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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/29/2026.
While the election is without out traverse, Applicant has presented arguments on page 13 that the all the inventions should be examined together and cites MPEP § 803(I) emphasizing that would not be a serious burden on the examiner. This would not be a persuasive argument as the analysis used to determine whether an application may require a restriction differs in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 (unity of invention analysis) as compared to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (independent and distinct analysis). Each invention does not provide a special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art and therefore the groups lack unity of invention. See also MPEP §1893.03(d).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendment to the specification has been considered and entered for the record.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Fouillet et al. (US 2005/0196328 A1 – hereafter ‘328).
‘328 discloses a lab-on-chip ([0002]) that discloses the following limitations for claim 1:
“A sample analysis cartridge”: ‘328 discloses a fluidic device ([0048]; Fig. 1)that is being interpreted as the sample analysis cartridge of the instant application.
“a reaction chamber configured to receive a sample”: ‘328 discloses a microreactor (microreactor 3; Fig. 1; [0051]) that is being interpreted as the reaction chamber of the instant application and receives a sample ([0031]).
“a film defining at least a portion of a face of the reaction chamber”: ‘328 discloses a film that is placed opposite of the support to seal the hollow structure in the support plate ([0048]). This film would form a face of the microreactor.
“an inlet port fluidly connected to an inlet of the reaction chamber and an outlet port fluidly connected to an outlet of the reaction chamber”: ‘328 discloses an inlet and outlet port that is connected to the inlet and outlet of the reaction chamber (Fig. 1; [0051]). The inlet and outlet include ducts (ducts 41 & 42)
“an air reservoir fluidly connected to the reaction chamber”: ‘328 discloses an expansion chamber (chamber 61) that is being interpreted as the air reservoir of the instant application. Furthermore, this chamber is fluidically connected to the microreactor (Fig. 1).
“the inlet port, the outlet port and the air reservoir arranged such that, as the reaction chamber is filled with fluid through the inlet port, gas within the reaction chamber may escape the sample analysis cartridge through the outlet port whilst gas within the air reservoir is retained”: The inlet (channel 41), expansion chamber (chamber 61) and the microreactor (microreactor 3) are arranged such that gas will escape through the outlet port while the microchamber is being filled ([0052]; [0097]).
“the inlet port, the outlet port, and the air reservoir being further arranged such that, if the inlet port and the outlet port are sealed, gas within the air reservoir applies pressure on contents of the reaction chamber.”: If the inlet and outlets are sealed, the air in the expansion chambers will increase the pressure onto the microreactor ([0029]).
For claim 3, the inlet or outlet of the chip of ‘328 is fully capable of being permanently sealable.
For claim 4, it appears, in light of the specification, that the sealing portions are welds that are on either side of the channel. ‘328 discloses that the top and bottom are sealed in a leak tight manner ([0048]) where this is being interpreted as the sealing portions of the instant application. Moreover, this would be true for both the inlet channel and outlet channel.
For claim 5, the diameter of the chamber of ‘328 is up to 1.5 mm which would exceed the thickness in the perpendicular direction ([0027]).
For claim 6, ‘328 discloses the following limitations:
“an excitation wall, the excitation wall forming a face of the reaction chamber and arranged to transmit excitation radiation into the reaction chamber”: ‘328 discloses that the support for the chip is made of glass and forms a face of the microreactor ([0048]). This reads on the excitation wall and would allow for excitation radiation to be transmitted to the chamber.
“an emission wall, the emission wall forming a face of the reaction chamber and arranged to transmit emission radiation from the reaction chamber”: ‘328 discloses that the cover is made from polycarbonate which is transparent to light and would allow for an emission radiation to be emitted from the chamber ([0048]).
“wherein the excitation wall and emission wall are angularly offset.”: The two walls of ‘328 are angularly offset in that both walls are perpendicularly offset from each other. As a particular angle is not claimed, this interpretation is not inconsistent in light of the specification.
Therefore, ‘328 meets the limitations of claims 1 and 3-6.
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) 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouillet et al. (US 2005/0196328 A1 – hereafter ‘328) in view of Chang et al. (US 2002/0168299 A1 – hereafter ‘299).
‘328 (Fouillet) differs from the instant claim 2 with regards to the use of a frame.
‘299 (Chang) discloses a reaction vessel for thermally controlling and optically interrogating a sample ([0011]) that for claim 2 includes a rigid frame (frame 16; Fig. 1) that supports two flexible sheets (sheets 18; Fig. 1) in order to form a reaction chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the frame of ‘299 within ‘328 in order to provide support for the film. The suggestion for doing so would have been to define open spaces between the sidewalls ([0095]).
The following rejection is assuming, arguendo, that the diameter of the chamber of ‘299 is not greater than the thickness of the chip.
For claim 5, the diameter of the chamber of ‘328 (Fouillet) is up to 1.5 mm which would exceed the thickness in the perpendicular direction ([0027]). However, ‘328 does not explicitly disclose that the diameter is larger than the thickness of the chip.
For claim 5, ‘299 (Chang) discloses that the chamber can have a width the chamber to the thickness is at least 2:1 as this keeps the chamber thin enough for rapid heating ([0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the dimensions of ‘299 within ‘328 in order to have a large average optical path length through the chamber. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to have a chamber that is thin enough to allow for extremely rapid heating and cooling of the sample within the chamber ([0091]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gohring et al. (US 2011/0312535 A1) discloses a cartridge for analyzing biological samples within a biochip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-3724. The examiner can normally be reached Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM M-F.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights