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 without traverse of Group I: Claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 27 JULY 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected a method of using the microfluidic chip, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 JULY 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant has elected Group I: Claims 1-18. Claims 19-30 are ‘Previously Presented’ or ‘Original’, and are considered to be Non-Elected as indicated on the Index of Claims form.
Claims 1-18 are considered on the merits below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
See specification [00137-00138], pages 38-46.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 AUGSUT 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 AUGSUT 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the instance of ‘a micromixer channel’; should be ‘the micromixer channel’ since a micromixer channel is already positively claimed.
In addition, in the instance of ‘first fluid and second fluid’; should be ‘the first fluid and the second fluid’; since a first fluid and a second fluid are already positively claimed. 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:
A “one or more surface features configured to encourage mixing” in claim 7.
A “feature” does not connote any particular structure. The specification describes the surface feature to be surface features include, e.g., herringbones, circles, curves, polygons, and the like or grooves, slots, or other features that are formed into the surface of a flow channel and in Claim 7.
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.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YADAVALI, US Publication No. 2018/0369810 A1 and further in view of SAYAH, J. Micromech. Microeng. 19 (2009) 085024 (8pp).
Applicant’s invention is directed toward a device, a microfluidic chip.
Regarding Claim 1, the reference YADAVALI discloses a microfluidic chip, abstract, Figure 1A, 1B, [0041], 100, comprising:
a first supply channel configured to communicate a first fluid therein in a direction from upstream to downstream, Figure 1A, 1B, 110 inlet, [0041];
a plurality of first delivery channels in fluid communication with the first supply channel, Figure 1A, 1B, channels 130, [0041];
a second supply channel configured to communicate a second fluid therein in a direction from upstream to downstream, Figure 1A, 1B, 112 inlet, [0041];
a plurality of second delivery channels in fluid communication with the second supply channel, Figure 2 and 3, channels 130, [0049], a number of rows, Figure 1A, 1B.
The YADAVALI discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the row comprising a number of mixing device units.
SAYAH discloses a microfluidic chip, abstract, Figure 1, page 2, wherein the chip comprise a first supply channel, a delivery channel a second supply channel, a second delivery channel, Figure 1, 5, page 2 and 3, a mixing device unit, Figure 1 (micromixer structures) and 5 (black shapes), comprising (i) a micromixer channel, Figure 1 and 5, portion between where ethe Y comes together to the outlet is considered to be the channel, (ii) a first flow resistor placing the micromixer channel of that mixing device unit into fluid communication with a first delivery channel associated with that mixing device unit, Figure 1 and 5, abstract, three-dimensional micro-mixers, convergent microfluidic nozzle structure, and (iii) a second flow resistor placing the micromixer channel of that mixing device unit into fluid communication with a second delivery channel associated with that mixing device unit, another three-dimensional micro-mixers, Figure 1 and 5; and an output channel, Figure 1 and 5, outlet, page 2, the output channel being in fluid communication with at least one of the mixing device units, Figure 1 and 5, and the output channel being configured to collect an output of at least one of the mixing device units, Figure 1 and 5, outlet.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of YADAVALI with the mixing device unit as taught by SAYAH to have passive micro-mixer with a specific shape to affect the hydrodynamic flow within the channel without exterior device to activate mixing.
Additional Disclosures Included as being obvious over the combination are: Claim 2: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, wherein the plurality of first delivery channels is arranged in a laddered fashion, YADAVALI [0052].; Claim 3: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, wherein the plurality of second delivery channels is arranged in a laddered fashion, YADAVALI [0052].; Claim 4: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, wherein the first supply channel and the second supply channel are oriented parallel or substantially parallel to one another, YADAVALI, Figure 1A, 1B, part of channel that supply inlets 110 and 112 are parallel; Claim 5: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, wherein the plurality of first delivery channels and the plurality of second delivery channels are oriented parallel or substantially parallel to each another, YADAVALI, Figure 1A, 1B, channels 132a, b are parallel to each other , [0052].; Claim 6: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, wherein a micromixer channel comprises a micromixer stage to effect mixing of first fluid and second fluid communicated to the micromixer channel, SAYAH Figure 7, page 5, left column.; Claim 7: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 6, wherein the micromixer stage comprises one or more surface features configured to encourage mixing of first fluid and second fluid communicated to the micromixer channel, SAYAH Figure 7, mixer is 3D shape, page 2 and 5.; Claim 8: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 7, wherein the surface features comprise herringbone protrusions, SAYAH Figure 5, Mix_B, page 3, zig-zag path.; Claim 9: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, wherein the microfluidic chip defines a plane, and wherein (a) a via perpendicular to the plane or substantially perpendicular to the plane places the first supply channel into fluid communication with the plurality of first delivery channels,(b) a via perpendicular to the plane or substantially perpendicular to the plane places the second supply channel into fluid communication with the plurality of second delivery channels, or both (a) and (b), SAYAH, Figure 1, page 5, right column.; Claim 10: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, wherein (a) the microfluidic chip defines a plane and wherein the microfluidic chip defines a plurality of flow layers parallel to the plane, a flow layer comprising a number of rows comprising a number of mixing device units therein, and (b) optionally wherein at least one of the first supply channel and the second supply channel is in fluid communication with two of the plurality of flow layers, YADAVALI Figure 6, [0079-0083]. ; Claim 11: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, wherein the first supply channel, the plurality of first delivery channels, the number of rows, and the mixing device units are configured such that, during operation, each mixing device unit receives essentially the same flow rate of the first fluid delivered at essentially the same pressure. The instant claim is directed toward its intended use of the apparatus, the microfluidic chip. In particular, the claim language recites ‘during operation’ would mean this is language directed to how the device is to be operated and does not and is not directed towards a structural feature that accomplishes this function. ; Claim 12: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, wherein the second supply channel, the plurality of second delivery channels, the number of rows, and the mixing device units are configured such that, during operation, each mixing device unit receives essentially the same flow rate of the second fluid delivered at essentially the same pressure. The instant claim is directed toward its intended use of the apparatus, the microfluidic chip. In particular, the claim language recites ‘during operation’ would mean this is language directed to how the device is to be operated and does not and is not directed towards a structural feature that accomplishes this function. ; Claim 15: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, wherein the microfluidic chip comprises from 2 to 20,000 mixing device units, SAYAH, Figure 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. ; Claim 16: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, wherein the microfluidic chip comprises from 2 to 1,000 rows of mixing device units, YADAVALI Figure 1A, 1B, and SAYAH, Figure 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. ; Claim 17: wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, wherein one or more of the first supply channel, the second supply channel, the plurality of first delivery channels, the plurality of second delivery channels, the output channel, or a mixing device unit is formed in silicon or glass, YADAVALI, Figure 2B, 4A, Claim 9, 10, [0007, 0010].; and Claim 18 : wherein the microfluidic chip of claim 1, further comprising a third supply channel, the third supply channel being configured to communicate a third fluid in a direction from upstream to downstream, a plurality of third delivery channels in fluid communication with the third supply channel, a third delivery channel being in fluid communication with a mixing device unit that is associated with that third delivery channel and is in fluid communication with one or both of a first delivery channel and a second delivery channel, YADAVALI, [0045], Figure 1B.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, the combination of YADAVALI in view of SAYAH suggests the claimed invention, but is silent in regard specifically to the parameters of the mixing device units and the fluidic resistances.
While SAYAH discloses the planar micro-mixers, it is inherent that the micromixers have a fluidic resistance, however, SAYAH is silent in regards to the guideline number as required.
However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the number and guideline number of micromixers of SAYAH to experience effective mixing of fluid within the microfluidic chip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T MUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3243. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 -15:30 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, LYLE ALEXANDER can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
CTM
/CHRISTINE T MUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights