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 .
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(s) 1-6, 9, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant US 20080216898 in view of Lee US 20160144362.
Grant discloses:
1. A pump (see e.g. Fig 7) comprising: a pump chamber (see the fluid chamber, the pneumatic chamber, and the membrane therebetween in e.g. Fig 7) comprising a first sub-chamber (see pneumatic side in e.g. Fig 7) and a second sub-chamber (see fluid side in Fig 7); a deformable membrane provided within the pump chamber, the deformable membrane dividing the pump chamber into the first sub-chamber and the second sub-chamber (see e.g. the membrane between the fluid side and the pneumatic side in Fig 7 and e.g. 0223-0224, and e.g. Figs 6A-6B), the second sub-chamber defining a reservoir to contain a liquid to be dispensed (see fluid in Fig 7 and liquid throughout including 0187), the reservoir configured to store the liquid when the reservoir is in an undeformed state with a second pressure being applied on the deformable membrane (see e.g. negative pressure for the pneumatic chamber in 0224), the second pressure being equal to or greater than a first pressure of fluid in the first sub-chamber being applied on the deformable membrane in the undeformed state (see e.g. negative pressure for the pneumatic chamber in 0224, and e.g. Figs 6A-6B); a passage attached to the first sub-chamber, the passage configured to deliver the fluid into the first sub-chamber (see the inlet to the pneumatic side which includes the pod pressure sensor as in e.g. Fig 7); and an outlet connected to the reservoir of the second sub-chamber (see the fluid outlet and the “To” passage e.g. in Fig 7), the outlet including an outlet tube (see the inlet and outlet tube of the pod pump in Fig 7, and the inlet and outlet tubes of pod pumps e.g. 502, 504 in e.g. Figs 800D and 1500B or the tubes e.g. 1200, 1300, or 1400 in e.g. Figs 1200, 1300, and 1400 and Figs 800B-800C and e.g. 0414) that is in fluid communication with a platform (500, 600, or 700 in e.g. Fig 800A, and e.g. 0414). Regarding the limitations the platform being configured to support a microfluidic chip, any of 500, 600 or 700 can support a microfluidic chip as all the claim requires is support which could simply mean a microfluidic chip is placed on one of the platforms 500, 600, or 700 and these platforms would be capable of supporting the microfluidic chip should such a chip be placed thereon.
Regarding the limitations the outlet including a dispensing rate controlling fluidic resistor, in addition to the fluidic resistors shown in Figs 1 and 3, in applicant’s specification at page 9 lines 2-5 states: “It is noted that fluidic resistance can, alternatively, be achieved by providing a small diameter passage through which discharged liquid must pass. For instance, a small diameter tube can be connected to the outlet44 of the pipe to provide resistance similar to that provided by the fluidic resistor 52”. And, on page 3 lines 9-14 of applicant’s specification applicant states: “In the following disclosure, various specific embodiments are described. It is to be understood that those embodiments are example implementations of the disclosed inventions and that alternative embodiments are possible.” The specification provides only example embodiments with no particular structure limiting the fluidic resistor or specifications for fluidic resistance and the claims do not specify any particular structure or specifications for fluidic resistance for the fluidic resistor. Even a tube itself can be considered a fluidic resistor. Thus, the outlet tube extending from the pump of Grant would meet the limitations of the claim. Also, the outlet valve of Grant would meet the limitations of the claim as it provides backflow fluidic resistance and provides some degree of resistance to forward flow as it restricts the flow through the outlet tube at least when the valve opens and closes and the diameter of the outlet passage is restricted. Thus, Grant meets the limitations of the claim.
In any event, if applicant is attempting to claim the type of fluidic resistor structure shown in Figs 1 and 3 of applicant’s specification, the examiner turs to Lee.
Lee discloses the use of a fluidic resistor 14 of the type shown in applicant’s Figs 1 and 3.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the type of fluidic resistor structure shown in Figs 1 and 3 of applicant’s specification in the system of Grant as taught by Lee to gain the benefit of controlling the flow rate of the fluid from the pump as desired.
Grant as modified above discloses (all references to Grant unless noted otherwise):
2. The pump of claim 1, wherein the second sub-chamber is configured to, in a deformed state, dispense the liquid when the second pressure in the second sub-chamber being applied on the deformable membrane is less than the first pressure of the fluid in the first sub-chamber being applied on the deformable membrane (see positive pressure for the pneumatic chamber in e.g. 0224).
3. The pump of claim 1, further comprising: an air chamber, wherein the passage connects the air chamber to the first sub-chamber (see positive pressure reservoir in e.g. Fig 7 and the passage connecting the positive pressure reservoir to the pneumatic side in e.g. Fig 7).
4. The pump of claim 3, wherein the air chamber includes the fluid, and wherein the fluid comprises pressurized air (see pneumatic side in Fig 7 and pneumatic air source in e.g. 0330).
5. The pump of claim 4, further comprising an air inlet for supplying the pressurized air to the air chamber (see positive pressure reservoir in e.g. Fig 7 wherein fluid must be supplied to the reservoir via some form of inlet to maintain the pressure in the reservoir as in 0226-0227).
6. The pump of claim 1, further comprising a liquid inlet connected to the second sub-chamber for filling the reservoir with the liquid (see fluid inlet in e.g. Fig 7 and liquid throughout including 0187).
Regarding claim 9, Grant does not disclose the limitations of claim 9.
However, Lee discloses:
Claim 9: a debubbler 16 in fluid communication with the outlet (see e.g. Fig 1A), the debubbler being configured to remove bubbles from dispensed liquid (see e.g. bubble free throughout including the abstract, and the gas flux created from the concentration gradient across the porous barrier layer degasses air from the fluidic channel network by diffusive transport in 0053).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a debubbler as taught by Lee in the system of Grant to gain the benefit of providing bubble free microfluidic pumping as taught by Lee in the abstract.
21. (New) The pump of claim 1 further comprising a connector between the outlet tube and the platform (see annotated Fig 800D herein wherein a connector exists on the inlet/outlet to interface with the platform 500, 600, or 700 and on the interface of each end of 1200, 1300, 1400 with the platforms 500, 600, or 700, and see Figs 800A-C with the assembled connections).
PNG
media_image1.png
790
1170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant US 20080216898 in view of Lee US 20160144362 in further view of Sparholt US 20070066955.
Regarding claim 7, Grant discloses a liquid inlet for delivering the liquid to the reservoir (see fluid inlet in Fig 7 and liquid throughout including 0187). Grant does not disclose a resealable septum associated with the liquid inlet, and delivering, via a resealable septum associated with the liquid inlet, the liquid to the reservoir.
Sparholt discloses:
Claim 7: a resealable septum 261 associated with the liquid inlet 272 (see e.g. 0013, 0061).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a septum as taught by Larsen in the system of Grant to allow fluid to be delivered to the pump inlet as taught by Sparholt in the system of Grant to gain the benefit of enabling a user to supply fluid to the pump inlet with a needle.
Claim(s) 11-16, 19, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant US 20080216898 in view of Lee US 20160144362 in further view of Huang US 20110109325.
Grant discloses:
11. A method for pumping via a pump (see e.g. Fig 7), comprising: introducing liquid into a pump chamber (see the fluid chamber, the pneumatic chamber, and the membrane therebetween in e.g. Fig 7, and see liquid throughout including 0187), the pump chamber comprising a first sub-chamber (see pneumatic side in e.g. Fig 7), a second sub-chamber (see the fluid chamber in e.g. Fig 7), and a deformable membrane (see the membrane between the fluid side and the pneumatic side in Fig 7, and e.g. 0223-0224, and e.g. Figs 6A-6B), the deformable membrane dividing the pump chamber into the first sub-chamber and the second sub- chamber (see e.g. Fig 7), the second sub-chamber defining a reservoir configured to contain the liquid to be dispensed (see e.g. Fig 7); introducing, via a passage, fluid to the first sub-chamber (see the inlet to the pneumatic side which includes the pod pressure sensor as in e.g. Fig 7); pressurizing the fluid in the first sub-chamber to compress the deformable membrane (see positive pressure for the pneumatic chamber in e.g. 0224); and in response to the compressed deformable membrane, dispensing the liquid through an output connected to the second sub-chamber (see the fluid outlet and the “To” passage e.g. in Fig 7).
Regarding the limitation the output in fluid communication with a microfluidic chip, Grant discloses sensor element housing accommodating sensor elements including a conductivity sensor (see e.g. 0271). However, Grant does not provide any details of the conductivity sensor and thus does not specifically disclose the use of a microfluidic chip conductivity sensor.
However, Huang discloses microfluidic chip conductivity sensors (see e.g. 0012).
A simple substitution of one conductivity sensor (the conductivity sensor of Huang) for another (the conductivity sensor of Grant) with the predictable result of measuring the conductivity of a fluid has been held obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a microfluidic chip conductivity sensor as taught by Huang in the system of Grant to gain the benefit of utilizing a known type of conductivity sensor.
Regarding the limitations and comprising a dispensing rate controlling fluidic resistor, in addition to the fluidic resistors shown in Figs 1 and 3, in applicant’s specification at page 9 lines 2-5 states: “It is noted that fluidic resistance can, alternatively, be achieved by providing a small diameter passage through which discharged liquid must pass. For instance, a small diameter tube can be connected to the outlet44 of the pipe to provide resistance similar to that provided by the fluidic resistor 52”. And, on page 3 lines 9-14 of applicant’s specification applicant states: “In the following disclosure, various specific embodiments are described. It is to be understood that those embodiments are example implementations of the disclosed inventions and that alternative embodiments are possible.” The specification provides only example embodiments with no particular structure limiting the fluidic resistor or specifications for fluidic resistance and the claims do not specify any particular structure or specifications for fluidic resistance for the fluidic resistor. Even a tube itself can be considered a fluidic resistor. Thus, the outlet tube extending from the pump of Grant would meet the limitations of the claim. Also, the outlet valve of Grant would meet the limitations of the claim as it provides backflow fluidic resistance and provides some degree of resistance to forward flow as it restricts the flow through the outlet tube at least when the valve opens and closes and the diameter of the outlet passage is restricted. Thus, Grant meets the limitations of the claim.
In any event, if applicant is attempting to claim the type of fluidic resistor structure shown in Figs 1 and 3 of applicant’s specification, the examiner turs to Lee.
Lee discloses the use of a dispensing rate controlling fluidic resistor 14 of the type shown in applicant’s Figs 1 and 3.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the type of fluidic resistor structure shown in Figs 1 and 3 of applicant’s specification in the system of Grant as taught by Lee to gain the benefit of controlling the flow rate of the fluid from the pump as desired.
Grant as modified above discloses (all references are made to Grant unless specifically stated otherwise):
12. The method of claim 11, wherein introducing the liquid to the pump chamber comprises: inserting the liquid into the second sub-chamber to generate a restoring force to the deformable membrane (see negative pressure for the pneumatic chamber in e.g. 0224 which creates a force imbalance that causes the liquid to enter the fluid chamber and exert/generate a greater force on the membrane than the pneumatic side which restores the deformable membrane to its full position as in e.g. Fig 6A-6B).
13. The method of claim 11, wherein pressurizing the fluid in the first sub- chamber comprises: pressuring the fluid in the first sub-chamber with a first pressure in the first sub- chamber to be greater than a second pressure of the liquid in the second sub-chamber (see positive pressure for the pneumatic chamber in e.g. 0224).
14. The method of claim 11, further comprising: inserting the fluid into an air chamber being connected to the passage (see positive pressure reservoir in e.g. Fig 7 and the passage connecting the positive pressure reservoir to the pneumatic side in e.g. Fig 7).
15. The method of claim 14, further comprising: supplying, via an air inlet connected to the air chamber, the fluid to the air chamber (see positive pressure reservoir in e.g. Fig 7 wherein fluid must be supplied to the reservoir via some form of inlet to maintain the pressure in the reservoir as in 0226-0227).
16. The method of claim 11, further comprising: filling, via a liquid inlet connected to the second sub-chamber, the reservoir with the liquid (see fluid inlet in e.g. Fig 7 and liquid throughout including 0187).
Regarding claim 19, Grant does not disclose the limitations of claim 19.
However, Lee discloses:
Claim 19: removing, via a debubbler 16 in fluid communication with an outlet (see e.g. Fig 1A), bubbles from the dispensed liquid (see e.g. bubble free throughout including the abstract, and the gas flux created from the concentration gradient across the porous barrier layer degasses air from the fluidic channel network by diffusive transport in 0053).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a debubbler as taught by Lee in the system of Grant to gain the benefit of providing bubble free microfluidic pumping as taught by Lee in the abstract.
Regarding claim 22, Grant discloses sensor element housing accommodating/supporting sensor elements including a conductivity sensor (see e.g. 0271). However, Grant does not provide any details of the conductivity sensor and thus does not specifically disclose a microfluidic chip supported by the platform.
However, Huang discloses microfluidic chip conductivity sensors (see e.g. 0012).
A simple substitution of one conductivity sensor (the conductivity sensor of Huang) for another (the conductivity sensor of Grant) with the predictable result of measuring the conductivity of a fluid has been held obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a microfluidic chip conductivity sensor as taught by Huang in the system of Grant to gain the benefit of utilizing a known type of conductivity sensor.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant US 20080216898 in view of Lee US 20160144362 in further view of Huang US 20110109325 in further view of Sparholt US 20070066955.
Regarding claim 17, Grant discloses a liquid inlet for delivering the liquid to the reservoir (see fluid inlet in Fig 7 and liquid throughout including 0187). Grant does not disclose a resealable septum associated with the liquid inlet, and delivering, via a resealable septum associated with the liquid inlet, the liquid to the reservoir.
Sparholt discloses:
Claim 17: delivering, via a resealable septum 261 associated with the liquid inlet 272, the liquid to the reservoir (see e.g. 0013, 0061, and “supplying a liquid to the reservoir” in 0004).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a septum as taught by Larsen in the system of Grant as modified above to allow fluid to be delivered to the pump inlet as taught by Sparholt in the system of Grant to gain the benefit of enabling a user to supply fluid to the pump inlet with a needle.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant US 20080216898 in view of Sparholt US 20070066955 in further view of Larsen US 20120226235 as evidenced by Pudil US 20140158588.
Grant discloses:
20. (Currently Amended) A miniature pressure-driven pump (see e.g. Fig 7) comprising: a pump body (see body in annotated Fig 7 herein) comprising an internal air chamber (see e.g. the positive pressure reservoir in Fig 7), an internal pump chamber (see e.g. annotated Fig 7 herein), and an internal passage connecting the internal air chamber to the internal pump chamber (see annotated Fig 7 herein), the pump body further comprising an air inlet in fluid communication with the air chamber (see annotated Fig 7 herein), a liquid inlet in fluid communication with the pump chamber (see annotated Fig 7 herein), and a liquid outlet in fluid communication with the pump chamber (see annotated Fig 7 herein); a deformable membrane provided within the pump chamber that divides the pump chamber into an air sub-chamber and a liquid sub-chamber (see membrane inside the internal pump chamber in annotated Fig 7 herein that divides the internal pump chamber into the pneumatic side chamber and the fluid side chamber, and e.g. 0223-0224, and e.g. Figs 6A-6B), the liquid sub-chamber defining a liquid reservoir configured to contain liquid to be dispensed (see “fluid” side in Fig 7 and liquid throughout including 0187), the liquid sub-chamber in an undeformed state containing the liquid with a first pressure in the liquid sub-chamber to the deformable membrane being equal to or greater than a second pressure of fluid in the air sub- chamber to the deformable membrane (see e.g. negative pressure for the pneumatic chamber in 0224, and e.g. Figs 6A-6B); a valve provided within the air inlet through which air can pass to fill the air chamber with pressurized air (see positive supply valve in Fig 7).
Grant does not disclose a septum provided within the liquid inlet through which the liquid can pass to fill the liquid reservoir with the liquid.
Sparholt discloses a septum 261 provided within the liquid inlet 272 through which the liquid can pass to fill the liquid reservoir (see e.g. 0013, 0061, and “supplying a liquid to the reservoir” in 0004).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a septum as taught by Sparholt in the system of Grant to allow fluid to be delivered to the pump inlet as taught by Sparholt in the system of Grant to gain the benefit of enabling a user to supply fluid to the pump inlet with a needle.
Grant as modified above does not disclose a debubbler in fluid communication with the liquid outlet, the debubbler being configured to remove bubbles from the dispensed liquid from the liquid reservoir.
Larsen discloses a debubbler 81 in fluid communication with the outlet (see Fig 1A), the debubbler being configured to remove bubbles from dispensed liquid (see e.g. 0037).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a debubbler as taught by Larsen in the system of Grant as modified above to gain the benefit of removing air bubbles.
Regarding the limitations a fluidic resistor in fluid communication with the outlet, the fluidic resistor being configured to control a rate of flow of the dispensed liquid from the debubbler, it is noted that the debubbler would be in communication with the outlet check valve as both are connected to the liquid outlet of the pump chamber. Thus, Grant as modified above discloses a fluidic resistor (outlet check valve of Grant as shown in e.g. Fig 7) in fluid communication with the outlet (see e.g. Fig 7), the fluidic resistor being configured to control a rate of flow of the dispensed liquid from the debubbler (the outlet check valve controls the rate of flow of the dispensed liquid from the pump e.g. flowing from the debubbler in a reverse direction [backflow] from the debubbler as evidenced by Pudil in e.g. 0194: ‘The term "one-way valve" refers to a device that allows flow to pass in one direction through the valve, but prevents or substantially resists flow through the valve in the opposite direction. Such devices can include devices commonly referred to as check valves’).
Grant as modified above discloses (all references to Grant unless specifically noted otherwise):
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant US 20080216898 in view of Sparholt US 20070066955 in further view of Larsen US 20120226235 in further view of Pulitzer US 20190144914.
Grant discloses:
23. (Currently Amended) A miniature pressure-driven pump (see e.g. Fig 7) comprising: a pump body (see body in annotated Fig 7 herein) comprising an internal air chamber (see e.g. the positive pressure reservoir in Fig 7), an internal pump chamber (see e.g. annotated Fig 7 herein), and an internal passage connecting the internal air chamber to the internal pump chamber (see annotated Fig 7 herein), the pump body further comprising an air inlet in fluid communication with the air chamber (see annotated Fig 7 herein), a liquid inlet in fluid communication with the pump chamber (see annotated Fig 7 herein), and a liquid outlet in fluid communication with the pump chamber (see annotated Fig 7 herein); a deformable membrane provided within the pump chamber that divides the pump chamber into an air sub-chamber and a liquid sub-chamber (see membrane inside the internal pump chamber in annotated Fig 7 herein that divides the internal pump chamber into the pneumatic side chamber and the fluid side chamber, and e.g. 0223-0224, and e.g. Figs 6A-6B), the liquid sub-chamber defining a liquid reservoir configured to contain liquid to be dispensed (see “fluid” side in Fig 7 and liquid throughout including 0187), the liquid sub-chamber in an undeformed state containing the liquid with a first pressure in the liquid sub-chamber to the deformable membrane being equal to or greater than a second pressure of fluid in the air sub- chamber to the deformable membrane (see e.g. negative pressure for the pneumatic chamber in 0224, and e.g. Figs 6A-6B); a valve provided within the air inlet through which air can pass to fill the air chamber with pressurized air (see positive supply valve in Fig 7); wherein the deformable membrane includes a base (see e.g. 116 in Fig 1A and e.g. 62 in Fig 6G) that is supported on a base surface of the pump chamber (the surface of the pump chamber which supports 116 in e.g. Fig 1A).
Grant does not disclose a capacity of the liquid reservoir is 1000 wL.
However, these limitations would be met by simply scaling up or down the size of the device of Grant which has been held obvious as per MPEP 2144.04 IV A: “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a pump of the claimed capacity to gain the benefit of using a device of a desired size.
Grant does not disclose a septum provided within the liquid inlet through which the liquid can pass to fill the liquid reservoir with the liquid.
Sparholt discloses a septum 261 provided within the liquid inlet 272 through which the liquid can pass to fill the liquid reservoir (see e.g. 0013, 0061, and “supplying a liquid to the reservoir” in 0004).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a septum as taught by Sparholt in the system of Grant to allow fluid to be delivered to the pump inlet as taught by Sparholt in the system of Grant to gain the benefit of enabling a user to supply fluid to the pump inlet with a needle.
Grant as modified above does not disclose a debubbler in fluid communication with the liquid outlet, the debubbler being configured to remove bubbles from the dispensed liquid from the liquid reservoir; and a fluidic resistor in fluid communication with the debubbler, the fluidic resistor being configured to control a rate of flow of the dispensed liquid from the debubbler; wherein the fluidic resistor includes a plurality of channels in fluid communication with the debubbler and an outlet tube; and wherein the air chamber and the pump chamber are arranged upstream of the fluidic resistor.
Larsen discloses a debubbler 81 in fluid communication with the outlet (see Fig 1A), the debubbler being configured to remove bubbles from dispensed liquid (see e.g. 0037).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a debubbler as taught by Larsen in the system of Grant as modified above to gain the benefit of removing air bubbles.
Pulitzer discloses the use of a fluidic resistor 316 at the outlet of a pump 320 wherein the fluidic resistor includes a plurality of channels (see e.g. Fig 3A).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a fluidic resistor as taught by Pulitzer in the system of Grant as modified above to gain the benefit of controlling the flow rate of fluid from the pump.
With these modifications, Grant as modified above would wherein the fluidic resistor includes a plurality of channels (see e.g. Fig 3A of Pulitzer) in fluid communication with the debubbler and an outlet tube (the debubbler and the fluidic resistor are at the outlet of the pump as taught by Larsen and Pulitzer); and wherein the air chamber and the pump chamber are arranged upstream of the fluidic resistor (as best understood, the pump of Grant is upstream of the outlet of the pump).
PNG
media_image2.png
788
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
577
597
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the pending claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the limitations and comprising a dispensing rate controlling fluidic resistor, in addition to the fluidic resistors shown in Figs 1 and 3, in applicant’s specification at page 9 lines 2-5 states: “It is noted that fluidic resistance can, alternatively, be achieved by providing a small diameter passage through which discharged liquid must pass. For instance, a small diameter tube can be connected to the outlet44 of the pipe to provide resistance similar to that provided by the fluidic resistor 52”. And, on page 3 lines 9-14 of applicant’s specification applicant states: “In the following disclosure, various specific embodiments are described. It is to be understood that those embodiments are example implementations of the disclosed inventions and that alternative embodiments are possible.” The specification provides only example embodiments with no particular structure limiting the fluidic resistor or specifications for fluidic resistance and the claims do not specify any particular structure or specifications for fluidic resistance for the fluidic resistor. Even a tube itself can be considered a fluidic resistor. Thus, the outlet tube extending from the pump of Grant would meet the limitations of the claim. Also, the outlet valve of Grant would meet the limitations of the claim as it provides backflow fluidic resistance and provides some degree of resistance to forward flow as it restricts the flow through the outlet tube at least when the valve opens and closes and the diameter of the outlet passage is restricted. Thus, Grant meets the limitations of the claim.
Regarding applicant’s other arguments, new references Lee and Pulitzer, are now being used to teach the limitations which applicant argues.
Applicant is invited to set up and interview to further the discussions in the previous interview in an attempt to bring the application to allowance.
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 THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746