-on-a-chip Catalogue; published 10/2019; hereinafter "Chip Shop").
As to claim 19, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 1, comprising: a microfluidic reservoir having a respective wall portion, where the heat transfer sealing layer cooperates with the respective wall portion for receiving a respective sample to be tested, the heat transfer sealing layer being arranged to be contiguous with each sample to be tested, and the active temperature control device operable to control a temperature via transmission of heat through the heat transfer sealing layer (see claim 1 above).
Andreyev does not specifically teach a plurality of reservoirs each connected to the heat transfer layer and active temperature control device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicated the reservoir/flow channel of Andreyev to have used multiple reservoirs/flow channels in order to provide a microfluidic chip with increased throughput that could process multiple samples, since it has been held that the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04 Section VI (B) and St. Regis Paper Co. v Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). However, Chip Shop teaches the analogous art of microfluidic chips with various configurations where there are plural chambers provided on the microfluidic chip (Chip Shop; p. 44, Figs. 80-82. See also p. 45, 48, 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the microfluidic chip that uses a single reservoir with a heat transfer sealing layer and active temperature control device of Andreyev to have included multiple reservoirs as in Chip Shop because Chip Shop teaches that it is known to provide a chip with plural reservoirs (Chip Shop; p. 44, Figs. 80-82).
As to claim 20, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 19, wherein each respective wall portion comprises a through hole (The modification of the microfluidic chip of Andreyev to have included multiple reservoirs as in Chip Shop has already been discussed above in claim 19. Andreyev teaches a reservoir plate with an inlet and outlet for reach reservoir; Fig. 43, 44, [258]. Chip Shop also teaches plural holes; p. 44, Figs. 80-82. See also p. 45, 48, 50).
As to claim 21, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 19, wherein each respective wall portion defines a respective microfluidic reservoir profile, and wherein at least two of the respective reservoir profiles differ in at least one of shape and sample capacity (The modification of the microfluidic chip of Andreyev to have included multiple reservoirs as in Chip Shop has already been discussed above in claim 19. The sample capacity would be different for each reservoir depending on the fluid flow rate, and therefore the sample capacity is related to intended use of the device. Further, Chip Shop teaches that the profiles can differ in shape; Fig. 285).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreyev et al (US 20190022643; hereinafter “Andreyev”) in view of Sarofim et al (US 20080014615; hereinafter “Sarofim”; already of record) or alternatively in view of Le Berre, M (US 20190388887; hereinafter “Le Berre”).
As to claim 23, Andreyev teaches the microfluidic chip according to claim 22, with the heat transfer sealing layer that transfers heat from the heat exchanger to the sample (see claim 22 above).
Andreyev does not teach that the heat transfer sealing layer includes a metal plate. However, Sarofim teaches the analogous art of a microfluidic chip (Sarofim; Fig. 1, [24, 50]) with the heat transfer sealing layer includes a metal plate (Sarofim teaches a reservoir 6 formed by walls 7, and a heat sealing plate 5; Fig. 1, [24, 50]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the heat transfer sealing layer which transfers heat of Andreyev to have been metal as in Sarofim because Sarofim teaches that metal helps to conduct and transfer heat (Sarofim; [24, 50]). Alternatively, however, Le Berre teaches the analogous art of a microfluidic chip (Le Berre; Fig. 3A, 3C) with the heat transfer sealing layer includes a metal plate (Le Berre teaches a reservoir 45 surrounded by walls 43/44 and with a metal plate 42 as the heat transfer sealing layer; Fig. 3A, 3C, [144, 145, 146, 147-152, 172]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the heat transfer sealing layer which transfers heat of Andreyev to have been metal as in Le Berre because Le Berre teaches that metal helps to provide a heat conducting material in order to transfer the heat to the sample (Le Berre; [144, 145, 146, 147-152, 172]).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Hong et al (US 20170168063; hereinafter “Hong”) teaches multiple channels can have different size and shape; [54].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin R Whatley whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Jill Warden can be reached on 5712721267. 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.
/Benjamin R Whatley/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798