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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2020-0081348, filed on 07/02/2020.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 8 the wording "wherein the particle filtration device includes a filtration film that separates particles by filtering a sample, comprising'. In order to avoid inconsistency with claim 1, is it suggested to refer to the device of claim 1 or to amend the last wording as "the particle filtration device further comprising".
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term "direction away" in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “direction away” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear from the wording "direction perpendicular to the direction away from the center of the lab-on- disk', how the positioning of the main chamber and the outlet chamber are limited by this features as the limitation of the wording "direction away" is not clear.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the priming water’ in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US20190366341A1), herein referred to as Cho et al. '19.
The applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 1, Cho et al. '19 teaches a particle filtration device of a lab-on-disk of a rotation type (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1, 9-10, and the rotatable body 1, i.e. a particle filtration device, in [0054]-[0078] in Fig. 1-4, and 7), comprising:
a filtration film that separates particles by filtering a sample (See the filtration membrane 3, i.e. a filtration film, in [0056] in Fig. 1-4);
a main chamber connected to the inlet surface of the filtration film and supplying the sample to the inlet surface of the filtration film (See how the first chamber 2, i.e. a main channel, is connected to the inlet surface of the filtration membrane 3 or 4, i.e. a filtration film, via the microflow channel 5 or the injection port 14, and supply's the sample to the inlet surface of the film in [0056] in Fig. 1);
an outlet chamber that is connected to the outlet surface of the filtration film and accommodates the filtration fluid from which particles are separated while passing through the filtration film (See how the filtration chamber 4, i.e. an outlet chamber, is connected to the outlet surface of the filtration membrane 3 or 4, i.e. a filtration film, via the microflow channel 5 or the injection port 14, and accommodates the filtration fluid from which particles are separated while passing through the film in [0056]-[0058], [0073]-[0077] in Fig. 1-4); and
a waste fluid chamber connected to the outlet chamber and storing the filtration fluid (See how the second chamber 6, i.e. a waste chamber, is connected to the filtration chamber 4, i.e. an outlet chamber, and stores filtration fluid in [0056] in Fig. 1; Also, see how rather than using the third chamber 6, the filtration fluid 9 may be transferred to and stored in the third chamber 12, i.e. a waste chamber, in [0087] in Fig. 4-5),
wherein the particle filtration device includes a first flow path that connects between the outlet chamber and the waste fluid chamber (See how the first microflow channel 7, i.e. a first flow path, connects the filtration chamber 4, i.e. an outlet chamber, and the second chamber 6, i.e. a waste chamber, in [0056]-[0058], [0073]-[0077] in Fig. 1-4), and
a second flow path that connects between the outlet chamber and the waste fluid chamber but is positioned farther from the center of the lab-on-disk than the first flow path (See how the second microflow channel 10, i.e. a second flow path, is sequentially positioned between the filtration chamber 4, i.e. an outlet chamber, and the second chamber 6, i.e. a waste chamber, but that is positioned farther from the center of the lab-on-disk microfluidic device than the first flow path in [0056]-[0058], [0073]-[0077] in Fig. 1-7).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US20190366341A1), herein referred to as Cho et al. '19 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US20120261026A1) herein referred to as Lee et al. '12.
Regarding Claim(s) 2-3, Cho et al. '19 teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Cho et al. '19 fails to explicitly teach a particle filtration device further comprising a first valve that opens and closes the first flow path on the first flow path; and a second valve that opens and closes the second flow path on the second flow path. .
However, in the analogous art of microfluidic device, Lee et al. '12 teaches a particle filtration device of a lab-on-disk of a rotation type (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-16, and the microfluidic device 10, i.e. a particle filtration device, with the disc-shaped platform 11 in [0031]-[0037], [0069]-[0086] in Fig. 1-4), comprising: a first valve that opens and closes the first flow path on the first flow path; and a second valve that opens and closes the second flow path on the second flow path; and a second valve that opens and closes the second flow path on the second flow path (See how the channels connecting the respective chambers to each other may be provided with valves 81, 82, 83 and 84 described in [0063]-, [0064]-[0068] in Fig. 1-4 and in Claim(s) 6 and 16; Also, see how the third valve 83, is disposed in the discharge channel 140, the third valve 83 closes the discharge channel 140 while the fluid is supplied to the metering chamber 110, and opens the discharge channel 140 to discharge the received fluid to the outside in [0083] in Fig. 2-3).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the arts to modify the device of Cho et al. '19 by incorporating two flow path valves (as taught in Lee et al. '12) for the benefit of controlling the opening/closing of flow paths on a microfluidic device.
Regarding Claim 4, Cho et al. '19 teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Cho et al. '19 further teaches a particle filtration device of a lab-on-disk of a rotation type (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1, 9o10, and the rotatable body 1, i.e. a particle filtration device, in [0054]-[0078] in Fig. 1-4), wherein the waste chamber includes a first vent hole connected to the first flow path and a second vent hole connected to the second flow path (See how the second chamber 6, i.e. a waste chamber, includes an air hole connected to outside air in Claim 10 in [0015], [0070], [0095], and [0099] in Fig. 1-8).
Cho et al. '19 fails to explicitly teach a particle filtration device, wherein the outlet chamber includes a first vent hole connected to the first flow path and a second vent hole connected to the second flow path.
However, in the analogous art of microfluidic device, Lee et al. '12 teaches a particle filtration device of a lab-on-disk of a rotation type (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-16, and the microfluidic device 10, i.e. a particle filtration device, with the disc-shaped platform 11 in [0031]-[0037], [0069]-[0086] in Fig. 1-4), wherein the outlet chamber includes a first vent hole connected to the first flow path and a second vent hole connected to the second flow path (See how the outlet port 112, i.e. a first vent hole, is connected to the outlet channel 130, i.e. a first flow path, and a discharge port 113, i.e. a second vent hole, connected to the discharge channel 140, i.e. a second path, in [0061], [0079], [0081]-[0084], [0091] in Fig. 1-4).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the arts to modify the outlet chamber of Cho et al. '19 by incorporating two flow path vents (as taught in Lee et al. '12) for the benefit of controlling the fluid and air flow between chambers during rotations on a microfluidic device.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US20190366341A1), herein referred to as Cho et al. '19 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US20120261026A1) herein referred to as Lee et al. '12 and Hayashi et al. (US20170010205A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 5-7, Cho et al. '19 teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Cho et al. '19 further teaches a particle filtration device of a lab-on-disk of a rotation type (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1, 9-10, and the rotatable body 1, i.e. a particle filtration device, in [0054]-[0078] in Fig. 1-11), wherein the main chamber and the outlet chamber are positioned at the upper part and the lower part of the filtration film, respectively, with the filtration film in in a direction perpendicular to the direction away from the center of the lab-on- disk (See the first chamber 2, i.e. a main channel, the filtration chamber 4, i.e. an outlet chamber, and the membrane 3 or 4, i.e. a filtration film, in [0056]-[0058], [0073]-[0077] illustrated in Fig. 1-11);
wherein the waste fluid chamber is positioned away from the center of the lab-on-disk relative to the filtration film (See the second chamber 6, i.e. a waste chamber, and the third chamber 12, i.e. a waste chamber, in [0087] illustrated in in Fig. 1-11); and
wherein the first flow path is a path for filling the outlet chamber with the priming water (See how the injection port 14 can supply liquid samples such as water to the inlet surface of the film in [0056] in Fig. 1).
Cho et al. '19 fails to explicitly teach a particle filtration device, wherein the first flow path is a path for filling the outlet chamber with the priming water.
However, in the analogous art of microfluidic device, Lee et al. '12 teaches a device (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-16, and the microfluidic device 10, i.e. a particle filtration device, with the disc-shaped platform 11 in [0031]-[0037], [0069]-[0086] in Fig. 1-4), wherein the first flow path is a path for filling the outlet chamber with the priming water (See the injection of distilled water into chamber in [0052] in Fig. 2).
Hence, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the arts to modify device of Cho et al. '19 by incorporating a flow path configured to fill an outlet chamber with priming water (as taught in Lee et al. '12.) for the benefit of preconditioning the flow paths and chambers on a rotatable microfluidic device before the particle filtration of a sample.
Yet, the combination of Cho et al. '19 and Lee et al. '19 fails to explicitly teach a particle filtration device, wherein the first flow path is a path for filling the outlet chamber with the priming water.
But, in the analogous art of flow cell and liquid feed systems, Hayashi et al. teaches a device (See the Abstract, the Claim 5, and the flow cell, i.e. a device, in [0050]-[0067] in Fig. 1-6D), wherein the first flow path is a path for filling the outlet chamber with the priming water (See how priming water is injected from the opening of the introduction portion 22 in advance to attain a state in which the channel 23, i.e. a first path. and the delivery portion 24, i.e. an outlet chamber, are filled with the water in [0010], [0014], [0085], [0095], in Fig. 6A).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the arts to modify the first flow path of Cho et al. '19 and Lee et al. '12 by incorporating a path for filling the outlet chamber with the priming water (as taught in Hayashi et al.) for the benefit of preconditioning the flow paths and chambers on a rotatable microfluidic device before the particle filtration of a sample.
Note what is discussed in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). The current claimed arrangement of the main chamber, the outlet chamber, the waste chamber, and the filtration membrane would render similar results as the apparatus in the prior art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cho et al. (US20190366341A1), herein referred to as Cho et al. '19 and Hayashi et al. (US20170010205A1).
The applied reference has a common inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the arts to select and rearrange the chamber, flow paths, filtration film, priming water structural and methodological limitations of Cho et al. '19 to create the particle filtration device of the instant application.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 8, Cho et al. '19 teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Cho et al. '19 teaches a particle filtration method using a particle filtration device of a lab-on-disk of a rotation type (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1, 9-10, and the rotatable body 1, i.e. a particle filtration device, in [0054]-[0078] in Fig. 1-4), wherein the particle filtration device includes a filtration film that separates particles by filtering a sample (See the filtration membrane 3, i.e. a filtration film, in [0056] in Fig. 1-4), comprising:
a main chamber connected to the inlet surface of the filtration film and supplying the sample to the inlet surface of the filtration film (See how the first chamber 2, i.e. a main channel, is connected to the inlet surface of the filtration membrane 3 or 4, i.e. a filtration film, via the microflow channel 5 or the injection port 14, and supply's the sample to the inlet surface of the film in [0056] in Fig. 1);
an outlet chamber that is connected to the outlet surface of the filtration film and accommodates the filtration fluid from which particles are separated while passing through the filtration film (See how the filtration chamber 4, i.e. an outlet chamber, is connected to the outlet surface of the filtration membrane 3 or 4, i.e. a filtration film, via the microflow channel 5 or the injection port 14, and accommodates the filtration fluid from which particles are separated while passing through the film in [0056]-[0058], [0073]-[0077] in Fig. 1-4); and
a waste fluid chamber connected to the outlet chamber and storing the filtration fluid (See how the second chamber 6, i.e. a waste chamber, is connected to the filtration chamber 4, i.e. an outlet chamber, and stores filtration fluid in [0056] in Fig. 1; Also, see how rather than using the third chamber 6, the filtration fluid 9 may be transferred to and stored in the third chamber 12, i.e. a waste chamber, in [0087] in Fig. 4-5), and
the particle filtration device includes a first flow path that connects between the outlet chamber and the waste fluid chamber (See how the first microflow channel 7, i.e. a first flow path, connects the filtration chamber 4, i.e. an outlet chamber, and the second chamber 6, i.e. a waste chamber, in [0056]-[0058], [0073]-[0077] in Fig. 1-4), and
a second flow path that connects between the outlet chamber and the waste fluid chamber but is positioned farther from the center of the lab-on-disk than the first flow path (See how the second microflow channel 10, i.e. a second flow path, is sequentially positioned between the filtration chamber 4, i.e. an outlet chamber, and the second chamber 6, i.e. a waste chamber, but that is positioned farther from the center of the lab-on-disk microfluidic device than the first flow path in [0056]-[0058], [0073]-[0077] in Fig. 1-7).
Cho et al. '19 fails to explicitly teach a method step of, before filtrating the sample by injecting the sample to the main chamber, the particle filtration method includes filling priming water to the outlet chamber.
However, in the analogous art of flow cell and liquid feed systems, Hayashi et al. teaches a method (See the Abstract, the Claim 5, and the flow cell, i.e. a device, in [0050]-[0067] in Fig. 1-6D) step of, before filtrating the sample by injecting the sample to the main chamber, the particle filtration method includes filling priming water to the outlet chamber (See how priming water is injected from the opening of the introduction portion 22 in advance to attain a state in which the channel 23, i.e. a first path. and the delivery portion 24, i.e. an outlet chamber, are filled with the water in [0010], [0014], [0085], [0095], in Fig. 6A).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the arts to modify the method of Cho et al. '19 by incorporating a step of filling priming water to the outlet chamber before filtrating the sample by injecting the sample to the main chamber (as taught in Lee et al. '12) for the benefit of preconditioning the flow paths and chambers on a rotatable microfluidic device before the particle filtration of a sample.
Note what is discussed in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). The current claimed arrangement of the main chamber, the outlet chamber, flow paths, the waste chamber, and the filtration membrane would render similar results as the apparatus in the prior art.
Claim(s) 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US20190366341A1), herein referred to as Cho et al. '19 and Hayashi et al. (US20170010205A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US20120261026A1) herein referred to as Lee et al. '12.
Regarding Claim(s) 9-13, The combination of Cho et al. '19 and Hayashi et al. teaches the method limitations of claim 8.
Cho et al. '19 teaches a particle filtration method using a particle filtration device of a lab-on-disk of a rotation type (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1, 9-10, and the rotatable body 1, i.e. a particle filtration device, in [0054]-[0078] in Fig. 1-4), wherein the filling of the priming water to the outlet chamber includes: injecting the priming water to the main chamber; and rotating the particle filtration device to fill the priming water to the outlet chamber in a state that the first flow path is opened and the second flow path is closed; wherein the rotation speed of the particle filtration device in the filling of the priming water is slower than the rotation speed of the particle filtration device in the filtering of the sample; and wherein the priming water in the outlet chamber is filled to be in contact with the filtration film by the filling of the priming water (See how the second microflow channel 10, i.e. a second flow path, is sequentially positioned between the filtration chamber 4, i.e. an outlet chamber, and the second chamber 6, i.e. a waste chamber, but that is positioned farther from the center of the lab-on-disk microfluidic device than the first flow path in [0056]-[0058], [0073]-[0077] in Fig. 1-7).
Hayashi et al. teaches a method (See the Abstract, the Claim 5, and the flow cell, i.e. a device, in [0050]-[0067] in Fig. 1-6D), wherein the filling of the priming water to the outlet chamber includes: injecting the priming water to the main chamber; and prepping the particle filtration device to fill the priming water to the outlet chamber in a state that the first flow path is opened and the second flow path is closed; wherein the fluid flow of the particle filtration device in the filling of the priming water is slower than the fluid flow of the particle filtration device in the filtering of the sample; and wherein the priming water in the outlet chamber is filled to be in contact with the filtration film by the filling of the priming water(See how priming water is injected from the opening of the introduction portion 22 in advance to attain a state in which the channel 23, i.e. a first path. and the delivery portion 24, i.e. an outlet chamber, are filled with the water in [0010], [0014], [0085], [0095], in Fig. 6A).
