DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 5, 6, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ocola (U.S. Publication 2012/0218857).
Regarding claim 1, Ocola teaches a flow channel structure (figure 1) comprising: a first flow channel (item 12); and a second flow channel that joins the first flow channel (item 18), wherein an end of the second flow channel close to the first flow channel has a first region having a depth shallower than a depth of the first flow channel (item 18 has a shallow depth compared to item 12) wherein a direction of the first flow channel is bent with respect to a direction to direction of the second flow channel (item 11 has a portion that bends upward towards item 18, see annotated figure 1 below), and wherein the direction of the first flow channel intersects a plane defined by a depth direction of the first region and the direction of the second flow channel (a plane can be extending from item 20 to item 12 that intersects the direction of flow from item 11 to item 18).
Regarding claim 2, Ocola teaches wherein the first flow channel and the second flow channel are cavities formed inside the flow channel structure (figure 4 shows the well configuration in which the channels are cavities in the housing of the micromixer).
Regarding claim 5, Ocola teaches further comprising a third flow channel connected in series to an immediately upstream of a joining point of the first flow channel to the second flow channel (item 14 is connected upstream of the joining point of item 12 and item 18).
Regarding claim 6, Ocola teaches wherein the third flow channel is a cavity formed inside the flow structure (figure 4 shows the housing in which all the channels are considered cavities formed in the housing).
Regarding claim 16, Ocola teaches a method for agitating a fluid using a flow channel structure (paragraph 34 microfluidic device is considered reading on a flow channel structure and paragraph 34 teaches agitating fluid), the flow channel structure (figure 3A) including a first flow channel (item 52 which is taught as a deep segment in paragraph 46) and a second flow channel that joins the first flow channel (item 50), in which an end of the second flow channel close to the first flow channel has a first region having a depth shallower than a depth of the first flow channel (paragraph 46 teaches item 50 is shallow while item 52 is deep), wherein a direction of the first flow channel is bent with respect to a direction to direction of the second flow channel (item 11 has a portion that bends upward towards item 18, see annotated figure 1 below), and wherein the direction of the first flow channel intersects a plane defined by a depth direction of the first region and the direction of the second flow channel (a plane can be extending from item 20 to item 12 that intersects the direction of flow from item 11 to item 18) the method comprising; flowing a first fluid from the second flow channel to the first flow channel (paragraph 46 teaches a fluid flowing from item 50 to item 52).
PNG
media_image1.png
696
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 17, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ocola (U.S. Publication 2012/0218857).
Regarding claim 3, Ocola teaches item 18 has a shallow depth compared to item 12. Regarding claim 3, Ocola is silent to the first region specifically having a depth of less than ½ of the depth of the first flow channel. Regarding claim 3, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the depth by the specific amount upstream in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 4, Ocola teaches multiple inlets feeding at 90 degrees from the first inlet (items 14 and 16). Regarding claim 4, Ocola is silent to the second flow channel feeding at 90 degrees. Regarding claim 4, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the shape of the mixer in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, Ocola teaches wherein the third flow channel and the first flow channel form an integrated linear flow channel (items 11 and 14 form a linear flow channel in item 30). Regarding claim 7, Ocola is silent to the second flow channel flowing at a right angle. Regarding claim 7, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the shape of the mixer in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, Ocola teaches an angle formed between the second flow channel and a third flow channel is a right angle (items 14 and 18 are perpendicular to each other). Regarding claim 8, Ocola is silent to the symmetrical configuration. Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the shape of the mixer in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 17, Ocola teaches item 50 has a shallow depth compared to item 52 (see paragraph 46). Regarding claim 17, Ocola is silent to the first region specifically having a depth of less than ½ of the depth of the first flow channel. Regarding claim 17, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the depth by the specific amount upstream in order to obtain the desired fluid velocities since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 18, Ocola teaches an embodiment wherein the third flow channel and the first flow channel are connected in series (figure 1 items 11 and 14 form a linear flow channel in item 30) and feeding material from multiple channels to a downstream region of the mixer (figure 1 items 11 and 14 feed to the micromixer downstream). Regarding claim 18, Ocola is silent to the shape of the third flow channel upstream of the joining point of the two channels. Regarding claim 18, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the shape of the mixer in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed
Response to Arguments
The remarks regarding the objections of claims 14, 15, 21, and 22 have been considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment to the claims. Therefore, the objections of claims 14, 15, 21, and 22 are withdrawn.
The remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) rejection of claims 1 and 16 have been considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Ocola (U.S. Publication 2012/0218857) does not teach the amended claim language wherein a direction of the first flow channel is bent with respect to a direction to direction of the second flow channel, and wherein the direction of the first flow channel intersects a plane defined by a depth direction of the first region and the direction of the second flow channel as claimed in independent claims 1 and 16. However, Ocola teaches a direction of the flow channel is bent with respect to a direction of the second flow channel (see provided annotated figure 1) and wherein the direction of the first flow channel intersects a plane defined by a depth direction of the first region and the direction of the second flow channel (a plane can extend from items 20 to 12 that intersects the flow direction through item 11 and item 18). Therefore, amended claims 1 and 16 are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1).
The remarks regarding the remaining rejected claims are based off the rejection of claims 1 and 16 and are rejected accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 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 for the reasons stated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/20/2025.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights