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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the “detected-region” of Kirschhoffer with a roughened in view of Watanabe in the manner proposed by the Office Action, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Note that changing the topography of a surface is a general design choice and would be known to one with ordinary skills in the arts to control light scattering/reflection or fluid dynamics. Also, one with ordinary skills in the arts would know that transmitted or reflected light can be from the sun, a flash light, LED, laser, etc., and that the user would just need to be able to see the detected region as the instant claim(s) are written (aka the scope/interpretation can be broad).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, changing the topography of a surface is a general design choice and would be known to one with ordinary skills in the arts to control light scattering/reflection or fluid dynamics.
In response to applicant's argument that “The roughened surface (283) is configured to diffusely reflect light. The roughened surface (283) causes diffused reflection when it is not in contact with liquid and reduces diffused reflection when it is in contact with liquid (See in Figs. 4A and 4B)”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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, 4-5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirschhoffer et al. (US20160296927A1) and Watanabe et al. (US20150139866A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kirschhoffer et al. teaches a liquid handling device (See the Abstract, the device 100, and the sample-processing apparatus 1000 in [0032]-[0061] in Fig. 1-4f), comprising:
a first channel (See the first fluid flow pathway 195, i.e. a first channel, in [0051] in Fig. 4a-f);
a second channel (See the second fluid pathway 197, i.e. a second channel, in [0058] in Fig. 4a-f);
a third channel with one end thereof connected to one end of the first channel and to one end of the second channel (See how the processing chamber 120, i.e. a third channel, is fluidically connected to the first fluid flow pathway 195, i.e. a first channel, and the second fluid pathway 197, i.e. a second channel, in [0051], [0058], [0066] in Fig. 1-4f);
an introduction port connected to the first channel or the second channel (See the openings 131 and 141, i.e. introduction ports, in [0051], [0058] in Fig. 1-4f);
a discharge port connected to the first channel or the second channel (See the vent openings 134 and 144, i.e. discharge ports, in [0061], [0072], [0102] in Fig. 1-4f);
an introduction valve disposed in a first connection part between the introduction port and the first channel or the second channel, the first channel or the second channel being a channel to which the introduction port is connected (See the first check valve 172, i.e. an introduction valve, in [0051]-[0052], [0057], [0071], [0076] in Fig. 1-4f); and
a discharge valve disposed in a second connection part between the discharge port and the first channel or the second channel, the first channel or the second channel being a channel to which the discharge port is connected (See the second check valve 174, i.e. an introduction valve, in [0051], [0059]-[0060], [0069], [0075] in Fig. 1-4f),
wherein the third channel includes a first to-be-detected region being configured to be irradiated with light for detection of transmitted light or reflected light, the first to-be-detected region being disposed in the third channel (See how the first visual indicium 106, i.e. a first to-be-detected region, indicates a first predetermined volume of the processing chamber 120, i.e. a third channel, in [0048] in Fig. 1), and
a second to-be-detected region being configured to be irradiated with light for detection of transmitted light or reflected light, the second to-be-detected region being disposed in the third channel and closer to the one end of the third channel than the first to-be- detected region is (See how the second visual indicium 108, i.e. a second to-be-detected region, indicates a second predetermined volume of the processing chamber 120, i.e. a third channel, in [0048] in Fig. 1; Also, one with ordinary skills in the arts would know that transmitted or reflected light can be from the sun, a flash light, LED, laser, etc., and that the user would just need to be able to see the detected region as current claimed).
Yet, Kirschhoffer et al. fails to explicitly teach a liquid handling device, comprising: a first to-be-detected region including a roughened surface, and a second to-be-detected region including a roughened surface.
However, in the analogous art of microchips, Wantanabe et al. teaches a liquid handling device (See the Abstract, the microchip 1a, in [0013]-[0054] in Fig. 1-3), a first to-be-detected region including a roughened surface, and a second to-be-detected region including a roughened surface (See how the plurality of indication region, i.e. n-detection regions, have the uneven structure 7, i.e. a roughened surface, that may be provided on at least one surface constituting the indication regions in [0013], [0066]-[0073] in Fig. 1-2b; Also, one with ordinary skills in the arts would know that topography changes to a surface such as with rough/uneven structures can affect the fluidic dynamics or light scattering on or across a surface, and is a general design choice).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to modify the device of Kirschhoffer et al. by incorporating first to-be-detected region including a roughened surface, and a second to-be-detected region including a roughened surface (as taught by Wantanabe et al.) for the benefit of using light to visually detect fluid changes in a channel or to control fluid dynamics of the device.
Note that what is discussed in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). The instant application recites the structural limitation(s) of “a first/second to-be-detected including a roughened surface”, "a first/second/third channel, and "transmitted/reflected light", however the configuration of the said structural limitations that comprises the liquid handling device does not change the function of the claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. Thus, the combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Wantanabe et al. still reads on claim 1
Also, note what is discussed in MPEP § 2114 I-II. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The instant application recites the structural limitation(s) of “a first/second to-be-detected including a roughened surface”, "a first/second/third channel, and "transmitted/reflected light", but fails to cover the structural components that execute said “detecting”, "transmitting/reflecting", or define how that the other apparatus components functionally relates to using the liquid handling device comprising “ a first/second to-be-detected including a roughened surface”.
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Kirschhoffer et al. fails to explicitly teach a liquid handling system using a liquid handling device, comprising: a first light detection part disposed to face the first to-be-detected region; and a second light detection part disposed to face the second to-be- detected region.
However, in the analogous art of microchips, Watanabe et al. teaches a liquid handling system using a liquid handling device (See the Abstract, the microchip 1a, in [0013]-[0054] in Fig. 1-3), comprising a first light detection part disposed to face the first to-be-detected region; and a second light detection part disposed to face the second to-be- detected region (See the light transmission parts in [0047]-[0052], [0104]-[0109]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to modify the system and device of Kirschhoffer et al. by incorporating a first light detection part disposed to face the first to-be-detected region and a second light detection part disposed to face the second to-be- detected region (as taught by Watanabe et al.) for the benefit of using light to visually detect fluid changes in a channel or analysis region of the device.
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 4.
Kirschhoffer et al. fails to explicitly teach a liquid handling method for weighing a liquid by using a liquid handling system, the liquid handling method comprising: performing a procedure more than once, wherein, in the procedure, a liquid is introduced from the introduction port into the third channel until a surface of the liquid is positioned at the first light detection part, and then the liquid inside the third channel and with the surface thereof at the first light detection part is moved toward the one end of the third channel so that the surface of the liquid is positioned at the second light detection part.
However, in the analogous art of microchips, Watanabe et al. teaches a liquid handling method for weighing a liquid by using a liquid handling system (See the Abstract, the microchip 1a, in [0013]-[0054] in Fig. 1-3), the liquid handling method comprising: performing a procedure more than once, wherein, in the procedure, a liquid is introduced from the introduction port into the third channel until a surface of the liquid is positioned at the first light detection part, and then the liquid inside the third channel and with the surface thereof at the first light detection part is moved toward the one end of the third channel so that the surface of the liquid is positioned at the second light detection part (See in [0007]-[0015], [0047]-[0052], [0104]-[0109] in Fig. 1-9).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to modify the method of Kirschhoffer et al. by incorporating the step of: performing a procedure more than once, wherein, in the procedure, a liquid is introduced from the introduction port into the third channel until a surface of the liquid is positioned at the first light detection part, and then the liquid inside the third channel and with the surface thereof at the first light detection part is moved toward the one end of the third channel so that the surface of the liquid is positioned at the second light detection part (as taught by Watanabe et al.) for the benefit of using light to visually detect fluid changes in a channel of the device.
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 2.
Kirschhoffer et al. fails to explicitly teach a liquid handling system using a liquid handling device, comprising: a first light detection part disposed to face the first to-be-detected region; and a second light detection part disposed to face the second to-be- detected region.
