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 § 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 10 and 25 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.
Independent claim 1 now recites the term “temperature control source” which is not found in the original application and not found in the current specification outside the claims. If the “temperature control source” is considered to be the “temperature controlling element” (608) discussed in the original application, the recitation in dependent claim 10 “further comprising a temperature controlling element” is confusing.
In claim 25, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the direction change mechanism”.
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 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bocksruker (US 4,246,871):
Regarding claim 1, Bocksruker discloses a helical mixer comprising an inlet (12), and outlet (16) and a helical flow path (see col. 1, lines 52-54) extending between the inlet and the outlet and including a series of windings (18,20, etc.), wherein the helical mixer is closed between the inlet and the outlet (see Fig. 1); and a temperature control source (30) having a winding of the series of windings revolved therearound (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, the helical flow path has an inner winding diameter in a range from 200 µm to 10 mm (see col. 2, lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 3, the helical mixer is capable of receiving volumes in the recited range based upon col. 2, lines 30-36.
Regarding claim 4, the helical flow path has a circular cross section (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, the helical flow path has a same diameter along an entire length of the helical flow path (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the helical flow path comprises at least 5 turns (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the helical mixer further comprises a temperature controlling element (30).
Regarding claim 12, the helical mixer would be capable of being used at the recited flow rated based upon col. 2, lines 30-36.
Claim 13 fails to further structurally limit the claimed structure.
Claim 14 fails to further structurally limit the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 16, the helical mixer is configured for microfluidics (see col. 2, lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 23, Bocksruker discloses a helical mixer comprising an inlet (12), and outlet (16) and a helical flow path (see col. 1, lines 52-54) extending between the inlet and the outlet; and a temperature control source (30) having a winding of the helical flow path revolved therearound (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, a conductive paste (34) contacts the temperature control source to thereby distribute heat between the helical flow path and the temperature control source.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordon (US 2021/0062801). Gordon discloses a helical mixer comprising an inlet (from 335); an outlet (to 360); a helical flow path (350) extending between the inlet and the outlet, wherein the helical mixer is closed between the inlet and the outlet (see Figs. 3A and 5); and a peristaltic pump (315 or 370 or 600).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksruker (US 4,246,871) in view of Kingsford (US 2007/0019503). The helical mixer of Bocksruker was discussed above:
Regarding claim 7, while Bocksruker further discloses that the helical mixer comprises a tube (see Figs. 1-3) forming the helical flow path, Bocksruker does not disclose the tube being made of polymeric material. Kingsford teaches making a helical mixer of polymeric material and explains that the benefit of resisting corrosion is realized (see [0054] and [0055]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the mixer of a polymeric material to resist corrosion as taught by Kingsford.
Regarding claim 8, Kingsford further teaches the polymeric material being a fluorinated ethylene propylene (see [0055]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksruker (US 4,246,871) in view of Brown (US 3,967,627). The helical mixer of Bocksruker was discussed above. Bocksruker does not disclose corresponding structure or equivalent described by the instant specification with respect to “a flow direction mechanism”, the corresponding structure being a peristaltic pump. Brown teaches a peristaltic pump (16). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized a peristaltic pump to supply fluid to the helical path.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksruker (US 4,246,871) in view of Seo (US 202/00238600). The helical mixer of Bocksruker was discussed above. Bocksruker does not disclose corresponding structure or equivalent described by the instant specification with respect to “a flow direction mechanism”, the corresponding structure being a peristaltic pump. Seo teaches a peristaltic pump (340). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized a peristaltic pump to supply fluid to the helical path.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksruker (US 4,246,871) in view of Brown (US 3,967,627). Bocksruker discloses a helical mixer comprising an inlet (12); an outlet (16); a helical flow path (see col. 1, lines 52-54) extending between the inlet and the outlet wherein the helical mixer is closed between the inlet and the outlet (see Fig. 1). However, a peristaltic pump is not disclosed. Brown teaches a peristaltic pump (16). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized a peristaltic pump to supply fluid to the helical path.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksruker (US 4,246,871) in view of Seo (US 202/00238600). Bocksruker discloses a helical mixer comprising an inlet (12); an outlet (16); a helical flow path (see col. 1, lines 52-54) extending between the inlet and the outlet wherein the helical mixer is closed between the inlet and the outlet (see Fig. 1). However, a peristaltic pump is not disclosed. Seo teaches a peristaltic pump (340). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized a peristaltic pump to supply fluid to the helical path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot due to the new grounds for rejection.
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 DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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 X 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights