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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2022 and 12/04/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, please amend “the cavities” to “the plurality of cavities”; “2D lattice” to “two dimensional lattice”; “the portions of matrix material” to “the portion[[s]] of matrix material”.
Claims 2-3, 6, 10, please amend “the cavities” to “the plurality of cavities”;
Claim 4, please amend “the cavities” in line 2 to “the plurality of cavities”; “each pair of the pairs of nearest-neighbor cavities “to each pair of the [[pairs of]] nearest-neighbor cavities; “the portion extending” to “the portion of matrix material extending”; “period of oscillating reaction” to “period of the oscillating reaction”; “whereby nonpolar molecules” to “whereby the nonpolar molecules”.
Claims 7-8 and 10, please amend “the structural elements” to “the plurality of structural elements”.
Claim 11, please amend “on one or more of the basis layers” to “on the one or more
Claim 12, please amend “one or more of the basis layers” to “the one or more of nearest-neighbor cavities”.
Claim 15, please amend “2D lattice” to “two dimensional lattice”; “the portion” to “the portion of the matrix material”; “the oscillating reaction liquid containing nonpolar molecules of the given molecular species” “the oscillating reaction liquid containing the nonpolar molecules of the given molecular species”; “the pairs” to “the pairs of nearest-neighbor cavities”.
Claim 17, please amend “axes of the cavities” to “axes of the plurality of cavities”; “each pair of cavities” to “each pair of nearest-neighbor cavities”
Claims 18-20, please amend “the cavities” to “the plurality of cavities”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 and 17-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the structural elements of the plurality of structural elements” is unclear as to which structural elements this limitation is referring. Is it a specific structural element, some of the plurality of structural elements, or all of the plurality of structural elements? Thus, claim 1 in indefinite. Claims 2-14 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitation “the structural elements of the plurality of structural elements” is unclear as to which structural elements this limitation is referring. Is it a specific structural element, some of the plurality of structural elements, or all of the plurality of structural elements? Thus, claim 17 in indefinite. Claims 18-20 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 17.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sheehy (Belousov-Zhabotinsky Oscillators in Polydimethylsiloxane Microfluidic Devices, Brandeis University, 2021).
Regarding Claim 1, Sheehy teaches an oscillating reaction device (oscillation reaction device includes pairs of wells embedded in microfluidic device [first para. Section 4.1, page 41]; illustrated in Figure 4.1, page 44 and Figure 4.2 A, page 46) comprising:
a structured layer of a matrix material (PDMS matrix [Figure 4.1, page 44]); and
a plurality of structural elements (structural elements include PDMS section between and below wells in Figure 4.1);
wherein:
a plurality of cavities (wells [Figure 4.1, page 44]) are defined in the structured layer (as illustrated in Figure 4.1 on page 44, wells are made in the PDMS profile), with the cavities having a size and shape such that the cavities can be filled with an oscillating reaction liquid (wells are filled with BZ solution [Figure 4.1, page 44]) that includes nonpolar molecules of a given molecular species to trigger an oscillating reaction (BZ chemicals are nonpolar molecules [first para. page 5], which is used to oscillate [second para., page 22]); and
respective central axes of the cavities are arranged according to a 2D lattice sized (as illustrated in Figure 4.2 (A), well pairs are displayed in a 2D lattice, page 46) and shaped such that each pair of nearest-neighbor cavities of the plurality of cavities is separated by a portion of the matrix material (as illustrated in Figure 4.2 (A), each pair are separated by PDMS matrix);
the portions of matrix material separating each pair of cavities is selectively permeable to the nonpolar molecules (PDSM separating wells is permeable to BZ chemicals [first para. page 5]), to yield an inhibitory chemical coupling of filled cavities of each pair of nearest neighbor cavities so that the inhibitory chemical coupling is mediated by the nonpolar molecules in operation (chemical coupling is via interactions between wells [pages 41-42]); and
the structural elements of the plurality of structural elements connect the cavities to yield a positive chemical coupling of the filled cavities, in operation (as illustrated in Figure 4.1 PDMS between wells connect wells to yield a positive coupling [page 44]).
Regarding Claim 3, Sheehy teaches the oscillating reaction device according to claim 1, wherein:
the limitation “the device is further configured to allow pulsed signals to be applied to the cavities to force the oscillating reaction in accordance with an external clock, in operation” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, pulses of light sensitivity are sent at equally spaced phases in the BZ cycle [third para. page 25]. Thus, the oscillation device of Sheehy is capable of performing the function above.
Regarding Claim 4, Sheehy teaches the oscillating reaction device according to claim 1, wherein:
the cavities are defined as blind holes in the structured layer (as illustrated in Figure 4.1, wells are blind holes in the PDMS layer. page 44), whereby the cavities are open on a surface of the structured layer, on one side thereof (wells can be open on top of PDMS well, as illustrated in Figure 3.4 [page 29]), and
the cavities of each pair of the pairs of nearest-neighbor cavities are laterally separated by the portion of matrix material (as illustrated in Figure 4.1, wells are separated by a PDMS portion [page 44]), the portion extending along a direction that is parallel to the surface (PDMS portion is parallel to the surface of the apparatus, see Figure 4.1, page 44), over a distance that is less than or equal to an average diffusion distance of the nonpolar molecules through the matrix material over a period of oscillating reaction, whereby nonpolar molecules of the given molecular species can diffuse through the structured layer from one cavity to the other cavity of the each pair to yield the inhibitory coupling, in operation (as bromine has a diffusion length scale of about 275 µm for PDMS [third para. page 34], and separation between wells varies from 30, 60, 120 µm [second para., page 43]).
Regarding Claim 14, Sheehy teaches the oscillating reaction device according to claim 1, wherein the matrix material is a nonpolar material (PDMS, [first para. page 5]), which includes a polymer that is one of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS, [first para. page 5]).
Regarding Claim 15, Sheehy teaches a method of operating an oscillating reaction device (pair of wells embedded in microfluidic device [first para. Section 4.1, page 41]; illustrated in Figure 4.1, page 44 and Figure 4.2 A, page 46), wherein the method comprises:
providing a reaction device comprising a structured layer of a matrix material (PDMS matrix [Figure 4.1, page 44]), in which cavities are defined (pair of wells embedded in microfluidic device [first para. Section 4.1, page 41]; illustrated in Figure 4.1, page 44 and Figure 4.2 A, page 46) and centers of the cavities are arranged according to a 2D lattice (as illustrated in Figure 4.2 (A), well pairs are displayed in a 2D lattice, page 46), whereby pairs of nearest-neighbor cavities of the cavities are, each, separated by a portion of the matrix material (as illustrated in Figure 4.2 (A), each pair are separated by PDMS matrix), the portion being selectively permeable to nonpolar molecules of a given molecular species (PDSM separating wells is permeable to BZ chemicals [first para. page 5]) and structural elements connecting the cavities (as illustrated in Figure 4.1 PDMS between wells and below connect wells to yield a positive coupling [page 49]);
filling an oscillating reaction liquid into the cavities (BZ chemicals are nonpolar molecules [first para. page 5], which is used to oscillate [second para., page 22]), the oscillating reaction liquid containing nonpolar molecules of the given molecular species (BZ chemicals are nonpolar molecules [first para. page 5], which is used to oscillate [second para., page 22]), to trigger an oscillating reaction that is subject to a positive chemical coupling of filled cavities of the pairs (BZ chemicals are nonpolar molecules [first para. page 5], which is used to oscillate [second para., page 22]), the positive chemical coupling resulting from the structural elements and an inhibitory chemical coupling of the filled cavities of the pairs (chemical coupling is via interactions between wells [pages 41-42]), the inhibitory chemical coupling mediated by the nonpolar molecules (chemical coupling is via interactions between wells [pages 41-42]) and governed by a dimension of the portion of the matrix material separating the cavities of each of the pairs (separation between wells is varied to explore well interaction [second para. page 43); and
performing optical measurements from within the cavities (optical measurements are made using a 2D light detector [second para. page 26]).
Regarding Claim 16, Sheehy teaches the method according to claim 15, further comprising:
applying signal pulses to the cavities according to an oscillation frequency to force the oscillating reaction across the cavities at the oscillation frequency (pulses of light sensitivity are sent at equally spaced phases in the BZ cycle [third para. page 25]).
