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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 20-25, 29 and 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant disagrees with the restriction requirement mailed 05/04/2026. Applicant traverses on grounds that Examiner has not established that the shared technical features among Groups I-III are anticipated by Kabha.
Applicant alleges claim 1 requires the base member to define the sample chambers.
Furthermore, Applicant argues Kabha does not disclose a peripheral clamping frame comprising resiliently flexible locking protrusions.
Examiner agrees, claim 1 has been modified to address the limitation.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a permissible combination that require the same corresponding special technical feature.
Examiner recognizes that the same corresponding technical feature is common to the groups. MPEP 1850 (II) states, in part:
Lack of unity of invention may be directly evident "a priori," i.e., before considering the claims in relation to any prior art, or may only become apparent "a posteriori," i.e., after taking the prior art into consideration. For example, independent claims to A + X, A + Y, X + Y can be said to lack unity a priori as there is no subject matter common to all claims. In the case of independent claims to A + X and A + Y, unity of invention is present a priori as A is common to both claims. However, if it can be established that A is known, there is lack of unity a posteriori, since A (be it a single feature or a group of features) is not a technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art.
Examiner’s citation of art establishes that the common technical feature does not make over the art. As the technical feature does not define over the art, unity of invention is lacking.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/15/2023 and 03/27/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claims Status
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, 16, 20-25, 29 and 32 are pending, with claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13 and 16 being examined, claims 20-25, 29 and 32 are withdrawn. Claims 5, 10, 14-15, 17-19, 26-28, 30-31 and 33-38 are canceled.
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 1-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabaha et al. (US 20200298241 A1; hereinafter “Kabaha” previous of record) in view of Greenizen (WO 2020219901 A1; hereinafter “Greenizen”) and Uytingco (WO 2020219901 A1; hereinafter “Uytingco”).
Regarding claim 1, Kabaha teaches a microfluidic device (Kabaha; [0004] “slide chamber device”) for testing aqueous laboratory samples (Kabaha; [0032]), the device comprising:
a longitudinal axis (Kabaha; fig. 2).
Kabaha fails to teach an elongated base member extending along the longitudinal axis and defining a first outer surface, an opposite second outer surface, and a plurality of sample chambers; a resiliently deformable first gasket disposed on the first outer surface, the first gasket comprising a plurality of openings each corresponding to a respective one of the sample chambers; at least a first cover glass disposed on the first gasket and enclosing the openings.
However, Greenizen teaches the analogous art of a device for cell test samples (Greenizen; [014]) that includes an elongated base member extending along the longitudinal axis and defining a first outer surface (Greenizen; fig. 2. bottom elongated base where tabs 66 are formed, first outer surface is the top of the base member), an opposite second outer surface (Greenizen; fig. 1. 2 bottom elongated base, second outer surface is the bottom surface of the base), and a plurality of sample chambers (Greenizen; fig. 2. 68);
a resiliently deformable first gasket disposed on the first outer surface, the first gasket comprising a plurality of openings each corresponding to a respective one of the sample chambers (Greenizen; fig. 2. 50);
at least a first cover glass disposed on the first gasket and enclosing the openings (Greenizen; fig. 2. 30).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s microfluidic device to include an elongated base member extending along the longitudinal axis and defining a first outer surface, an opposite second outer surface, and a plurality of sample chambers; a resiliently deformable first gasket disposed on the first outer surface, the first gasket comprising a plurality of openings each corresponding to a respective one of the sample chambers; at least a first cover glass disposed on the first gasket and enclosing the openings as taught by Greenizen because Greenizen teaches a device for cell test samples (Greenizen; [014]) that includes an elongated base member extending along the longitudinal axis and defining a first outer surface (Greenizen; fig. 2. bottom elongated base where tabs 66 are formed, first outer surface is the top of the base member), an opposite second outer surface (Greenizen; fig. 1. 2 bottom elongated base, second outer surface is the bottom surface of the base), and a plurality of sample chambers (Greenizen; fig. 2. 68).
The modification allows to create partitions and sidewalls for a unitary compartmentalized structures that are configured to maintain and keep separate each biological sample (Greenizen; [044]).
Kabaha fails to teach the microfluidic device comprises a peripheral clamping frame disposed on the first cover glass and comprising a plurality of resiliently flexible locking protrusions; wherein the locking protrusions are configured to form a mechanical coupling with the base member and compress the first cover glass between the clamping frame and first gasket to seal the sample chambers.
However, Uytingco teaches the analogous art of a device for receiving samples (Uytingco; Abstract) that includes a peripheral clamping frame disposed on the first cover glass (Uytingco; fig. 2. 210, 236) and comprising a plurality of resiliently flexible locking protrusions (Uytingco; fig. 2. 206),
wherein the locking protrusions are configured to form a mechanical coupling with the base member and compress the first cover glass between the clamping frame and first gasket to seal the sample chambers (Uytingco; fig. 1. 106, 108 and (Abstract).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s microfluidic device to include a peripheral clamping frame disposed on the first cover glass and comprising a plurality of resiliently flexible locking protrusions; wherein the locking protrusions are configured to form a mechanical coupling with the base member and compress the first cover glass between the clamping frame and first gasket to seal the sample chambers as taught by Uytingco because Uytingco teaches a device for receiving samples (Uytingco; Abstract) that includes a peripheral clamping frame disposed on the first cover glass (Uytingco; fig. 2. 210, 236) and comprising a plurality of resiliently flexible locking protrusions (Uytingco; fig. 2. 206), wherein the locking protrusions are configured to form a mechanical coupling with the base member and compress the first cover glass between the clamping frame and first gasket to seal the sample chambers (Uytingco; fig. 1. 106, 108 and (Abstract).
The clamping frame comprising locking protrusions allows to secure the cover to the base (Uytingco; Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kabaha teaches the device according to claim 1 (see above) to include locking protrusions (see above).
Modified Kabaha fails to teach wherein each of the locking protrusions are configured to detachably and lockingly engage the second outer surface of the base member.
However, Uytingco teaches the analogous art of a device for receiving samples (Uytingco; Abstract) that includes locking protrusions (Uytingco; fig. 2. 206), wherein each of the locking protrusions are configured to detachably and lockingly engage the second outer surface of the base member (Uytingco; Abstract “each locking tab comprises a moveable tab to releasably secure the cover to the base”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s locking protrusions wherein each of the locking protrusions are configured to detachably and lockingly engage the second outer surface of the base member as taught by Uytingco because Uytingco teaches a device for receiving samples (Uytingco; Abstract) that includes locking protrusions (Uytingco; fig. 2. 206), wherein each of the locking protrusions are configured to detachably and lockingly engage the second outer surface of the base member (Uytingco; Abstract “each locking tab comprises a moveable tab to releasably secure the cover to the base”).
The modification allows to releasably secure the cover to the base (Uytingco; Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kabaha teaches the device according to claim 1 (see above) to include locking protrusions (see above).
Modified Kabaha fails to teach wherein each of the locking protrusions are cantilevered structures elongated in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis and comprise a hooked end which engages the second outer surface of the base member.
However, Uytingco teaches the analogous art of a device for receiving samples (Uytingco; Abstract) that includes locking protrusions (Uytingco; fig. 2. 206), wherein each of the locking protrusions are cantilevered structures elongated in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis and comprise a hooked end (Uytingco; fig. 2. 206 and page. 29 lines 20-22) which engages the second outer surface of the base member (Uytingco; fig. 4B. 406, 408).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s microfluidic device wherein each of the locking protrusions are cantilevered structures elongated in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis and comprise a hooked end which engages the second outer surface of the base member as taught by Uytingco because Uytingco teaches a device for receiving samples (Uytingco; Abstract) that includes locking protrusions (Uytingco; fig. 2. 206), wherein each of the locking protrusions are cantilevered structures elongated in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis and comprise a hooked end (Uytingco; fig. 2. 206 and page. 29 lines 20-22) which engages the second outer surface of the base member (Uytingco; fig. 4B. 406, 408).
The modification allows releasable engagement of the base with the cover (Uytingco; page. 9 lines 20-22).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kabaha teaches the device according to claim 1 (see above) to include plurality of sample chambers (see above).
Modified Kabaha fails to teach wherein each of the sample chambers has an open top extending through the first outer surface and a closed bottom adjacent to the second outer surface.
However, Greenizen teaches the analogous art of a device for cell test samples (Greenizen; [014]) that includes a plurality of sample chambers (Greenizen; fig. 2. 68), wherein each of the sample chambers has an open top extending through the first outer surface (Greenizen; fig. 2. 68) and a closed bottom adjacent to the second outer surface (Greenizen; fig. 4. 68).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s plurality of sample chambers wherein each of the sample chambers has an open top extending through the first outer surface and a closed bottom adjacent to the second outer surface as taught by Greenizen because Greenizen teaches a device for cell test samples (Greenizen; [014]) that includes a plurality of sample chambers (Greenizen; fig. 2. 68), wherein each of the sample chambers has an open top extending through the first outer surface (Greenizen; fig. 2. 68) and a closed bottom adjacent to the second outer surface (Greenizen; fig. 4. 68).
The modification allows to operatively place the well compartments onto the base (Greenizen; [041]) and allows the samples in t eh wells to be rinsed before separating the well frame from the base (Greenizen; [074]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabaha et al. (US 20200298241 A1; hereinafter “Kabaha” previous of record) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Masquelier et al (US 10,532,324 B1; hereinafter “Masquelier”).
Regarding claim 4, Kabaha teaches the device according to claim 3 (see above) to include locking protrusions (see above).
Modified Kabaha fails to teach wherein the plurality of locking protrusions comprise: at least one locking protrusion which engages a first lateral side of the base member; and at least one locking protrusion which engages a second lateral side of the base member.
However, Uytingco teaches the analogous art of a device for receiving samples (Uytingco; Abstract) that includes a plurality of locking protrusions (Uytingco; fig. 2. 206) wherein the plurality of locking protrusions comprise: at least one locking protrusion which engages a first lateral side of the base member; and at least one locking protrusion which engages a second lateral side of the base member (Uytingco; fig. 2. 206).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s locking protrusions to include at least one locking protrusion which engages a first lateral side of the base member; and at least one locking protrusion which engages a second lateral side of the base member as taught by Uytingco because Uytingco teaches a device for receiving samples (Uytingco; Abstract) that includes a plurality of locking protrusions (Uytingco; fig. 2. 206) wherein the plurality of locking protrusions comprise: at least one locking protrusion which engages a first lateral side of the base member; and at least one locking protrusion which engages a second lateral side of the base member (Uytingco; fig. 2. 206).
The locking protrusions allows to secure the cover to the base (Uytingco; Abstract).
Modified Kabaha fails to teach at least one locking protrusion which engages a first longitudinal side of the base member; at least one locking protrusion which engages an opposite second longitudinal side of the base member.
However, Masquelier teaches the analogous art of a device (Masquelier; fig. 4C. 420a) that includes locking protrusions (Masquelier; fig. 4D. 412a “fasteners”), wherein at least one locking protrusion which engages a first longitudinal side of the base member (Masquelier; fig. 4D. 408, 412a);
at least one locking protrusion which engages an opposite second longitudinal side of the base member (Masquelier; fig. 4D. 408, 412a).
Masquelier further teaches other means aside from fasteners may be used for securing the components (Masquelier; Col. 40 lines 55-58).
It would have been obvious to include cantilever structures as locking protrusions in order to provide for a quick disassembly of the device.
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s plurality of locking protrusions to include at least one locking protrusion which engages a first longitudinal side of the base member; at least one locking protrusion which engages an opposite second longitudinal side of the base member as taught by Masquelier because Masquelier teaches a device (Masquelier; fig. 4C. 420a) that includes locking protrusions (Masquelier; fig. 4D. 412a “fasteners”), wherein at least one locking protrusion which engages a first longitudinal side of the base member (Masquelier; fig. 4D. 408, 412a); at least one locking protrusion which engages an opposite second longitudinal side of the base member (Masquelier; fig. 4D. 408, 412a).
The modification allows for securing of the components (Masquelier; Col. 40 lines 55-58).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabaha et al. (US 20200298241 A1; hereinafter “Kabaha” previous of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Battrell (WO 2013106458 A2; hereinafter “Battrell”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kabaha teaches the device according to claim 1 (see above) to include a clamping frame (see above).
Modified Kabaha fails to teach wherein the clamping frame comprises an elongated central window which exposes the first cover glass providing a line of sight into each of the sample chambers.
However, Battrell teaches the analogous art of a microfluidic system (Battrell; fig. 10; Title) that includes that includes a frame (Battrell; fig. 14. 201) wherein the frame comprises an elongated central window (Battrell; fig. 14. 205) which exposes the first cover glass (Battrell; fig. 14. 202, 203) providing a line of sight into each of the sample chambers (Battrell; fig. 15. 204, 207).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s clamping frame to include an elongated central window which exposes the first cover glass providing a line of sight into each of the sample chambers as taught by Battrell because Battrell teaches a microfluidic system (Battrell; fig. 10; Title) that includes that includes a frame (Battrell; fig. 14. 201) wherein the frame comprises an elongated central window (Battrell; fig. 14. 205) which exposes the first cover glass (Battrell; fig. 14. 202, 203) providing a line of sight into each of the sample chambers (Battrell; fig. 15. 204, 207).
The modification allows to transmit light through the reaction chamber (Battrell; page 40. lines 1-3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabaha et al. (US 20200298241 A1; hereinafter “Kabaha” previous of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shea et al. (US 20030235825 A1; hereinafter “Shea”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kabaha teaches the device according to claim 1 (see above) to include a first gasket (see above).
Modified Kabaha fails to teach the first gasket is integrally formed on the first outer surface of the base member being an irremovable permanent part of the base member.
However, Shea teaches the analogous art of a device (Shea; Title) that includes first gasket (Shea; fig. 4. 15 and a base member (Shea; fig. 4. 1) wherein the first gasket is integrally formed on the first outer surface of the base member being an irremovable permanent part of the base member (Shea; 4. 15b illustrates what appears to be the first gasket is integrally formed on the first outer surface of the base member being an irremovable permanent part of the base member).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s first gasket to be integrally formed on the first outer surface of the base member being an irremovable permanent part of the base member as taught by Shea because Shea teaches a device (Shea; Title) that includes first gasket (Shea; fig. 4. 15), and a base member (Shea; fig. 4. 1) wherein the first gasket is integrally formed on the first outer surface of the base member being an irremovable permanent part of the base member (Shea; 4. 15 illustrates what appears to be the first gasket is integrally formed on the first outer surface of the base member being an irremovable permanent part of the base member).
The modification allows the base receiving area (gasket) to hold the substrate (glass) (Shea; [0087]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabaha et al. (US 20200298241 A1; hereinafter “Kabaha” previous of record) in view of Greenizen (WO 2020219901 A1; hereinafter “Greenizen”) and Uytingco (WO 2020219901 A1; hereinafter “Uytingco”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Juncosa et al. (US 20010051113 A1; hereinafter “Juncosa”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kabaha teaches the device according to claim 1 (see above) to include a first gasket (see above).
Kabaha fails to teach the first gasket comprises an outwardly open first recessed area, the first cover glass being disposed in the first recessed area.
However, Juncosa teaches the analogous art of an analysis device (Juncosa; Abstract) that includes a first gasket (Juncosa; fig. 7. 34), wherein the first gasket comprises an outwardly open first recessed area (Juncosa; fig. 7. 34, 44 outer edge of each chamber 44), wherein the first cover glass being disposed in the first recessed area (Juncosa; [0009] “the middle layer creates a tight liquid seal against the glass”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s first gasket to include an outwardly open first recessed area, the first cover glass being disposed in the first recessed area as taught by Juncosa because Juncosa teaches an analysis device (Juncosa; Abstract) that includes a gasket (Juncosa; fig. 7. 34), wherein the gasket comprises an outwardly open first recessed area (Juncosa; fig. 7. 34, 44 outer edge of each chamber 44), wherein the first cover glass being disposed in the first recessed area (Juncosa; [0009] “the middle layer creates a tight liquid seal against the glass”).
The modification allows channels to be formed within the self-sealing middle layer (Juncosa; [0009]).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabaha et al. (US 20200298241 A1; hereinafter “Kabaha” previous of record) in view of Greenizen (WO 2020219901 A1; hereinafter “Greenizen”) and Uytingco (WO 2020219901 A1; hereinafter “Uytingco”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lam et al. (US 20180112248 A1; hereinafter “Lam”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kabaha teaches the device according to claim 1 (see above) to include a first cover glass and a clamping frame (see above).
Modified Kabaha fails to teach the device further comprises a second gasket disposed between the first cover glass and the clamping frame, wherein the second gasket is integrally formed on an underside of the clamping frame being an irremovable permanent part of the clamping frame.
However, Lam teaches the analogous art of a device for biological experimentation (Lam; [00151]), wherein the device further comprises a second gasket disposed between the first cover glass and the clamping frame (Lam; fig. 5C. 514 “sealing seat”), wherein the second gasket is integrally formed on an underside of the clamping frame (Lam; [0098] “the sealing seat 514 may be recessed into a surface”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s first cover glass and a clamping frame to include a second gasket disposed between the first cover glass and the clamping frame, wherein the second gasket is integrally formed on an underside of the clamping frame being an irremovable permanent part of the clamping frame as taught by Lam because Lam teaches a device for biological experimentation (Lam; [00151]), wherein the device further comprises a second gasket disposed between the first cover glass and the clamping frame (Lam; fig. 5C. 514 “sealing seat”), wherein the second gasket is integrally formed on an underside of the clamping frame (Lam; [0098] “the sealing seat 514 may be recessed into a surface”).
The modification allows surrounding the corresponding channel of the two channels along the boundary (Lam; [0097]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kabaha teaches the device according to claim 9 (see above), to include a second gasket (see above).
Modified Kabaha fails to teach the second gasket comprises an elongated central window which exposes the first cover glass providing a line of sight into each of the sample chambers.
However, Lam teaches the analogous art of a device for biological experimentation (Lam; [0151]), wherein the second gasket comprises an elongated central window (Lam; fig. 5C. 512) which exposes the first cover glass providing a line of sight into each of the sample chambers (Lam; fig. 5B. 512, 530).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s second gasket to include an elongated central window which exposes the first cover glass providing a line of sight into each of the sample chambers as taught by Lam because Lam teaches a device for biological experimentation (Lam; [0151]), wherein the second gasket comprises an elongated central window (Lam; fig. 5C. 512) which exposes the first cover glass providing a line of sight into each of the sample chambers (Lam; fig. 5B. 512, 530).
The modification allows to sandwich plates 510, 540 (Lam; 0094) that provides a window for observation (Lam; [0046]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabaha et al. (US 20200298241 A1; hereinafter “Kabaha” previous of record) in view of Greenizen (WO 2020219901 A1; hereinafter “Greenizen”), Uytingco (WO 2020219901 A1; hereinafter “Uytingco”), and Lam et al. (US 20180112248 A1; hereinafter “Lam”) as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Frederickson et al. (US 20080293157 A1; hereinafter “Frederickson”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kabaha teaches the device according to claim 9 (see above) to include a first and second gasket (see above).
Modified Kabaha fails to teach the first and second gasket further comprises a second cover glass disposed between the first gasket and the second gasket.
However, Frederickson teaches the analogous art of a test apparatus (device) (Frederickson; fig. 1. 20) that includes a first gasket (Frederickson; fig. 3. 156) and a second gasket (Frederickson; fig. 3. 140), and first and second cover glass (Frederickson; fig. 3 and 9. 134 and [0046] “multiple specimens”) disposed between the first gasket and the second gasket (Frederickson; fig. 3. 134, 140, 156) . Frederickson teaches the specimens can be formed with glass (Frederickson; [0036]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s first and second gasket to include a second cover glass disposed between the first gasket and the second gasket as taught by Frederickson because Frederickson teaches a test apparatus (device) (Frederickson; fig. 1. 20) that includes a first gasket (Frederickson; fig. 3. 156) and a second gasket (Frederickson; fig. 3. 140), and first and second cover glass (Frederickson; fig. 3 and 9. 134 and [0046] “multiple specimens”) disposed between the first gasket and the second gasket (Frederickson; fig. 3. 134, 140, 156) . Frederickson teaches the specimens can be formed with glass (Frederickson; [0036]).
The modification allows testing multiple different specimens within a single test cycle (Frederickson; [0041])
Regarding claim 13, modified Kabaha teaches the device according to claim 12 (see above) to include a second gasket (see above).
Modified Kabaha fails to teach the second gasket comprises a first segment engaging the first cover glass and a discrete second segment engaging the second cover glass, the first and second segments separated by a longitudinal gap.
However, Frederickson teaches the analogous art of a test apparatus (device) (Frederickson; fig. 1. 20) that includes a first gasket (Frederickson; fig. 3. 156) and a second gasket (Frederickson; fig. 3. 140), wherein the second gasket comprises a first segment engaging the first cover glass and a discrete second segment engaging the second cover glass, the first and second segments separated by a longitudinal gap (Frederickson; fig. 3. 140 and 8. 140, 162, and [0048]). It appears to be that the gaskets longitudinal openings 162 comprise segments that engage with the individual.
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Kabaha’s second gasket to include a first segment engaging the first cover glass and a discrete second segment engaging the second cover glass, the first and second segments separated by a longitudinal gap as taught by Frederickson because Frederickson teaches a test apparatus (device) (Frederickson; fig. 1. 20) that includes a first gasket (Frederickson; fig. 3. 156) and a second gasket (Frederickson; fig. 3. 140), wherein the second gasket comprises a first segment engaging the first cover glass and a discrete second segment engaging the second cover glass, the first and second segments separated by a longitudinal gap (Frederickson; fig. 3. 140 and 8. 140, 162, and [0048]).
The modification allows to align the gasket using openings on the gaskets longitudinal (Frederickson; [0035] and fig. 4. 2 holes on the longitudinal side opposite to each other).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 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, 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights