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 of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 01/26/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected election, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “4” (Fig. 1) has been used to designate both the input port corresponds to the output port 3 of the liquid phase distribution substrate A and the input port corresponds to output port 3 of the liquid phase distribution substrate C. 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, lines 5-6, “a channel cross-sectional area of the washing channel is more than 10 times of that of the drop-maker unit” should read “a channel cross-sectional area of the washing channel is more than 10 times of a channel cross-sectional area of the drop-maker unit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“resistance control unit” in claim 1, line 10
“local resistance control unit” in claim 1,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In this instant case, the corresponding structure for:
the “resistance control unit” is a mesh groove, S-shaped channel, or a C- annular groove (p. 11, lns. 22-23, Fig. 4) and equivalents thereof;
“local resistance control unit” is a local bayonet structure, B- S-shaped channel structure, and C- enlarged cavity structure (p. 11, lns. 29-31 and Fig. 6) and equivalents thereof. (“local bayonet structure” is being interpreted as the structure step-contraction/expansion as shown in Fig. 6)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "at least two liquid phase input channels" in line 2, “a liquid phase input channel” in line 4, and “a liquid phase input channel (5)” in line 11. It is unclear if the limitations in lines 4 and 11 are referring to the “at least two liquid phase input channels” in line 2 or different channels. Clarification is requested. For purpose of examination, it is being interpreted that the “liquid phase input channel” in line 4 is referring to the "at least two liquid phase input channels" in line 2, and the channel in line 11 is a different channel that is in a drop-maker unit. The reason being: claim 1 uses “5” to denote the liquid phase input channel in line 11, but no reference character is used for the channels in line 2 or 4; and claim 1 requires the channel in line 4 to comprise input port (1) which does not appear to be a fitting description of “5” based on Fig. 1. The examiner notes that if the channels in both lines 4 and 11 are referring to the “at least two liquid phase input channels” then there will be at least three channels because there are at least two liquid phase input channels from the drop-maker units and since the drop-makers units are in one of the layer, there is another liquid phase input channel in the other layer (of the “at least two layers”).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least two drop-maker units” in line 2 and “drop-maker units” in line 5. It is unclear if they are the same drop-maker units. For the purpose of examination, they are interpreted as the same drop-maker units.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the liquid phase input port (1) is connected to at least one resistance control unit (2), and each resistance control unit corresponding to one output port (3)” in lines 8-10 (emphasis added). It is indefinite in light of the Drawings. While Fig. 1 shows that each resistance control unit in layers A and C correspond to an output port (3), the resistance control units (2) in the layer “B” layer does not each correspond to one output port (3). It is unclear whether the claim intends to encompass what is disclosed or, whether it intends to recite a separate structure. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “the drop-maker unit” in line 11. It is unclear which of the “at least two drop-maker units” the limitation is referring to. For the purpose of examination, it is being interpreted as “each of the drop-maker units.” Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the output ports (3) on the different layers of channel structure correspond to the input ports (4) on the same and are communicated to with each other through a microfluidic channel….” In lines 13-14. It is unclear what “on the same” means in the limitation. Clarification is requested. For the purpose of examination, “on the same” is not considered in the interpretation of this claim. Furthermore, it is unclear why “the input ports” in line 13 is in plural form when “input port” in line 11 in singular. It is unclear if the reason is (A) there are at least two drop-maker units and each unit has an input port, and the limitation is referring to the input ports of the at least two drop-maker units, or (B) this limitation is meant be describe a single drop-maker, and the use of plural form is in reference to Fig. 1B where each drop-maker unit has two input ports (4). Clarification is requested. For the purpose examination, it being interpreted as option (A).
Claim 1 recites limitation “the resistance control units on the same layer of channel structure are directly connected to the emulsification channel” in line 14-16. It is unclear which “resistance control units” this limitation is referring to – is it referring to the resistance control units that are on the same layer of channel structure? If so, which layer is “the same layer” referring to? Or is the limitation referring the resistance control units on the same layer of channel structure as the emulsification channel? For the purpose of examination “the same layer of channel structure” is being interpreted as “the same layer of channel structure as the emulsification channel.” In addition, the recitation of “the resistance control units” in this limitation, indicates multiple resistance control units are directly connected to the emulsification channel. It is indefinite in light of the Drawings. Fig. 1B shows only a single resistance control unit is directly connected to a emulsification channel. It is unclear whether the claim intends to encompass what is disclosed or, whether it intends to recite a separate structure. Clarification is requested. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as including “at least two drop-maker units” instead of a single drop-make unit (as discussed above relating to outports (s)), and hence there are at least two emulsification channels, and the limitation is being read as “the resistance control units on the same layer of channel structure are directly connected to the emulsification channels”.
Claim 2-7 are indefinite because of their dependency on claim 1
Claim 2 recites “the outermost layer” in lines 2-3. It is unclear which layer is “the outermost layer” since there are “at least two layers of channel structure” (claim 1, lines 1-2), there are two outermost layers. For the purpose of examination, it is being interpreted as “one of the outermost layers.”
Claim 2 also recites “the liquid input ports” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is being interpreted as “the liquid phase input ports.”
Claim 2 further recites “the horizontal input channels (12)” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 further recites “liquid phases” in line 6, it is unclear if the liquid phases are the same or different liquid phases as the liquid phases in line 1. For the purpose it is being interpreted as “the liquid phases.”
Claim 3 recites “the liquid phase input channels” in lines 1-2 and “all liquid phase input channels’ in lines 3-4. It is unclear which liquid phase input channels they are referring because different liquid phase input channels are recited in claim 1 (lines 2, 4 and 11). For the purpose of examination, it is being interpreted they are referring to the “liquid phase input channels“ in line 2 of claim 1, which are interpreted as the same as the ones in line 4 of claim 1 (see above).
Claim 3 further recites “the liquid phase input port” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which liquid phase input port the limitation is referring to since there are more than one. For the purpose of examination, it is being interpreted as “one of the liquid phase input port.”
Claim 3 further recites “a center” in line 3, it unclear “as center” of what. It appears that the limitation intends mean “the center” of the centrosymmetric arrangement of the drop-maker units and liquid phase input channels. For the purpose of examination, it is being interpreted as “the center.”
Claim 3 further recites “liquid input ports (1)” in line 3, it is unclear they are referring to the liquid phase input ports (1) in claim 1, or a different sets of ports. For the purpose of the examination, it is being interpreted that they are referring to the liquid phase input ports (1) of claim 1; and in view of above, the last limitation of the claim is being interpreted as “the liquid phase input ports (1) of all the liquid phase input channels are located on the same longitudinal axis.”
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the resistance control unit (2)” in line 2 and “the local resistance control unit (8)” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which one of the resistance control units (2) and which one of the local resistance control units (2) since there are more than one of each. For the purpose of examination the limitations are being interpreted as “one of the resistance control units” and “one of the local resistance control units”, respectively.
Claim 5 recites “the drop-maker unit” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the drop-maker units the claim is referring to. For the purpose of examination, it is being interpreted as “each drop-maker unit”.
