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 Status
Claims 1-3 and 5-30 are pending with claims 1-3 and 5-30 being examined. Claim 4 is canceled.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 05/05/2026, along with the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The 112(b) rejection is moot.
As to the arguments and remarks, the Examiner has found Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The previous rejection has been modified in accord with the amendment.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraden et al. (US 20190039071 A1; hereinafter “Fraden” previous of record) in view of Hoyos et al (US 20080067128 A1; hereinafter “Hoyos”).
Regarding claim 1, Fraden teaches a microfluidic device (Fraden; Abstract) comprising:
a main flow channel (Fraden; fig. 9. 1002-A); and
a partitioning chamber (Fraden; fig. 9 portion 1014-A and [0064] “through channel”) connected to a section of the main flow channel by a chamber inlet (Fraden; fig. 3. 1014-A upper end portion designated with an arrow) and a chamber outlet (Fraden; fig. 3. 1024-A restriction region), the chamber inlet comprising a chamber inlet cross section (Fraden; fig. 3. 1018-A and [0060] “junction 1018-A), the chamber outlet comprising one or more outlet capillary channels (Fraden; fig. 3. 1024-A and [0065] “fluid restriction portion 1024-A”),
wherein a portion of the main flow channel between the chamber inlet and the chamber outlet comprises a cross section (i) (Fraden; fig. 3. 1001-A) less than the chamber inlet cross section (Fraden; fig. 3. 1001-A), and (ii) greater than the cross section of each individual outlet capillary channel (Fraden; fig. 3. 1018-A, width of fluid path 1018-A is greater than the width of fluid restriction region 1024-A).
Fraden fails to teach the capillary channels are formed by one or more elements protruding into the chamber outlet.
However, Hoyos teaches the analogous art of a fluidic separation device (Hoyos; Title) that includes a chamber (Hoyos; fig. 8. 65) and chamber outlets (Hoyos; fig. 8. 69) wherein the capillary channels (Hoyos; fig. 8. 66) are formed by one or more elements protruding into the chamber outlet (Hoyos; fig. 9. 72, and fig. 8 alternate elements between capillary outlets 69).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Fraden’s capillary channels to be formed by one or more elements protruding into the chamber outlet as taught by Hoyos because Hoyos teaches a fluidic separation device (Hoyos; Title) that includes a chamber (Hoyos; fig. 8. 65) and chamber outlets (Hoyos; fig. 8. 69) wherein the capillary channels (Hoyos; fig. 8. 66) are formed by one or more elements protruding into the chamber outlet (Hoyos; fig. 9. 72, and fig. 8, alternate elements between capillary outlets 69).
The modification allows to control fluid flow and enhance separation efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 1 (see above) wherein the chamber outlet comprises more than one capillary channel (Fraden; fig. 3. 1024 A-C).
Regarding claim 3, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 2, (see above) wherein the capillary channels are parallel to each other (Fraden fig. 3. 1024-A-c illustrates the capillary channels parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 5, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 4, (see above) wherein the one or more elements protruding into the chamber outlet are each independently of rectangular cross section (Fraden; Fig. 3. 1014 illustrates the elements protruding into the chamber outlet are each independently of rectangular cross section).
Regarding claim 6, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 1, (see above) wherein the chamber outlet comprises one capillary channel. The chamber outlet comprises one capillary channel was discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 6, (see above) wherein the chamber outlet comprising the one capillary channel is configured as an elongated neck (Fraden; fig. 3. 1014A-C, 1024A-C illustrates the chamber outlet comprising the one capillary channel is configured as an elongated neck).
Regarding claim 8, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 1, (see above) wherein the chamber inlet comprises a cross section of between 50pm and 250pm (Fraden, fig. 1. 1014, 1028, and [0124] “the region may have a dimension between 50pm to 250pm”); the one or more capillary channels each independently comprise a cross section of between 7.5pm and 20pm (Fraden; fig. 1. 1024 and [0124] “a region may have a length of at least 1pm to at least 10pm”); and the cross section of the portion of the main flow channel between the chamber inlet and the chamber is between 15pm and 30pm (Fraden; [0135] “Cross-sectional area of a chamber may be from 5pm to 30 pm”).
Examiner notes that Fraden teaches regions as elements 1024 and 1028 in fig 1.
Regarding claim 9, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 1, (see above) wherein the cross section of the portion of the main flow channel (Fraden; fig. 3. 1002-A) between the chamber inlet (Fraden; fig. 3. 1014-A upper end portion designated with an arrow) and the chamber outlet is (Fraden; fig. 3. 1002A) (i) constant along the length of the portion (Fraden; fig. 3. 1002-A, 1014 illustrates the cross section of the portion of the main flow channel between the chamber inlet and the chamber outlet is (i) constant along the length of the portion).
Regarding claim 10, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 9, (see above) wherein in (ii) the portion of the main flow channel between the chamber inlet (Fraden; fig. 3. 1014-A and the chamber outlet (Fraden; fig. 3. 1024-A) is comprised of at least two segments wherein each segment has a different cross section (Fraden; fig. 3. 1014-A, 1024-A).
Regarding claim 11, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 10, (see above) wherein the segments are connected to each other by a respective segment capillary channel wherein each the respective segment capillary channel has a cross section less than the cross section of each segment (Fraden; fig. 3. 1014-A, 1024-A, and [0006] “fluid restriction region 1024”).
Examiner will interpret the fluid restriction region as a capillary channel.
Regarding claim 12, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 10, (see above) wherein the chamber outlet comprises one capillary channel configured as an elongated neck connected to a segment (Fraden; fig. 3. 1024-A, 1002-B).
Regarding claim 14, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 1, (see above) wherein the material of construction for the device comprises a thermoplastic that is non-permeable to gas (Fraden; [0156] “polycarbonate”).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraden et al. (US 20190039071 A1; hereinafter “Fraden” previous of record) in view of Hoyos et al (US 20080067128 A1; hereinafter “Hoyos”), further in view of Shkolnikov et al (WO 2019013777 A1; hereinafter “Shkolnikov” previous of record).
Regarding claim 13, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 11, (see above) to include a chamber outlet (see above).
Modified Fraden fails to teach the chamber outlet comprises one capillary channel configured as an elongated neck connected to one respective segment capillary channel.
However, Shkolnikov teaches the analogous art of a microfluidic device (Shkolnikov; Title) that includes a chamber (Shkolnikov; fig. 1. 105) wherein the chamber outlet comprises one capillary channel configured as an elongated neck connected to one respective segment capillary channel (Shkolnikov; fig. 1. 105, 107 and [0029]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Fraden’s chamber outlet to comprise one capillary channel configured as an elongated neck connected to one respective segment capillary channel as taught by Shkolnikov because Shkolnikov teaches a microfluidic device (Shkolnikov; Title) that includes a chamber (Shkolnikov; fig. 1. 105) wherein the chamber outlet comprises one capillary channel configured as an elongated neck connected to one respective segment capillary channel (Shkolnikov; fig. 1. 105, 107 and [0029]).
This would allow connecting multiple chambers in a controlled manner by restricting flow.
Regarding claim 15, modified Fraden teaches the device of claim 14, (see above) made of a thermoplastic material (see above).
Modified Fraden fails to teach the thermoplastic comprises a Cyclic Olefin Copolymer (COC).
However, Shkolnikov teaches the analogous art of a microfluidic device (Shkolnikov; Title) that is made of a thermoplastic material comprising a Cyclic Olefin Copolymer (COC) (Shkolnikov; [0030]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Fraden’s thermoplastic material to be a Cyclic Olefin Copolymer (COC) as taught by Shkolnikov because Shkolnikov teaches a microfluidic device (Shkolnikov; Title) that is made of a thermoplastic material comprising a Cyclic Olefin Copolymer (COC) (Shkolnikov; [0030]).
This would allow to have a clear microfluidic device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-3 and 5-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ALEX RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights