Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 9/18/2023 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-14 are pending.
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
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 13/389,578, filed 8/13/2002, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
The added disclosure not presented in the prior application encompasses claims 1-11. Therefore, The Examiner assigns the filing date of 7/19/2023 to claims 1-11 as their priority date.
Claims 12-14 do not contain new disclosure. Therefore, The Examiner assigns the filing date of 8/13/2009 to claims 12-14 as their priority date.
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STRAND (US-2002/0176804), hereinafter STRAND. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 12, STRAND discloses A method of manipulating a mechanical property of an article or equipment {[abstract], [0007] note each fluid has its own property, thus changing fluid changes the property of the article, note presence of dissolved salt changes the freezing point which is mechanical property} comprising:
integrating a microfluidic circuit into the article or equipment, wherein the microfluidic circuit comprises an inlet, an outlet and a microfluidic channel fluidly coupling the inlet to the outlet {[abstract] note inlet and microscale fluid flow channel, [0015] note outlet ports};
and filling the microfluidic circuit with a suitable fluid to manipulate a mechanical property thereof {[0007] note different fluids can be introduced and the bring with themselves different physical properties as discussed above}.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, STRAND discloses wherein the mechanical property being manipulated is stiffness (claim 13), wherein the mechanical property being manipulated is pressure (claim 14) {[0008]/[0010] note different fluid pressure or pressure differential can be in micro channels and since flow passage can be flexible plastic, higher pressure results in “pressure stiffness” or higher stiffness}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SULLIVAN (US-2019/0297987), hereinafter SULLIVAN, in view of HOWLAND (US-2018/0066922), hereinafter HOWLAND. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-9, SULLIVAN discloses A method for an article or equipment, comprising: integrating a microfluidic circuit into the article or equipment, wherein the microfluidic circuit comprises an inlet, an outlet and a microfluidic channel fluidly coupling the inlet to the outlet {[abstract]}.
SULLIVAN, however, is silent on the method of providing camouflage to an article or equipment and filling the microfluidic circuit with a suitable fluid to provide the camouflage (claim 1) and the camouflage being optical or electromagnetic (claim 2) and various individual or combination properties as recited in claims 5-6 and 8-9.
In the same filed of endeavor that related to cover or equipment with channels, HOWLAND discloses providing camouflage to an article or equipment and filling the microfluidic circuit with a suitable fluid to provide the camouflage (claim 1), wherein the camouflage is optical, thermal, electromagnetic, or a combinations thereof (claim 2), wherein the fluid is comprised of a temperature-controlled fluid configured to change the thermal signature of the article or equipment (claim 5), wherein the fluid is comprised of a colored fluid configured to change the optical appearance of the article or equipment (claim 6), wherein the fluid is comprised of a temperature-controlled and colored fluid configured to provide visual and thermal modulation of the article or equipment (claim 8), wherein the fluid is comprised of a temperature- controlled fluid in one dimension in fluid contact with a colored fluid and/or a ferromagnetic fluid configured to provide visual, thermal and/or electromagnetic modulation of the article or equipment (claim 9) {[abstract] note dye is optical, [0029]-[0030] note circulating a dye solution capable of providing camouflage to the cover, [claim 20] note temperature control, [0038] note plurality of dyes, [0034]/[0042] note dye in the upper channel for color and water in the lower channel for temperature}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the method of using camouflage solution of HOWLAND in the microfluidic circuit of SULLIVAN.
As disclosed by HOWLAND, use of camouflage cover for equipment is desired and known {[0004]} and the disclosed method of HOWLAND has the advantage of being capable of adapting to changes in the spectral background signature in a variable background environment, without requiring maintenance and transport of multiple, redundant camouflage covers {[0027]}.
Regarding claim 3, SULLIVAN discloses wherein the microfluidic circuit is a continuous three dimensional circuit {[0005], [0066], [0084], [0114]}.
Regarding claim 4, SULLIVAN discloses wherein the microfluidic circuit is composed of multiple layers of independent microfluidic circuits {[0071] note plurality of circuits with independent colors, [0074], [0089]}.
Regarding claim 7, SULLIVAN discloses wherein the fluid is comprised of a ferromagnetic fluid configured to change the electromagnetic signature of the article or equipment {[0103]}.
Regarding claim 10, HOWLAND wherein one of the microfluidic circuit layers' fluid is comprised of a temperature-controlled fluid and wherein a second microfluidic circuit layers' fluid is comprised of a colored fluid configured to provide visual and thermal modulation of the article or equipment {[claim 41], [0172], [0034]/[0042]}. The Examiner notes that the motivation statement outlined under claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding claim 11, SULLIVAN discloses wherein the fluid comprises a liquid, a gas, or a combination thereof {[0084]}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748