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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 6-9 of the Remarks, the Applicant asserts that the prior art of Hower et al. (US 20040094733) does not teach the limitations of the actuating means being made of gas and being used to actuate the deformable membrane and to move the body of meltable compound.
In response to this argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as Hower teaches that the melting of the wax 15 (meltable compound) causes the pneumatic actuator 10 to expand (where expansion of the hydrogel 14 includes vaporization and would include creating a gas), actuates the flexible membrane 18, see [0115] for Description of pneumatic actuation, and places force on the meltable compound to seal off a chamber, which is analogous to the instant invention as claimed. See Highlighted section of Hower below.
PNG
media_image1.png
250
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hower et al. (US 20040094733, “Hower”).
PNG
media_image2.png
314
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8B
Regarding claim 1, Hower teaches a fluidic component (micro-fluidic sensor system with bi-stable valve, see Fig. 2 and Abstract, [0118]-[0120])j, comprising:
- a fluidic circuit having at least one fluidic access through which a fluid (F) is intended to pass (micro-conduit 56 with inlets to accept a fluid, see Fig. 1-3 and [0055] - [0058]),
- actuating means capable of expanding, said actuating means including a fluidtight reservoir filled with gas, (expanding mechanism 14 composed of vaporizable hydrogel within closed cavity 11, where vapor would necessarily contain gas, see Figs. 3 and 8, [0041], [0111] - [0117]),
- a deformable membrane (flexible mechanism 18, see Figs. 3 and 8 and [0055] - [0057]) that can be actuated by the expansion of said actuating means and that is configured to move between a first position in which the membrane allows the fluid to pass through the fluidic access and a closure second position in which the membrane blocks the passage of the fluid through the fluidic access (the mechanism 18 is actuated by the expanding mechanism 14 to move from a position of accepting fluid to a position of blocking fluid through the conduit 20, see Fig. 3 and 8-9, [0066] and [0115]),
- sealing means for sealing off the fluidic access and comprising at least a body made of a meltable compound configured to adopt two states (actuating mechanisms 15 made of paraffin wax which is solid at lower temperatures and liquid at high temperatures, see Fig. 8 and [0121]-[0122]):
a solid first state (paraffin is solid prior to heating, see [0121]-[0122]) ,
a molten second state obtained under the effect of an increase in temperature (paraffin melts in response to heating, see [0121]-[0122]),
- said body of meltable compound being designed to be moved in the molten state, by the expansion of the actuating means, between a standby position and a distinct sealing-off position for sealing off the fluidic access (the expansion of the member 14 and subsequent heating of the paraffin causes a sealing, or closing, of the chamber 20 by moving the paraffin wax into a second position, see Fig. 8B and [0121]-[0122]).
Regarding claim 4, Hower teaches the component according to Claim 1, characterized in that the fluidic passage is initially blocked by the body made of meltable compound present in its solid first state and in its standby position (the passage is blocked until the wax of the mechanism 15 is melted by the heater 12, see Fig. 8B and [0122]).
Regarding claim 5, Hower teaches the component according to Claim 4, characterized in that, in the sealing-off position, the body made of meltable compound (15) is deposited on a face of the membrane which is the opposite face to a face that closes off the fluidic access (when closed, the paraffin body is located opposite to the top of the flexible membrane 18 where the membrane closes fluid access, see Fig. 8B and [0114] and [0120]).
Regarding claim 6, Hower teaches the component according to Claim 1, characterized in that it is produced in the form of a one-piece element (micro-fluidic sensor system is one piece 6, see Fig. 2 and Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Hower teaches the component according to Claim 1, characterized in that the membrane (flexible membrane 18) is produced from a material of the elastomer type (membrane 18 is made of elastomeric silicone rubber, see [0056 - [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Hower teaches a fluidic device characterized in that it comprises:
- a fluidic component as defined in Claim 1 (fluidic system 6)
Heating means (heating mechanism 12, see Fig. 3) designed to:
heat said body made of meltable compound to a temperature sufficient to cause said body to pass from the first state to the second state (heating mechanism heats paraffin to melting temperature, see [0117] - [0120])
expand said actuating means, causing the membrane to deform from the first position to the second position and causing the body made of meltable compound to move, in the second state, toward the position for sealing off the fluidic access (heating mechanism heats expanding member 14 and causes paraffin 15 to melt to close the conduit, see [0116] - [0122].
Regarding claim 10, Hower teaches the fluidic device according to Claim 9, characterized in that the fluidic circuit comprises a reaction chamber (chamber 20, see Fig. 3, [0108]) and in that the heating means are designed to perform heating both of:
said reaction chamber in order to perform a detection reaction (heating mechanism 12 heats sample within circuit for detection, see [0066] and [0097]- [0098]), and
of said body made of meltable compound to a temperature sufficient to cause said body made of meltable compound to pass from the first state to the second state (heating mechanism 12 heats paraffin to melting temperature, see [0117] - [0120]),
and to expand said actuating means, causing the membrane to deform from the first position to the second position and causing the body made of meltable compound to move, in the second state, toward the position for sealing off the fluidic access (heating mechanism heats expanding member 14 and causes paraffin 15 to melt to close the conduit, see [0116] - [0122]).
PNG
media_image3.png
385
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 11, Hower teaches the fluidic according to Claim 9, characterized in that the heating module comprises first and second resistive branches in parallel (heating areas 12 of actuators 10 and 15 are connected in parallel, see annotated Fig. 2 and [0073]), each of the first and second branches configured to exhibit a distinct electrical resistance, the first branch being dedicated to providing a first thermal power and the second branch dedicated to supplying a second thermal power (resistive heating areas 12 are arranged in parallel where each wax and hydrogel actuator is powered by controller to allow opening and closing of microfluidic conduit, see Fig. 2, [0050], [0068] - [0069], [0072] - [0073], and [0121]-[0122]), said first thermal power being higher than the second thermal power (the power supplied to the hydrogel actuator is higher than that of the wax actuator, see [0068] - [0069] and [0119]).
Regarding claim 12, Hower teaches the fluidic according to Claim 9, characterized in that the heating module comprises first and second resistive branches in series each of the first and second branches configured to exhibit a distinct electrical resistance, the first branch being dedicated to providing a first thermal power and the second branch dedicated to supplying a second thermal power, distinct from the first thermal power (resistive heating areas 12 are arranged in series where each hydrogel actuator is powered separately by controller to allow peristalsis, see Fig. 2, [0050], [0068] - [0069], [0110], and [0119]-[0120]).
Regarding claim 13, Hower teaches a method implemented in a fluidic device (actuation method, see [0131]) as defined in Claim 9, characterized in that it consists in activating the heating means to a temperature sufficient to at once:
implement a detection reaction in said reaction chamber (heater causes sample to move to chamber 60 for detection reaction, see [0060], [0038], and [0097]- [0098]),
actuate the membrane toward the closure position in order to isolate the reaction chamber during said detection reaction (flexible membrane 18 is deformed to close off chambers 20 during heating of expandable mechanism 14, see [0131]), and
initiate a sealing-off of the reaction chamber by the melting of the body made of meltable compound and the movement of said body in the molten state toward the sealing-off position (the paraffin 15 is melted and moved to further seal off chamber 20, see [0121] – [0122]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hower et al. (US 20040094733, “Hower”) as applied above, and further in view of Mastrangelo et al. (US 20020037221, “Mastrangelo”).
Regarding claim 8, Hower teaches the component according claim 1, characterized in that the meltable compound is a paraffin (the mechanism 15 comprises a paraffin wax, see [0064]), but does not explicitly teach that the paraffin is selected from docosane, tricosane, tetracosane, pentacosane, hexacosane and octacosane.
However, in the analogous art of microfluidic devices for use with power sources, Mastrangelo et al. teaches a device, analogous to the sensor system of Hower, comprising a high actuator power polymer used to inflate a compartment, similar to the actuating mechanism of Hower, where the polymer is an n-tetracosane polymer as it is a paraffin, see [0031] in Mastrangelo.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known in the art that paraffin waxes and n-alkane waxes such as n-tetracosane are functional equivalents for meltable waxes with low transition temperatures, see [0031] in Mastrangelo et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have substituted the paraffin of Hower to incorporate the n-tetracosane of Mastrangelo et al. for the benefit of providing a low transition temperature to prevent overheating of sample flowing over the valving mechanism, see [0006] and [0031] in Mastrangelo. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of providing a material capable of expanding and contracting to create a valve within a device.
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 ALEA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5:00PM (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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758