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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6, 7 and 9 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US 2015/0196909 A1; hereinafter “Jones”).
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches a microfluidic device (micro-fluidic device 100; paragraph 51; figures 1, 2A and 2B) comprising:
a chamber (cavity 102; paragraphs 37 and 50) having a plurality of sidewalls, a floor, a ceiling, and an inlet (inlet 118; paragraph 50); and
a plurality of pillars (micro-pillars 117; figure 1; paragraph 49) extending from the floor to the ceiling of the chamber (paragraph 46), each pillar having an orientation relative to the inlet defined by a leading surface (left part of pillar in figure 2C) and a trailing corner (right part of pillar in figure 2C) opposite the leading surface, the trailing corner having an angle less than a threshold angle that is based on a fluidic contact angle (paragraphs 15, 43 and 52; claims 8 and 9), wherein the orientations of the pillars relative to the inlet promote fluid flow from the inlet throughout the chamber without trapping gas at the sidewalls of the chamber (paragraphs 6, 7, 44, 55 – 57 and 59; figures 4A – 4D).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jones teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein the threshold angle is equal to two times a difference between 90 degrees and the fluidic contact angle (paragraphs 15, 43 and 52; figures 1 – 4; claims 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 3, Jones teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein the threshold angle is 20 degrees (paragraphs 15, 43 and 52; figures 1 – 4; claims 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 4, Jones teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein, for each pillar, the leading surface is closer to the inlet than the trailing corner is (figures 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 6, Jones teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein the sidewalls of the chamber comprise a first sidewall (left wall in figure 2A) adjacent to the inlet and a second sidewall (top wall in figure 2A) meeting the first sidewall at a corner of the chamber, and wherein the orientations of a sub-plurality of pillars relative to the inlet are aligned towards the corner (see pillars oriented with the leading surface towards the inlet side in figure 2A) to promote fluid flow from the inlet towards the corner of the chamber.
Regarding claim 7, Jones teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein the chamber further comprises an outlet opposite the inlet, and wherein the orientations of the pillars relative to the inlet promote fluid flow from the inlet to the outlet throughout the chamber without trapping gas at the sidewalls of the chamber (inlet 118 and outlet 119 in figure 2C and orientation of the leading surface of pillar towards the inlet in figure 2C).
Regarding claim 9, Jones teaches the microfluidic device of claim 7, wherein the sidewalls of the chamber comprise a first sidewall (left wall in figure 2A) adjacent to the outlet and a second sidewall (top wall in figure 2A) meeting the first sidewall at a corner of the chamber, and wherein the orientations of a sub-plurality of pillars relative to the inlet are aligned towards the corner (see pillars oriented with the leading surface towards the inlet side in figure 2A) to promote fluid flow from the towards the corner of the chamber.
Regarding claim 10, Jones teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein the leading surface of each pillar comprises a leading corner having an angle equal to the threshold angle (figures 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 11, Jones teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein the leading surface of each pillar comprises a leading corner having an angle less the threshold angle (figures 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 12, Jones teaches the microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein the leading surface of each pillar comprises a leading corner having an angle equal to the angle of the trailing corner of each pillar (figures 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 13, Jones teaches a microfluidic device (micro-fluidic device 100; paragraph 51; figures 1, 2A and 2B) comprising:
a chamber (cavity 102; paragraphs 37 and 50) having a plurality of sidewalls, a floor, a ceiling, and an inlet (inlet 118; paragraph 50); and
a plurality of pillars (micro-pillars 117; figure 1; paragraph 49) extending from the floor to the ceiling of the chamber (paragraph 46), each pillar having a leading corner (left part of pillar in figure 2C) and a trailing corner (right part of pillar in figure 2C) opposite the leading corner, wherein for each pillar, the leading corner is closer to the inlet than the trailing corner is, and the trailing corner has an angle different than an angle of the leading corner and less than a threshold angle that is based on a fluidic contact angle (paragraphs 15, 43 and 52; claims 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 14, Jones teaches the microfluidic device of claim 13, wherein the threshold angle is equal to two times a difference between 90 degrees and the fluidic contact angle (paragraphs 15, 43 and 52; figures 1 – 4; claims 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 15, Jones teaches the microfluidic device of claim 13, wherein each pillar has an orientation relative to the inlet defined by the leading corner and the trailing corner (figures 2A and 2B), and wherein the orientations of the pillars relative to the inlet promote fluid flow from the inlet throughout the chamber without trapping gas at the sidewalls of the chamber (see pillars oriented with the leading surface towards the inlet side in figure 2A).
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) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 2015/0196909 A1; hereinafter “Jones”).
Regarding claim 5, Jones does not specifically teach the microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein the orientations of the pillars relative to the inlet are radially aligned with the inlet.
Regarding claim 8, Jones does not specifically teach the microfluidic device of claim 7, wherein the orientations of the pillars relative to the inlet are radially aligned with the inlet except along rays between the inlet and the outlet.
However, changing the alignment for the orientations of the pillars appears to be merely a design choice which would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art in the design and construction of the device. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04). The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04). Furthermore, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the orientations of the pillars relative to the inlet are radially aligned with the inlet as recited for claim 5 or wherein the orientations of the pillars relative to the inlet are radially aligned with the inlet except along rays between the inlet and the outlet as recited for claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Austin et al. (US 5,427,663) teach a microlithographic array for macromolecule and cell fractionation. Yagi (US 2011/0079552 A1) teaches a separator comprising columnar members and separator cartridge. Wunsch et al. (US 2019/0226953 A1) teach microscale and mesoscale condenser devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J. SINES whose telephone number is (571)272-1263. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM EST M-F.
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.
BRIAN J. SINES
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/BRIAN J. SINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796