DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2016/0289669 A1) in view of Donovan et al. (US 2019/0076847 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fan et al. teach:
1. A microfluidic flow cell arrangement comprising:
a support plate (e.g., cartridge) with a sample chamber (e.g., reaction chamber/well) formed therein (see Figs. 9, 12, 13, 14A-14B for example), which is peripherally limited by chamber walls (24) and a bottom (see Figs. 12-14 for example), wherein, a latching lug and a latching receptacle each are attached to at least one longitudinal side of the support plate (see i.e., In general, the mechanical interface features of the cartridge provide for easily removable but highly precise and repeatable positioning of the cartridge relative to the instrument system. Suitable mechanical interface features include, but are not limited to, alignment pins, alignment guides, mechanical stops, and the like. ¶ 0338; Kits ¶ 0455);
a cover plate (see annotated Figs. 14A-14B), which can be connected with the support plate in a fluid tight manner (see ¶ 0288 for example);
an inlet with an integrated inlet channel, which leads to the sample chamber via an opening (see Figs. 12, 13B for example);
a drain (see “Outlet” in Figs. 12, 13B for example) with an integrated drain channel (see Figs. 12, 13A-13C for example);
holding elements capable for fixing the support plate (see e.g., Imaging System Design ¶ 0511+), the holding elements are attached to the front sides of the support plate (see annotated Figs. 14A-14B for example); and
a holding device (e.g., Instrument), said holding device configured to hold one or more flow cells (see annotated Figs. 14A-14B & ¶ 0308+ for example).
However, Fan et al. do not explicitly teach: more than one microfluidic flow cells, each comprising, a support plate with a sample chamber formed therein, which is peripherally limited by chamber walls and a bottom, wherein a latching lug and a latching receptacle each are attached to at least one longitudinal side of the support plate, each of the latching lug and the latching receptacle cooperate with a corresponding latching receptacles and latching lug of adjacent microfluidic flow cells.
Donovan et al. teach: An arrangement of more than one microfluidic flow cells (e.g., 108/206 chamber cells/flow cells, see Abstract, ¶ 0087, 0103+), each comprising, a support plate (e.g., 214) with a sample chamber (e.g., 212) formed therein (¶ 0110-0111+), which is peripherally limited by chamber walls (see ¶ 0128 for example) and a bottom (e.g., 216), wherein a latching lug (e.g., 250) and a latching receptacle (i.e., receiving features on the active surface 222 for the screws 250 ¶ 0115) each are attached to at least one longitudinal side of the support plate (see Fig. 2 for example), each of the latching lug and the latching receptacle cooperate with a corresponding latching receptacles and latching lug of adjacent microfluidic flow cells (see Fig. 2 & ¶ 0115-0115 for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Fan et al. with the teachings of Donovan et al. to aid alignment of flow cells (chamber cells) (Donovan et al. ¶ 0115-0116+).
Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
1778
2326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to limitations in claims 1, 6 (e.g., [...] can be connected with the support plate in a fluid tight manner; [...] for fixing the support plate to a microscope stage, etc.), these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5-8, modified Fan et al. teach:
2. The arrangement according to claim 1, wherein, the cover plate and/or the bottom are attached the support plate in a removable manner (see annotated Figs. 14A-14B & ¶ 0308+ for example).
3. The arrangement according to claim 1, wherein, the holding elements arranged on the front sides of the support plate of the flow cell are strip-shaped (see Figs. 14A-14B for example), whereas the aspect ratio between the long side and short side is preferably 3:1 (see ¶ 0263 for example).
5. The arrangement according to claim 1, wherein, the diameters of the inlet channel of the inlet and the drain channel of the drain are >1 mm (see ¶ 0298-0299 for example).
6. The arrangement according to claim 1, wherein, a notch capable for attaching a seal (e.g., gasket) is formed on the top and bottom of the support plate (see ¶ 0576 for example).
7. The arrangement according to claim 1, wherein, the cover plate is incorporated in a cover frame and/or the bottom is incorporated in a bottom frame (see annotated Figs. 14A-14B for example).
8. The arrangement according to claim 1, wherein, at least the support plate is entirely made out of polyethylene (PE) or polypropylene (PP) (see ¶ 0317 for example).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant is thanked for their thoughtful amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN KWAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7072. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 4:30 am - 2:30 pm EST.
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.
/DEAN KWAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
DEAN KWAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights