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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on November, 11, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the absolute pressure sensor (claim 3); the fluidic mixer, each hydraulic resistor, the sample analysis module, or combinations thereof include microfluidic devices/devices and with lateral channel dimensions as recited in claims 7-8; a manifold comprising the elements as recited in claims 9-10; and a separator including a compliant partition (claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
It is noted that although the claims mention a fluidic sample, reagents, fluid source, a pressurization fluid, sample fluid, homogenized mixture, and gas. None of such are positively claimed as structural elements of the claimed invention. All of such, are materials and/or articles that are intended to be, can be worked upon, used with the claimed invention. However, it is noted that the claims are directed to an apparatus not a process of use. The claimed invention is not required to be used in any method at all nor used to perform any steps with any of the unclaimed materials and articles, including as may be intended by applicant. The various “for…” (such as “for analyzing….”, “for holding…”, “for selectively applying…”, “for homogenizing”, etc.), “configured to…”, and “to…” (such as “to flow”, “so as to…”, etc.) clauses recited throughout the claims are directed to intended use and do not provide for any further structural elements of the invention.
It is noted that the phrase “one or more” only requires one.
It is noted that term “fluid” (fluidic) is a liquid or gas.
It is noted that the fluidic mixer, fluid source, and pressurization module recited in claim 1 are not defined as being any specific structures. The same is applicable to a hydraulic resistor, pressure sensor, sample analysis module, pressurized gas source, and separator recited in respective claims 2-9 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-14 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.
As to claim 1, although the “for” clause of the preamble is directed to intended use, it is unclear how the claim defines an “analysis system” for receiving and analyzing a fluidic sample because there is no structural element positively claimed that is capable of performing any analysis of a fluidic sample.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same or different reagents" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No reagents have been previously positively claim. Furthermore, only one reagent storage container is required to be present.
It is presumed that the phrase “the one or more containers” is intended to refer “the one or more reagent storage containers”. If so, consistent terminology should be employed throughout the clams to clearly indicate such. See such phrase employed throughout the claims such as in claims 4-5 and 9.
It is unclear what/which container(s) is/are being referenced by the phrase “each container” in claims 1 and 12. It is unclear what is the nexus of such to the “one or more reagent storage containers” because the claims do not provide for such. If applicant intends for the invention require the presence of a plurality of reagent storage containers or a specific number of regent storage containers to be present, then the claim should clearly recite such.
As to claim 1, it is unclear if applicant intends for the system to comprise different reagent conduits because the claim does not clearly recite such. If so, it is noted that only one reagent container is required to be present. However, to be consistent, it would appear that the claim should clearly list a required number of reagent conduits that is consistent with the number of required reagent storage containers such as “one or more reagent conduits respectively coupled to one of the one or more regent storage containers and the fluidic mixer” or something similar. It is noted that any channel that is not the same exact one conduit, is “different”.
It is unclear what/which reagent conduit(s) is/are being referenced by the phrase “each reagent conduit” in claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-8. It is unclear what is the nexus of such to the “different reagent conduit” because the claims do not provide for such.
Furthermore, it is noted that a valve is not currently “controlling” any flow of any reagent. No reagent is positively claimed, nor required to be flowing. Furthermore, the valve alone is not capable of controlling any flow because the valve cannot control itself nor provide for any motive force to any reagent to produce any flow.
As to claim 1, it is unclear if applicant intends for the invention to comprise “a fluid source” as a structural element of the invention because as presently drafted such is not claimed as an element. Reciting that the previously positively claimed fluidic mixer is coupled to a fluid source does not require the fluid source to be an element of the claimed invention. Furthermore, although not positively claimed as an element of the invention, it is unclear what is the nexus of “a fluidic sample” recited in the 2nd paragraph to the ”a fluidic sample” recited in the preamble and “reagent” in the phrase ”with reagent” to the previously recited “the same or different reagents”, if such are the same or different because the claim does not provide for such. The term “and” appears to be missing from between the last 2 paragraphs, elements.
As to the last paragraph of claim 1, it is unclear if “a pressurization fluid” (not specified as being any specific fluid (material, substance, etc.) is intended to an element of the invention. As presently, drafted such pressurization fluid is not positively claimed as element nor required to be “kept” in any positively claimed element.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sample fluid" in line 2 of the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this intended to be the same or different from “a fluidic sample” (previously recited 2 times). See above.
Furthermore, it is unclear what the phrase “and to…” is meant to modify because the claim does not clearly recite such.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the reagent in the one or more containers" in next-to-last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. None of the “one or more [reagent storage] containers have been claimed as containing any reagent. Furthermore, it is unclear what is a “selected” container (because no selecting is required to occur) and the nexus of such to the one or more reagent storage containers because the claim does not provide for such.
Dependent claims 2-14 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations " the pressure difference between…”, “the fluid source entering the fluidic mixer” and “the ambient pressure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. There is no prior mention of any pressure difference, fluid source entering the fluidic mixer, and ambient pressure. Furthermore, it is unclear how the fluid source (a structure) can enter the fluidic mixer.
As to claim 4, it is unclear what the phrase “that is calculated” references. Furthermore, it is noted that there is no calculating of anything required to be performed nor are any of the positively claimed structural elements recited as having any ability to calculate anything. Therefore, it is unclear what is further structurally required by the phrase.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the pressure sensed by the sample pressure sensor." in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that no sensing of any pressure is required to be performed. See also prior applicable rejections above.
As to claim 5, it is noted that any hydraulic resistor can be categorize as “specific”. It is further unclear what/which reagent is being referenced by “the reagent”. Furthermore, it is unclear what the pronoun “its” (no hydraulic resistor is previously claimed as being “associated” with anything; it is noted that all of the elements are vaguely, broadly “associated” with one another; the term “associated” does not provide for any specific structural nexus/relationship) and the phrase “and is at partially based on…” is intended to modify because the claim does not clearly indicate such. See also prior applicable rejections above.
Claim 5 recites the limitations " the pressure measured by the sample pressure sensor” and “the value of the associated hydraulic resistor." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what value (of what) a hydraulic resistor has because the claim does not provide for such.
Claim 6 recites the limitations " the homogenized mixture….” and “the at least one of the one or more reagents.". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although not claimed as elements of the invention, no such homogenized mixture and one more reagents have been previously recited. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of “the one or more reagents” to “the same or different reagents” recited in claim 1 because the claim does not provide for such.
As to claims 7-8, it is unclear what/which reagent conduit(s) is/are being referenced by the phrase “each hydraulic resistor” because the claim does not clearly recite such. There is no requirement for more that one hydraulic resistor to be present. Furthermore, it is unclear what the phrase “thereof” references; what is required to include microfluidic devices (more than one); what is structurally required to be considered a microfluidic device (it is noted that all of the prior recited can be considered as “microfluidic devices”) because the claim does not clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is unclear what are structurally considered as “lateral channel dimensions”, if such are actual channels or a dimensions (width, length, diameter, etc.) of channels because claim does not clearly provide for such. It is noted that a microfluidic device is not claimed as comprising any channel(s).
As to claim 8, it is unclear what is required to include “devices” (more than one); what is structurally required to be considered a device (it is noted that all of the prior recited can be considered as “devices”) because the claim does not clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is noted that “MEMS technology” is not defined in the claim and is not structure. It is noted that what technology/process may have been employed to manufacture any structural element of the invention does not provide for a structural limitation of the invention.
As to claim 9, it is noted that “the pressurized fluid” is not a structural element of the invention. Therefore, the “wherein” clause of line 1 does not provide for any further structural limitation. Furthermore, it is unclear if applicant intends for the invention to comprise a manifold because the claim does not recite such. Reciting that the previously positively claimed pressurized gas source is coupled to an inlet of a manifold does not require the manifold (including the inlet and other structure of the manifold, such as a pneumatic pressure senor, pressure release port, etc.) to be an element of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the pressure of the gas in the manifold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No manifold has been positively claimed nor has any gas been claimed as being located in the manifold. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of such “the gas” in such phrase and in the phrase “the gas to escape” to the “a gas” recited in in the first line of the claim and “pressurized gas source” because claim does not provide for such.
As to claim 10, the manifold has not been positively claimed as element of the invention. See prior rejections of claim 9. Furthermore, it is noted that no controlling of anything by anything is required to be performed. See also claim 11.
As to claim 12, it is unclear if applicant intends for the invention to comprise a pressure housing(s) because the claim does not clearly recite such. Reciting that each container (only one container is required to be present) is located in a housing does not require any housing to be an element of the invention. Furthermore, the pressurization fluid is not an element of the invention and is not currently applying any pressure to anything.
As to claims 12-13, no reagents have been previously positively claimed. However, it is unclear what reagents are being referenced by “the reagents” and “the reagent” in claim 13 because the claims do not provide for such.
As to claim 13, see prior rejection of claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the pressure fluid"; “their contact”; and “the transmission of the pressure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different from “the pressurization fluid”. Furthermore, it is unclear what the pronoun “their” references. No such transmission and pressure have been previously recited.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the compliant separator". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required by the term “compliant” and is structurally required to be “a compliant separator” and “a compliant partition” because such are not structurally defined in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2)as being anticipated by Angelescu et al, US 2014/0219872.
Angelescu discloses a reagent delivery and analysis system for receiving and analyzing a fluidic sample (a microfluidic sensor for analyzing a fluid includes a mixer for mixing the fluid with a reactant and analyzing the resulting mixture; Abstract; figures 1-3), the system comprising: one or more reagent storage containers for holding the same or different reagents (tanks 6 contain a chemical reactant 7 and several other tanks, for example tank 12 include a chemical reactant which may be the same or different from the chemical reactant 7; paragraphs [0066, 0070-0072]);
a fluidic mixer coupled to the one or more containers, each container coupled to the fluidic mixer via a different reagent conduit, each reagent conduit including a valve controlling flow of reagent from the container to the fluidic mixer, the fluidic mixer further coupled to a fluid source, the fluidic mixer for homogenizing a fluidic sample from the fluid source with reagent (as shown in figure 2, a mixer M is coupled to tanks 6, 12, 13, etc. and each tank is coupled to mixer M via a different channel, the micro valves 19, 20 and 21 respectively disposed on the channels control the flow of reactants from the tanks to mixer M, the mixer Mis further coupled to water directly via the sampling channel 2b, the water and the chemical reactant 7 are combined in the passive mixer M to ensure the mixing of different fluid inlets, resulting in a well-mixed fluid at the outlet; figure 2; paragraphs [0067, 0075, 0076]); and
a pressurization module for selectively applying a pressure to at least one of the one or more containers via a pressurization fluid that is kept separate from the sample fluid, and to the reagent in the one or more containers, the pressure causing reagent to flow from a selected container into the fluidic mixer (a management module 18 comprises a processing unit U hardware and software to selectively control various electromechanical components of the microfluidic sensor including an analyzer A as well as micro valves 19, 20 and 21 respectively disposed on the channels between the mixer M and the tanks 6, 12 and 13 as well as a micro valve 22 disposed on the outlet channel 10, thereby controlling pressures according to pressure differences such that the water and/or chemical reactant flow in the channels 2, 2a, 2b, 3, 5, 8 and 10 communicate with each other directly or indirectly causing a pressure gradient between the filter 4 within the pipe and the outlet port 11, wherein at least reactant tanks 6 comprise a piston, a flexible membrane, or a sealed bag subjected to the pressure of water from the sample channel 2, and further comprises independent fluid pressurization of the pipe of one or more additional tanks 12, 13 or 14, with the result that reactants are provisioned according to the pressures exerted by the fluids coming from the sampling channel 2 or another sampling channel different from the sampling channel 2 such as directly via channel 3, and as shown in figure 2 are then combined within mixer M; figure 2; paragraphs [0052, 0066, 0069, 0073, 0075]).
As to claim 2, Angelescu discloses each reagent conduit further includes a hydraulic resistor (at least channels 2b and 5 include hydraulic constrictions which impose hydrodynamic resistance to the respective fluids; paragraph [0067]).
As to claim 3, Angelescu discloses the system further comprising a sample pressure sensor selected from one of a differential sample pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure difference between the fluid source entering the fluidic mixer and the ambient pressure, and an absolute pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure of the fluid source entering the fluidic mixer (a microfluidic sensor 1 connected to a pipe 3 through which water flows under a pressure of 5 bars, wherein the fluid moves in the sensor due to the difference in pressure between the environment to be monitored and the ambient atmosphere outside of the pipe which is the atmospheric pressure; figure 1; paragraphs [0015, 0063]).
As per claim 4, Angelescu discloses the pressurization module is configured to selectively apply pressure to at least one of the one or more containers that is calculated based on the pressure sensed by the sample pressure sensor (during an autonomous and automatic operation the management module 18 and processing unit U via hardware and software controls various electromechanical components of the microfluidic sensor, the management module 18 comprising a microprocessor and/or microcontroller which controls the micro valves 19, 20 and 21 respectively disposed on the channels between the mixer M and the tanks 6, 12 and 13, thus controlling system pressures; paragraph [0075]).
As to claim 5, Angelescu discloses each reagent conduit further includes a specific hydraulic resistor, and wherein the pressurization module is configured to selectively apply a pressure to at least one of the one or more containers so as to ensure a desired flow rate of the reagent through its associated hydraulic resistor into the fluidic mixer, and is at least partially based on the pressure measured by the sample pressure sensor and the value of the associated hydraulic resistor (the chemical reactant 7 is controlled using hydraulic constrictions made in the channels 2b and 5, respectively and the hydrodynamic resistance imposed by these constrictions define the flow rate of respective fluids via channels 2b and 5 respectively conveying water and the chemical reactant in the mixer M, the required concentration of the chemical reactant is imposed and controlled by the design of channels, the constrictions consist of defining the geometry of the channels 2b and 5 so that the ratio between the proportion of water and the proportion of reactant used is a predetermined measurement, and further during an autonomous and automatic operation the management module 18 comprising a microprocessor and/or microcontroller which controls the micro valves 19, 20 and 21 respectively disposed on the channels between the mixer M and the tanks 6, 12 and 13, thus controlling system pressures; paragraph [0067, 0070, 0075]).
As to claim 6, Angelescu discloses a sample analysis module for analyzing the homogenized mixture of the fluid sample and the at least one of the one or more reagents (as shown in figure 2, an analyzer A receives the mixture of water from sampling channel 2b and reactant 7 from tanks 6; figure 2; paragraph [0076]).
As to claim 7, Angelescu discloses each reagent conduit further includes a hydraulic resistor, and wherein the fluidic mixer, each hydraulic resistor, the sample analysis module, or combinations thereof include microfluidic devices with lateral channel dimensions between 1 and 1000 micrometers (hydraulic constrictions made in channels 2b and 5, respectively impose hydrodynamic resistance to define the flow rate of respective fluids to the mixer M and an analyzer A, the system comprising a microfluidic sensor 1 having submillimeter channels, with diameters ranging from 10 to 100 micrometers; figures 1, 2; paragraphs [0062, 0063, 0067, 0070,0075,0076]).
As to claim 8, Angelescu discloses each reagent conduit further includes a hydraulic resistor, and wherein the fluidic mixer, each hydraulic resistor, the sample analysis module, or combinations thereof include devices manufactured using MEMS technology (hydraulic constrictions made in channels 2b and 5, respectively impose hydrodynamic resistance to define the flow rate of respective fluids to the mixer M and an analyzer A, the system comprising a microfluidic sensor 1 including a sensor of the MEMS Microelectromechanical System type; figures 1, 2; paragraphs [0023, 0062, 0063, 0067, 0070, 0075, 0076]).
As to claim 12, Angelescu discloses each container is positioned within a pressure housing, the pressurization fluid applying pressure to the pressure housing which in turn Is transmitted to the reagents (as best shown in figure 2, within a pressurized housing of at least reactant tanks 6 is a piston, a flexible membrane, or a sealed bag subjected to the pressure of water from the sample channel 2; figures 1, 2; paragraph [0051, 0052, 0066, 0073]).
As to claim 13, Angelescu discloses the pressure housing further includes a separator between the reagent and the pressure fluid that prevents their contact but still allows the transmission of the pressure from the pressurization fluid to the reagent (as best shown in figure 2, within a pressurized housing of at least reactant tanks 6 is a separating piston, a separating flexible membrane, or a separating sealed bag subjected to the pressure of water from the sample channel 2 and which separates the chemical reactant 7 contained in the reactant tanks 6; figures 1, 2; paragraph [0051, 0052, 0066, 0073"]).
As to claim 14, Angelescu discloses the separator includes one of a compliant partition and a threaded bag (as best shown in figure 2, within a pressurized housing of at least reactant tanks 6 is, for example, a separating flexible membrane; figures 1, 2; paragraph [0051, 0052, 0066, 0073]).
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) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelescu et al, US 2014/0219872 as applied above, and further in view of Bergh et al., US 6,737,026.
Angelescu does not explicitly teach the pressurization fluid is a gas, the system further comprising a pressurized gas source coupled to an inlet port of a manifold, the manifold including a pneumatic pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure of the gas in the manifold, the manifold including a pressure release port for allowing the gas to escape the manifold, the manifold further including one or more outlet ports that are pneumatically coupled to the one or more containers.
Bergh discloses the pressurization fluid is a gas, the system further comprising a pressurized gas source coupled to an inlet port of a manifold, the manifold including a pneumatic pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure of the gas in the manifold, the manifold including a pressure release port for allowing the gas to escape the manifold, the manifold further Including one or more outlet ports that are pneumatically coupled to the one or more containers (as best shown in figure 1C, a fluid distribution system 480 also comprises gaseous reactant sources 482, e.g., gas cylinders, which are coupled to an inlet port 510 of a distribution manifold 500, the system is further coupled to a gas flow-control device 483 which is a mass-flow controller MFG thus having a pneumatic pressure sensor, the gas flow-control device 483 MFG thus both measuring and controlling the gas in the distribution manifold 500, the also includes pressure-relief valves as well as one or more control valves 484 operated by a controller 485 and coupled to gas sources 482 and liquid containers 490; figure 1C; column 30, lines 40-67; column 41, lines 8-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as taught by Angelescu to include the fluid distribution having gas sources, distribution manifold with ports and pressure relief valves, and a mass-flow controller MFG as taught by BERGH in order to develop a modular microfluidic distribution system wherein a chemical processing microsystem can be integrated into a material evaluation system that enables a comprehensive combinatorial material science research program (Abstract).
As per claim 10, Bergh also discloses where the manifold further includes on-off valves for controlling pneumatic connectivity from the Inlet port of the manifold to the pressure release port and to the one or multiple outlet ports, said on-off valves being controlled by the pressurization module based, at least in part, on the measured pressure of the gas in the manifold (the distribution manifold 500 in addition to its fluid-distribution function also provides a pressure reducing function in the supply manifold or in the discharge manifold, the pressure reduction can be achieved through microvalves and binary tree junctions as operated by the pneumatic controller 485; column 34, lines 58 through column 35, line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as taught by modified Angelescu to include the fluid distribution having gas sources, distribution manifold with ports and pressure relief valves, and a mass-flow controller MFG as taught by Bergh in order to develop a modular microfluidic distribution system wherein a chemical processing microsystem can be integrated Into a material evaluation system that enables a comprehensive combinatorial material science research program (Abstract).
As per to 11, Bergh also discloses where the pressurized gas source includes an air pump, the air pump controlled by the pressurization module so as to maintain a predetermined pressure setpoint value at the pneumatic pressure sensor (a gas flow-control device 483 which is a mass-flow controller MFG which thus measures and controls gas flow according to a set point, and the microfluidic system may similarly include components such as fluid-distribution valves and pumps, and moreover pressure control can additionally be realized through an effluent distribution manifold by providing flow resistance to maintain substantially the same reaction conditions for each microreactor according to a preferable design; BERGH column 1, lines 45-60; column 30, lines 40-48; column 49, lines 1-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as taught by modified Angelescu to include the fluid distribution having gas sources and pumps, distribution manifold with ports and pressure relief valves, and a mass-flow controller MFG as taught by Bergh in order to develop a modular microfluidic distribution system wherein a chemical processing microsystem can be Integrated into a material evaluation system that enables a comprehensive combinatorial material science research program (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CHIYOMARU; Masaru et al.; Lillis; Barry et al.; Shi; Wendian et al.; NAGAOKA; Yoshihiro et al.; Gonzalez Suarez; Alan M. et al.; Jaeggi; Rainer D. et al.; Kathe; Ulrich et al.; DeJohn; Marc et al.; Knopp; Matthias et al.; Ying; Jackie Y. et al.; KATHE; Ulrich et al.; and Beernink, Andrew et al. disclose devices and method for mixing substances.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798