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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 8/17/20. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2020-137683 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 10, line 9, the phrase “the first common concentrating-mechanism” should be changed to -- a first common concentrating-mechanism --. In line 17, the phrase “the purge-gas” should be changed to -- a purge-gas --.
In claim 11, line 7, the phrase “the separated concentrating-mechanism” should be changed to -- the separated concentrating-mechanisms -- to provide proper antecedent basis. In lines 14-15, the phrase “the concentrating-mechanisms” should be changed to -- the separated concentrating-mechanisms -- to provide clearer antecedent basis.
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 3-5 and 15 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.
In claim 3, lines 1-2, the phrase “a sensitive film of a surface acoustic wave” is not clear on its meaning. How can a “film” be a surface acoustic wave? Please clarify.
In claim 4, line 1, the phrase “the signal conditioner is a sensor electrode” is not clear on its meaning. How can an “electrode” be a signal conditioner? Please clarify.
In claim 15, lines 1-2, the phrase “A virus test program … comprising:” should be changed to -- a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising: --. In line 3, the phrase “the target viruses” lacks antecedent basis. In lines 4-5, the phrase “the target viruses” lacks antecedent basis. In line 7, is this “target viruses” the same or different ”target viruses” in line 3 of this claim? Please clarify. In line 10, is this “the target viruses” referring to the target viruses in line 3 or the target viruses in line 7? Please clarify. In line 13, is this “the target viruses” referring to the target viruses in line 3 or the target viruses in line 7? Please clarify.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication “Microfluidic Chips for Point-of-Care Immunodiagnostics” by Gervais et al. in view of U.S. Patent 6,321,588 (Bowers et al.).
With regards to claim 1, Gervais et al. discloses a microfluidic chip for immunodiagnostics comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-10, a virus test device comprising a pseudo-receptor film having a plurality of pseudo-receptors arranged on the pseudo-receptor film, each of the pseudo-receptors mimicking a structure of a host-cell receptor, which binds specifically to a target virus (e.g. page H165, right column, 3rd paragraph to page H166, right column, 1st paragraph); a virus introducing-tube, configured to suck down an air-under-test containing the target viruses, concentrating the target viruses contained in the air-under-test, and to eject the high-speed air-flow to the pseudo-receptor film (e.g. page H161, left column, 2nd paragraph to 3rd paragraph; page H163, left column, 2nd paragraph to page H165, left column, 2nd paragraph; Figure 8(i)); a signal conditioner, configured to convert physical signals, which represent alterations of physical states of the pseudo-receptor film ascribable to specific bindings of the pseudo-receptors with the target viruses, to electric signals (e.g. page H169, right column, 3rd paragraph to page H170, right column, 1st paragraph. (See, pages H151 to H176).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is an air-under-test containing the target viruses is sucked down the introducing tube and compressed into a high-speed air-flow of aerosols-under-test.
Bowers et al. discloses a chemical sensor array comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-4B, surface acoustic wave devices 101-106 to detect the presence of target viruses; an introducing-tube configured where an air-under-test containing the target viruses is sucked down the introducing tube and compressed into a high-speed air-flow of aerosols-under-test (e.g. column 2, lines 20-36; column 5, lines 8-21). (See, column 3, line 1 to column 5, line 65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing an air-under-test containing the target viruses is sucked down the introducing tube and compressed into a high-speed air-flow of aerosols-under-test as suggested by Bowers et al. to the system of Gervais et al. to have the ability to provide a flow of air through a scrubber material to provide a flow of clean air, and directing the flow of clean air across the sensing surfaces to permit the target viruses to desorb from the surfaces into the clean air. (See, column 2, lines 29-37 of Bowers et al.).
With regards to claim 2, Gervais et al. further discloses the physical signals represent variations of areal densities by weight of the pseudo-receptor film ascribable to the specific bindings of the pseudo-receptors with the target viruses such that the signal conditioner converts the physical signals to the electric signals (e.g. page H170, left column, 3rd paragraph to right column, 1st paragraph).
With regards to claim 6, Gervais et al. further discloses a detection vessel configured to construct a hermetically closed space for housing the pseudo-receptor film; a filter disposed at an entrance side of the virus introducing-tube; a concentrating-mechanism with a tapered nozzle structure disposed at an exit side of the virus introducing-tube; a position of a tip of the concentrating-mechanism mates with an inlet- canal, which is cut in an outer wall of the detection vessel, and the high-speed air-flow is ejected to the pseudo-receptor film from the tip. (See, page H161, left column, 2nd paragraph to 3rd paragraph).
With regards to claim 13, the claim is commensurate in scope with the above apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. Furthermore, Gervais et al. further discloses a signal processor configured to drive the signal conditioner to execute a difference-integral detection based upon an output data from the signal conditioner for detecting existences of the specific bindings of the pseudo-receptors and the target viruses (e.g. page H171, left column, 3rd paragraph to right column, 2nd paragraph).
With regards to claim 14, the claim is directed to a method claim and is commensurate in scope with the above apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
With regards to claim 15, the claim is directed to a program causing a computer to execute a sequence of instructions claim and is commensurate in scope with the above apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claims 3, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication “Microfluidic Chips for Point-of-Care Immunodiagnostics” by Gervais et al. in view of U.S. Patent 6,321,588 (Bowers et al.), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0170345 (Noguchi et al.).
With regards to claim 3, Gervais et al. further discloses the pseudo-receptor film is a sensitive film of a surface acoustic wave such that the surface acoustic wave propagates in the sensitive film (e.g. page H170, left column, 3rd paragraph).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the pseudo-receptor film is provided on at least a part in a surface of a piezoelectric-crystal sphere.
Noguchi et al. discloses a elastic wave measurement system comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-5, a pseudo-receptor film is provided on at least a part in a surface of a piezoelectric-crystal sphere (e.g. spherical piezoelectric shaped; paragraphs [0008],[0063]). (See, paragraphs [0062] to [0150]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the pseudo-receptor film is provided on at least a part in a surface of a piezoelectric-crystal sphere as suggested by Noguchi et al. to the system of Gervais et al., modified by Bowers et al., to have the ability to provide a highly sensitive sensor where the loss of signal is small. (See, paragraphs [0011],[0012] of Noguchi et al.).
With regards to claim 4, Noguchi et al. further discloses the signal conditioner is a sensor electrode of a SAW sensor (e.g. paragraphs [0011],[0012],[0063]).
With regards to claim 5, Noguchi et al. further discloses the SAW sensor is a ball SAW sensor having the pseudo-receptor film provided on at least the part in the surface of the piezoelectric-crystal sphere and the sensor electrode; a detection vessel constructing a hermetically closed space for housing the ball SAW sensor (e.g. paragraphs [0011],[0012],[0063]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly Sauer-Budge, Arenas, Larson and Sugizaki, are related to systems for detecting bioagents or viruses using an acoustic device having surface acoustic waves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855