The combination of Cho et al. '19 and Hayashi et al. fails to explicitly teach a particle filtration device, wherein the filling of the priming water to the outlet chamber includes: injecting the priming water to the main chamber; and rotating the particle filtration device to fill the priming water to the outlet chamber in a state that the first flow path is opened and the second flow path is closed; wherein the filtrating of the sample includes rotating the particle filtration device to filtrate the sample in a state that the first valve is closed and the second valve is opened after injecting the sample to the main chamber; after the filtrating of the sample, rotating the particle filtration device to remove the priming water from the outlet chamber in a state that the first valve and the second valve are both opened; wherein the rotation speed of the particle filtration device in the filling of the priming water is slower than the rotation speed of the particle filtration device in the filtering of the sample; and wherein the priming water in the outlet chamber is filled to be in contact with the filtration film by the filling of the priming water.
However, in the analogous art of microfluidic device, Lee et al. '12 teaches a method (See the Abstract, the Claim 17, and the microfluidic device 10, i.e. a particle filtration device, with the disc-shaped platform 11 in [0031]-[0037], [0069]-[0086] in Fig. 1-4), wherein the filling of the priming water to the outlet chamber includes: injecting the priming water to the main chamber (See the injection of distilled water into chamber in [0052] in Fig. 2); and rotating the particle filtration device to fill the priming water to the outlet chamber in a state that the first flow path is opened and the second flow path is closed; wherein the filtrating of the sample includes rotating the particle filtration device to filtrate the sample in a state that the first valve is closed and the second valve is opened after injecting the sample to the main chamber (See how the channels connecting the respective chambers to each other may be provided with valves 81, 82, 83 and 84 described in [0063]-, [0064]-[0068] in Fig. 1-4 and in Claim(s) 6 and 16; Also, see how the third valve 83, is disposed in the discharge channel 140, the third valve 83 closes the discharge channel 140 while the fluid is supplied to the metering chamber 110, and opens the discharge channel 140 to discharge the received fluid to the outside in [0083] in Fig. 2-3); after the filtrating of the sample, rotating the particle filtration device to remove the priming water from the outlet chamber in a state that the first valve and the second valve are both opened; wherein the rotation speed of the particle filtration device in the filling of the priming water is slower than the rotation speed of the particle filtration device in the filtering of the sample; and wherein the priming water in the outlet chamber is filled to be in contact with the filtration film by the filling of the priming water (See how the microfluidic device 10, i.e. a particle filtration device, comprising a rotatable disk-shaped platform 11 that enables centrifugation of a sample by the action of centrifugal force according to rotation, and comprising a weighing structure 100 for accurately metering a sample containing a fluid to a predetermined amount, wherein the weighing structure 100 comprises a metering chamber 110 and comprises an outlet channel 130 through which the fluid exits from the metering chamber 110, and a discharge channel 140 which is connected to the metering channel 110 to extend outward in the radial direction of the rotational center of the platform 11, relative to the outlet channel 130, and discharges the fluid contained in the metering chamber 110 to the outside by the centrifugal force in [0031], [0032], and [0070]-[0086] in Fig.1-3).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the arts to modify method of Cho et al. '19 and Hayashi et al. by incorporating method steps to fill a rotatable disk with priming water (as taught in Lee et al. '12) for the benefit of preconditioning the flow paths and chambers on a rotatable microfluidic device before the particle filtration of a sample.
Note what is discussed in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). The current claimed arrangement of the main chamber, the outlet chamber, the waste chamber, flow paths, valves, and the filtration membrane could render similar results as the apparatus in the prior art, and would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art teaches similar disc-shaped and rotation microfluidic devices and methods: Cho et al. '15 (US20150314290A1), Lee et al. '11 (US20110020194A1), and Boehm et al. (US20090191643A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:30pm CT.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797