Regarding Claim 17, Sheehy teaches a device comprising:
a structured layer of a matrix material (PDMS matrix [Figure 4.1, page 44]);
a plurality of structural elements (structural elements include PDMS section between wells, and top glass section touching wells in Figure 4.1); and
an oscillating reaction liquid that includes nonpolar molecules of a given molecular species suitable for being subject to an oscillating reaction (BZ chemicals are nonpolar molecules [first para. page 5], which is used to oscillate [second para., page 22]);
wherein:
a plurality of cavities (wells [Figure 4.1, page 44]) are defined in the structured layer (as illustrated in Figure 4.1 on page 44, wells are made in the PDMS profile);
the cavities of the plurality of cavities are filled with the oscillating reaction fluid (wells are filled with BZ solution [Figure 4.1, page 44]);
respective central axes of the cavities are arranged according to a two dimensional lattice (as illustrated in Figure 4.2 (A), well pairs are displayed in a 2D lattice, page 46) sized and shaped such that each pair of nearest-neighbor cavities of the plurality of cavities is separated by a portion of the matrix material (as illustrated in Figure 4.2 (A), each pair are separated by PDMS matrix);
the portions of matrix material separating each pair of cavities is selectively permeable to the nonpolar molecules (PDSM separating wells is permeable to BZ chemicals [first para. page 5]), to yield an inhibitory chemical coupling of filled cavities of each pair of nearest neighbor cavities so that the inhibitory chemical coupling is mediated by the nonpolar molecules during the oscillating reaction (chemical coupling is via interactions between wells [pages 41-42]); and
the structural elements of the plurality of structural elements connect the cavities to yield a positive chemical coupling of the filled cavities during the oscillating reaction (as illustrated in Figure 4.1 PDMS between and below wells connect wells to yield a positive coupling [page 49]).
Regarding Claim 18, Sheehy teaches the device of claim 17 further comprising:
a pulsing device structured and located to apply signal pulses to the cavities according to an oscillation frequency to force the oscillating reaction across the cavities at the oscillation frequency (pulses of light sensitivity are sent at equally spaced phases in the BZ cycle [third para. page 25]).
Regarding Claim 20, Sheehy teaches the device of claim 18.
Sheehy teaches further comprising:
an optical measuring device (programmable illumination microscope [second para., page 9]), structured, located and connected to perform optical measurements from within the cavities (microscope is configured to visualize the oscillations and measure the period of the BZ sample on the CCD camera [second and third paras., page 9]; 2D light detector is in the sample plane [second para., page 26]).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheehy.
Regarding Claim 5, Sheehy teaches the oscillating reaction device according to claim 4.
Sheehy is silent on wherein the distance is between 1 and 10 µm.
However, as Sheehy teaches the distance between the wells contributes to parameters, such as well locking (see Figure 4.3, page 49). As the amount of well locking is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the distance between wells, with well locking varying as the distance between wells is increased/decreased, the precise distance between wells would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance in the Sheehy to obtain the desired distance of between 1 and 10 µm. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheehy, as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, in view of Hohmann (Electrically Coupled Chemical Oscillators and Their Action Potentials Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 1999, pages 5742-5748).
Regarding Claim 2, Sheehy teaches the oscillating reaction device according to claim 1.
Sheehy is silent on, wherein: the device further includes electrical contacts defined to allow electrochemical measurements to be performed from within the cavities, in operation.
Hohmann teaches electrical coupling of chemical oscillators (abstract), and teaches wherein: the device further includes electrical contacts (Pt-working electrode [fourth para. col. 2, page 5742]) defined to allow electrochemical measurements to be performed from within the cavities, in operation (galvanostat applied electrical current to Pt-working electrode [Figure 1, page 5743]).
Sheehy and Hohmann are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of chemical oscillator apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chemical oscillator apparatus of Sheehy to include electrical contacts defined to allow electrochemical measurements to be performed from within the cavities, in operation, as taught by Hohmann, as using an electrical current and taking electrochemical measurements allows for modeling the response of the electrically coupled reactors (Hohmann, [first para. col. 2, page 5742]).
Regarding Claim 19, Sheehy teaches the device of claim 18.
Sheehy is silent on further comprising: an electrochemical measuring device structured, located and connected to perform electromechanical measurements from within the cavities.
Hohmann teaches further comprising: an electrochemical measuring device (a galvanostat applies electrical current to Pt-working electrode [Figure 1, page 5743]), structured, located and connected to perform electromechanical measurements from within the cavities (as illustrated in Figure 1, galvanostat is structured, located, and connected to perform electromechanical measurements).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sheehy to further comprise: an electrochemical measuring device structured, located and connected to perform electromechanical measurements from within the cavities, as taught by Hohmann, as using an electrical current and taking electrochemical measurements allows for modeling the response of the electrically coupled reactors (Hohnmann, [first para. col. 2, page 5742]).
Claims 6-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheehy, as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Norton (Dynamics of Reaction-Diffusion Oscillators in Star Networks 2019, pages 1-6, provided with IDS dated 11/07/2022).
Regarding Claim 6, Sheehy teaches the oscillation device as outlined in claim 4.
Sheehy is silent on the plurality of structural elements are respectively structured to define a flow path between the cavities, whereby the flow path can be filled by the oscillating reaction liquid to form a diffusion flow path, through which the nonpolar molecules can diffuse from one of the cavities to another of the cavities to at least contribute to the positive chemical coupling.
Norton teaches a reaction-diffusion chemical oscillator for the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction (abstract), and teaches the plurality of structural elements are respectively structured to define a flow path between the cavities (cavities are connected with channels that function as diffusive conduits [second para. col. 1, page 2]), whereby the flow path can be filled by the oscillating reaction liquid to form a diffusion flow path (channels are filled with oil that function as diffusive conduits [second para. col. 1, page 2]), through which the nonpolar molecules can diffuse from one of the cavities to another of the cavities to at least contribute to the positive chemical coupling (channels function as diffusive conduits [second para. col. 1, page 2]).
Sheehy and Norton are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of chemical oscillator apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chemical oscillator apparatus of modified Sheehy such that the plurality of structural elements are respectively structured to define a flow path between the cavities, whereby the flow path can be filled by the oscillating reaction liquid to form a diffusion flow path, through which the nonpolar molecules can diffuse from one of the cavities to another of the cavities to at least contribute to the positive chemical coupling, as taught by Norton, as adding channels functions as diffusive conduits for the cavities containing the chemical oscillation liquid (Norton, second para. col. 1, page 2).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Sheehy teaches the oscillation reaction device according to claim 6, and teaches the structural element are structured to define one of a gap and a trench, thereby defining the flow path.
Sheehy is silent on wherein: the structural element are structured to define one of a gap and a trench, thereby defining the flow path.
However, as the apparatus of modified Sheehy has been modified by Norton to use a trench to allow diffusion (channels are filled with oil that function as diffusive conduits [second para. col. 1, page 2]), the trench and gap that define the flow path that connects the two wells can either be: 1. above the wells; 2. in between the wells; or 3. below the wells. Thus, there are three identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try by choosing from the above three identified solutions, which would lead to choosing the structural elements (PDMS and glass) so that the trench and gap are located above the wells. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(E)).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Sheehy teaches the oscillating reaction device according to claim 7.
Sheehy teaches wherein the structural elements further include a lid (glass top surface as illustrated in Figure 4.1, page 44), which extends over the surface on the one side (glass top surface as illustrated in Figure 4.1, page 44, extends over the surface), and modified Sheehy teaches the lid defines the gap between the lid and the surface (as outlined in the claim 7 rejection above, the gap that forms the trench is placed above the chemical wells, which would be located between the glass lid and PDMS layer).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Sheehy teaches the oscillating reaction device of claim 8.
Sheehy is silent on wherein the gap is between 0.001 and 1 µm.
However, as Norton teaches the channel height and width are made to be small to house droplets (Norton, [second para. col. 1, page 2]) between the wells contributes to parameters, such as diffusion (Norton, [second para. col. 1, page 2]). As the amount of diffusion is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the gap height, with diffusion varying as the gap height is increased, the precise gap height between wells would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the gap height in modified Sheehy to obtain the desired gap of between 0.001 and 1 µm. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheehy and Norton, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Hohmann (Electrically Coupled Chemical Oscillators and Their Action Potentials Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 1999, pages 5742-5748).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Sheehy teaches the oscillating reaction device according to claim 6.
Sheehy is silent on wherein the structural elements further include electrical connectors, each connecting interiors of the cavities of a respective one of the pairs of nearest-neighbor cavities.
Hohmann teaches wherein the structural elements further include electrical connectors (both CSTRs, which correspond to chemical wells, are connected with electric circuits [Figure 1, page 5743]), each connecting interiors of the cavities of a respective one of the pairs of nearest-neighbor cavities (as illustrated in Figure 1, electrical circuits connect the respective oscillation wells).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural elements of modified Sheehy further include electrical connectors, each connecting interiors of the cavities of a respective one of the pairs of nearest-neighbor cavities, as taught by Hohmann, as using an electrical current and taking electrochemical measurements allows for modeling the response of the electrically coupled reactors (Hohmann, [first para. col. 2, page 5742]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Sheehy teaches the oscillating reaction device according to claim 10.
Sheehy is silent on wherein the electrical connectors include, each, a programmable resistive element.
Hoh mann teaches wherein the electrical connectors include, each, a programmable resistive element (galvanostat applies a defined current [last para. col. 2, page 5742], which can be biased [see equation (1), page 5743]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical connectors of modified Sheehy to include, each, a programmable resistive element, as taught by Hohnmann, as this setup allows for electrochemical measurements of the oscillating wells (Hohmann, [third para. col. 1, page 5748]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheehy, Norton, and Hohmann, as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Lee (Fabrication of Stable Metallic Patterns Embedded in Poly(dimethylsiloxane) and Model Applications in Non-Planar Electronic and Lab-on-a-Chip Device Patterning Advanced Functional Materials, 2005; 15(4), pages 557-566).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Sheehy teaches the oscillating reaction device according to claim 10.
Sheehy teaches wherein: the device further includes one or more basis layers (bottom glass surface, as illustrated in Figure 4.1, page 44), which extends parallel to the structured layer on another side thereof, opposite to the one side (bottom glass surface extends parallel to top surface, as illustrated in Figure 4.1, page 44).
Sheehy is silent on the electrical connectors are at least partly arranged in and/or on one or more of the basis layers.
Lee teaches the fabrication of multiple metallic patterns in PDMS (abstract), and teaches the electrical connectors are at least partly arranged in and/or on one or more of the basis layers (as illustrated in Figure 1 on page 559, metallic patterns are embedded into PDMS [second para. col. 1, page 559]).
Modified Sheehy and Lee are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of microfluidic apparatus using PDMS. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical connectors of modified Sheehy at least partly arranged in and/or on one or more of the basis layers, as taught by Lee, as using embedded structures allows for the creation of sophisticated, high-value structures (Lee, first para. col. 1, page 557).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheehy, Norton, Hohmann, and Lee, as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Wickramasinghe (Synchronization of electrochemical oscillators with differential coupling. Physical Review, 88, pages 062911-1 to 062911-9).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Sheehy teaches the oscillating reaction device according to claim 11, wherein:
the electrical connectors include metal wires that are patterned in or on one of the basis layers (as outlined in the claim 11 rejection above, electrical connectors include metal wires).
Sheehy is silent on the wires are composed of noble metal and so as for each of the metal wires to be exposed to interiors of each of the cavities of the respective one of the pairs; and at least some of the noble metal wires have distinct electrical resistances.
Hohmann teaches the wires are composed of noble metal (electrodes are made of Pt electrode [Figure 1, page 5743]) and so as for each of the metal wires to be exposed to interiors of each of the cavities of the respective one of the pairs (as illustrated in Figure 1, platinum electrodes extend into the CSTRs).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wires of modified Sheehy such that the wires are composed of noble metal and so as for each of the metal wires to be exposed to interiors of each of the cavities of the respective one of the pairs, as taught by Hohnmann, as this setup of using noble metal wires and resistances allows for electrochemical measurements of the oscillations (Hohnmann, [third para. col. 1, page 5748]).
Modified Sheehy is silent on at least some of the metal wires have distinct electrical resistances.
Wickramasinghe teaches experiments to study the effect of capacitive coupling of two electrochemical oscillators (abstract), and teaches at least some of the metal wires have distinct electrical resistances (resistances applied to each electrode are different external individual resistances Rind, 1 and Rind, 2 [second para. col. 1, page 062911-2]).
Modified Sheehy and Wickramasinghe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrochemical oscillation devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the noble metal wires of modified Sheehy so that at least some of the metal wires have distinct electrical resistances, as taught by Wickramasinghe, as using distinct resistances allows for the study of the synchronization dynamics of the chemical oscillators (Wickramasinghe, second para. col. 1, page 062911-8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDALL LEE GAMBLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5492. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00 EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/R.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795