Claim 6 recites “the drop-maker unit” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the drop-maker units the claim is referring to. For the purpose of examination, it is being interpreted as “each drop-maker unit”
Claim 7 recites “output channels (7) of all the drop-maker units” in line 2. It is unclear if the output channels are referring to the ones in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, they are being interpreted as the same output channels (7) in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “a washing phase input port (10)” and “a product output port (11)” in lines 4 and 4-5, respectively. It is unclear if they are referring to the “washing phase input port (10)” and “product output port (11)” in lines 17-18 of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, they are being interpreted as the same ones.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foulds et al. (US 20160271610 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Foulds teaches a multi-channel integrated microfluidic chip, comprising at least two layers of channel structure (oil distribution layer and 1st generation layer)(Fig. 2), at least two liquid phase input channels (three channels: the O-inlet port on the oil distribution layer, the oil port corresponds to MFDG 1 on the 1st generation layer and the oil port corresponds to MFDG 2 on 1st generation layer;)(Figs. 10 and 11, annotated Fig. A), at least two drop-maker units (MFDG 1 and MFDG 2, see annotated Fig. A) and a collection channel (the outlet and the channel that is connected to the outlet at the left in Fig. 10)(see annotated Fig. A);
each layer of channel structure provided with a liquid phase input channel (interpreting as “one of the liquid phase input channels”, see 35 U.S.C. 112 b above)(the O-inlet port on the oil distribution layer and the port corresponds to MFDG 1 on the 1st generation layer), wherein one of the layers of channel structure (1st generation layer) is provided with drop-maker units (interpreted as “the drop-maker units”, see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above)(MFDG 1 and MFDG 2), and the collection channel is contained in one of the layers of channel structure or cross through the multiple layers of channel structure (Fig. 10, the collection channel in contained in the 1st generation layer)(see annotated Fig. A);
each liquid phase input channel comprising at least one liquid phase input port ( the O-inlet port on the oil distribution layer, the oil port corresponds to MFDG 1 on the 1st generation layer and the oil port corresponds to MFDG 2 on 1st generation layer, Figs. 10 and 11), wherein the liquid phase input port is connected to at least one resistance control unit (the S-shaped channel in the oil distribution layer as shown in annotated Fig. B, and one of the branched channels from the oil port on the 1st generation layer corresponds to MFDG 1 and one of the branched channels from the oil port on the 1st generation layer corresponds to MFDG 2, annotated Fig. A; the S-shaped channel in the oil distribution layer and the branched channels in the 1st generation all influence flow resistance through bends or branching), and each resistance control unit corresponding to one output port (see annotated Figs. A and B)(“output port 1” and “output port 2” in annotated Fig. A corresponds to the branched channels of MFDG 1 and MFDG 2, respectively, and output port 3 in annotated Fig. B corresponds to the S-shaped channel);
the drop-maker unit comprising an input port (interpreted as “each drop-maker unit” under 112(b))(input ports of water corresponds to MFDG 1 and MFDG 2 on the 1st generation layer, Fig. 11 and annotated Fig. A), a liquid phase input channel (channel that connect the input port to emulsification channel)(annotated Fig. A denotes the channel “input channel”), an emulsification channel (the junction of oil and water), an output channel (outlet channel) and a local resistance control unit (expansion through increasing in channel depth at end the output channel, Fig. 18 and annotated Fig. A), wherein the output ports on the different layers of channel structure (output ports 1 and 2 are in a different layer than output port 3) correspond to the input ports on the same and are communicated with each other through a microfluidic channel (output ports 1 and 3 corresponds to the input port of MFDG 1 and output port 2 corresponds to input port of MFDG 2 are in communication with each other through a microfluidic path)(annotated Figs. A and B), and the resistance control units on the same layer of channel structure are directly connected to the emulsification channel (the branched channels from oil input ports that are on the same layer as the emulsification channels are directly connected to the emulsification channels, annotated Fig. A); and the collection channel comprising a washing channel (see annotated A), a washing phase input port (see annotated Fig. A) and a product output port (see annotated Fig. A).
PNG
media_image1.png
1003
1343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. annotated Figs. 10, 11, 14 and 18 of Foulds.
PNG
media_image2.png
692
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Annotated Fig. 5 of Foulds.
Regarding claim 2, Foulds teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Foulds further teaches wherein: when the number of input liquid phases is 2, the two liquid phases are input through the liquid phase input ports (1) of the outermost layer channel structure (the 1st generation is interpreted the “an outermost layer”; since the invention is interpreted of having two layers of channel structure, either layer is an outermost layer. Furthermore the invention is interpreted that the 1st generation has only one “liquid phase input port”) of the multi-channel integrated microfluidic chip, respectively (interpreted as an intended use. The input port on the 1st generation layer meets the structural limitation of the intended use).
With regard to the limitation “when the number of the input liquid phases is greater than or equals to 3, the liquid input ports of the layers other than the outermost layer are respectively connected to the side surface of the chip through the horizontal input channels to input liquid phases,” this invention is interpreted with the alternative of two layers of channel structure, and thus this limitation involving at least three layers does not apply since there is only one layer other than the outermost layer. It is also noted the input port on the 1st generation layer is connected to the top side surface of the chip through the channel that connects to “O-inlet” in Fig. 12 to the oil port to the corresponding MFDG 1.
Regarding claim 4, Foulds teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Foulds further teaches wherein a structure of the resistance control unit is selected from one or a combination of some of a mesh groove, an annular groove and an S-shaped channel structure (S-shaped structure, annotated Fig. B), and wherein a structure of the local resistance control unit is selected from one or some of a local bayonet structure, an S-shaped channel structure or an enlarged cavity structure (enlarged cavity structure, see annotated A).
Regarding claim 5, Foulds teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1, wherein a structure of the emulsification channel (6) in the drop-maker unit is selected from one or some of a flow-focusing structure, a T-junction structure and a co-flow structure (Fig. 18 and annotated Fig. A, emulsification channel has the structure of flow-focusing structure).
Regarding claim 6, Foulds teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Foulds further teaches wherein a channel in the drop-maker unit of the chip has a width ranging from 5 mm to 500 mm and a cross- sectional area of 25 mm2 to 106 mm2 (para. 0078, the constriction channel part of the MFDG is ~250 mm wide and ~100 mm deep which a cross-sectional area of ~25,000 mm2).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foulds et al. (US 20160271610 A1).
Under an alternate interpretation of Foulds:Regarding claim 1, Foulds teaches a multi-channel integrated microfluidic chip, comprising at least two layers of channel structure (Fig. 2)(oil and water distribution layers), at least two liquid phase input channels (Input Ports 1 and 2 in Figs. 2 which is also O-inlet and W-inlet in Fig. 10), at least two drop-maker units (see annotated Fig. C) and a collection channel (see annotated Fig. C, collection channel comprises washing channel, product port and wash phase input port as claimed below);
each layer of channel structure provided with a liquid phase input channel (interpreted as one of the as least two liquid phase input channel, see 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) above)(Input Ports 1 and 2 in Figs. 2 ), wherein one of the layers of channel structure (water distribution layer) is provided with drop-maker units (see annotated Fig. C), and the collection channel is contained in one of the layers of channel structure or cross through the multiple layers of channel structure (Fig. 10, the collection channel is contained in the water distribution layer, see annotated Fig. C);
each liquid phase input channel comprising at least one liquid phase input port (O-inlet and W-inlet)(Figs. 2 and 10), wherein the liquid phase input port is connected to at least one resistance control unit (see annotated Fig. C)(curved, S-shaped channels), and each resistance control unit corresponding to one output port (see annotate Fig. C);
the drop-maker unit comprising an input port (annotated Fig. C), a liquid phase input channel ( see annotate Fig. C), an emulsification channel (see annotate Fig. C), an output channel (see annotate Fig. C) and a local resistance control unit (see annotate Fig. C), wherein the output ports on the different layers of channel structure (the output ports are on different layers, see annotated Fig. C) correspond to the input ports on the same and are communicated with each other through a microfluidic channel (the output ports is connected the same MFDG, Fig. 11), and the resistance control units on the same layer of channel structure are directly connected to the emulsification channel (see annotated Fig. C); and the collection channel comprising a washing channel, a washing phase input port and a product output port (see annotated Fig. C).
PNG
media_image3.png
753
1451
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure C. Annotated Figs. 5 and 6 of Foulds.
Regarding claim 2, Foulds teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Foulds further teaches wherein: when the number of input liquid phases is 2, the two liquid phases are input through the liquid phase input ports of the outermost layer channel structure (the oil distribution layer is an outermost layer; since the invention is interpreted of having two layers of channel structure, either layer is an outermost layer. Furthermore the invention is interpreted that the oil distribution has only one “liquid phase input port”) of the multi-channel integrated microfluidic chip, respectively (interpreted as an intended use. the input port on the liquid phase input layer meets the structural limitation of the intended use);
With respect to the limitation “when the number of the input liquid phases is greater than or equals to 3, the liquid input ports of the layers other than the outermost layer are respectively connected to the side surface of the chip through the horizontal input channels to input liquid phases,” this invention is interpreted with the alternative of two layers of channel structure, and thus this limitation involving at least three layers does not apply since there is only one layer other than the outermost layer.
Regarding claim 3, Foulds teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Foulds further teaches wherein the liquid phase input channels and the drop-maker units in the chip are arranged in a centrosymmetric manner (annotated Fig. C) with the liquid phase input port as a center (annotated Fig. C), and liquid input ports (1) of all liquid phase input channels are located on the same longitudinal axis (annotated Fig. C).
Regarding claim 4, Foulds teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Foulds further teaches wherein a structure of the resistance control unit (2) is selected from one or a combination of some of a mesh groove, an annular groove and an S-shaped channel structure (S-shaped structure, annotated Fig. C), and wherein a structure of the local resistance control unit is selected from one or some of a local bayonet structure, an S-shaped channel structure or an enlarged cavity structure (S-shaped, see annotated C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Foulds teaches a multi-channel integrated microfluidic chip, comprising at least two layers of channel structure, at least two liquid phase input channels, at least two drop-maker units and a collection channel (annotated Fig. A above)… and the collection channel comprising a washing channel, a washing phase input port and a product output port (annotated Fig. A)… and a channel cross-sectional area of the washing channel is more than 10 times of that of the drop-maker unit (para. 0078 and annotated Fig. A , the cross-sectional area of the constriction part of the drop-maker is 25,000 mm2, which is more than 10 less than the cross-sectional area of the expanded part, 120,000 mm2, which is less than a cross-sectional area of the washing channel, and thus a channel cross-sectional area of the washing channel is more than 10 times of that of the constriction portion of the drop-maker unit).
Foulds teaches the generated droplets are collected through four ports that connected to four washing channels near the center of the chip into a funnel, (Foulds, Figs. 10 and 16, see also annotated Fig. A), and the washing channel are arranged downward. Consequently, Foulds fail to teach wherein the washing channel is annularly arranged in a unidirectional way, output channels of all the drop- maker units are equidistantly arranged on the inner circumference of the washing channel, the beginning and the end of the washing channel are a washing phase input port and a product output port.
Hu et al. (CN 210206901)(provided in the Applicant’s IDS of 04/20/2023) teaches nested funnel-shaped guide ports (1310) (para. 0053 and Figs. 1 and 2), wherein each guide port is for receiving droplets from a different droplet-making layer, and thus preventing mixing of droplets generated from different layers, and thus a nested funnel-shaped guide port is a structure a POSITA is motivated to combine with Foulds. However, the space between the guide port is an annular channel, which is different than a channel that is annularly arranged because the flow direction is going down instead of along the circumference with “the beginning and the end of the washing channel are a washing phase input port (10) and a product output port” as claim 7 requires. Furthermore, Nisisako et al. ("High-volume production of single and compound emulsions in a microfluidic parallelization arrangement coupled with coaxial annular world-to-chip interfaces"; Lab Chip; Vol. 12; June 13, 2012; pp. 3426-3435) (provided in the IDS of 4/20/23, see also US 20130129581) discloses an annular channel arrangement (Fig. 1) but doesn’t read on the claim or seem combinable with the Foulds reference to render the claim obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY CHIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1054. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 571-270-7698. 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.
/M.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights