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 of Group III in the reply filed on 1/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 20-22, 24, 26-28, 30-33 and 36-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 5/21/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language (specifically DE 10156790, DE 69839294 and “Office Action mailed on 4_15_25”. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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) 48, 49, 51 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2018/0291364, hereinafter Liberti in view of United States Application Publication No. 2008/0185057, hereinafter Prakash.
Regarding claim 48, Liberti teaches a method for suspending magnetically responsive particles in a fluid disposed in a chamber having an opening fluidically connected to a source for the fluid through a fluid channel (abstract), the method comprising: (a) orienting the chamber so that the opening is gravitationally below the fluid and the particles in the chamber (paragraph [0038] and figure 2); (c) providing a first movable magnetic field to which the particles are magnetically responsive (paragraph [0037]); and (d) selectively moving the first movable magnetic field through the chamber to effect a magnetic response in the particles (paragraph [0048]).
Liberti fails to teach the valve is a gas bubble valve and the gas bubble valve comprising a bubble containing gas.
Prakash teaches a system in which bubble valves which utilizes air (Prakash, paragraph [0093]) are utilized in that a bubble in generated and pushed into the device because they perfectly seal the channel with no leakage (Prakash, paragraph [0140]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have deployed an air bubble in the opening (within the device) because it would perfectly seal the channel with no leakage (Prakash, paragraph [0140]).
Regarding claim 49, modified Liberti teaches including positioning the bubble at the opening to fill the opening (see supra).
Regarding claim 51, modified Liberti teaches removing the gas bubble valve to selectively fluidically connect the chamber to the fluid channel (paragraph [0036] and Prakash, paragraph [0140]); (ii) filling the chamber with a fluid volume through the opening while the gas bubble is removed (paragraph [0067]); and (iii) re-deploying the gas bubble valve subsequent to filling the chamber with the fluid volume (paragraph [0036] and Prakash, paragraph [0140]).
Regarding claim 54, modified Liberti teaches wherein the bubble contains air (see supra).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796