However, in the analogous art of microchips, Watanabe et al. teaches a liquid handling system using a liquid handling device (See the Abstract, the microchip 1a, in [0013]-[0054] in Fig. 1-3), comprising a first light detection part disposed to face the first to-be-detected region; and a second light detection part disposed to face the second to-be- detected region (See the light transmission parts in [0047]-[0052], [0104]-[0109]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to modify the system and device of Kirschhoffer et al. by incorporating a first light detection part disposed to face the first to-be-detected region and a second light detection part disposed to face the second to-be- detected region (as taught by Watanabe et al.) for the benefit of using light to visually detect fluid changes in a channel or analysis region of the device.
Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 7.
Kirschhoffer et al. fails to explicitly teach a liquid handling method for weighing a liquid by using a liquid handling system, the liquid handling method comprising: performing a procedure more than once, wherein, in the procedure, a liquid is introduced from the introduction port into the third channel until a surface of the liquid is positioned at the first light detection part, and then the liquid inside the third channel and with the surface thereof at the first light detection part is moved toward the one end of the third channel so that the surface of the liquid is positioned at the second light detection part.
However, in the analogous art of microchips, Watanabe et al. teaches a liquid handling method for weighing a liquid by using a liquid handling system (See the Abstract, the microchip 1a, in [0013]-[0054] in Fig. 1-3), the liquid handling method comprising: performing a procedure more than once, wherein, in the procedure, a liquid is introduced from the introduction port into the third channel until a surface of the liquid is positioned at the first light detection part, and then the liquid inside the third channel and with the surface thereof at the first light detection part is moved toward the one end of the third channel so that the surface of the liquid is positioned at the second light detection part (See in [0007]-[0015], [0047]-[0052], [0104]-[0109] in Fig. 1-9).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to modify the method of Kirschhoffer et al. by incorporating the step of: performing a procedure more than once, wherein, in the procedure, a liquid is introduced from the introduction port into the third channel until a surface of the liquid is positioned at the first light detection part, and then the liquid inside the third channel and with the surface thereof at the first light detection part is moved toward the one end of the third channel so that the surface of the liquid is positioned at the second light detection part (as taught by Watanabe et al.) for the benefit of using light to visually detect fluid changes in a channel of the device.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6, 8-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirschhoffer et al. (US20160296927A1) and Watanabe et al. (US20150139866A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ono et al. (US20210018104A1).
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. fails to explicitly teach a liquid handling device, wherein both the introduction valve and the discharge valve are membrane valves and are disposed on one circle.
However, in the analogous art of channel chips, Ono et al. teaches a liquid handling device (See the Abstract, fluid handling device 100, and the Claim(s) 1-3 in [0039]-[0088] in Fig. 1A-7B), wherein both the introduction valve and the discharge valve are membrane valves and are disposed on one circle (See how the first film 130 functions as a diaphragm (valve body) for opening and closing the channel and how it includes four diaphragms 131a to 131d each in a substantially spherical crown shape in [0040], [0067] in Fig. 1-2B).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to modify the combined device of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. by incorporating membrane valves that are disposed on one circle (as taught by Ono et al.) for the benefit of controlling the pressure in the channels of the device.
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. fails to explicitly teach a liquid handling device, a rotary membrane pump connected to the other end of the third channel.
However, in the analogous art of channel chips, Ono et al. teaches a liquid handling device (See the Abstract, fluid handling device 100, and the Claim(s) 1-3 in [0039]-[0088] in Fig. 1A-7B), further comprising, a rotary membrane pump connected to the other end of the third channel (See the rotary member 160 in [0070],[0075]-[0088] Fig. 1 and 3A. Also, see how the pressure-increasing port 1023 is an opening that can be connected to a pump for increasing the atmospheric pressure inside second housing portion 526 in [0266], [0272]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to modify the combined device of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. by incorporating a rotary membrane pump connected to the other end of the third channel (as taught by Ono et al.) for the benefit of controlling the pressure and sample flow in the channels of the device.
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 2.
The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. fails to explicitly teach a liquid handling device, a rotary membrane pump connected to the other end of the third channel.
However, in the analogous art of channel chips, Ono et al. teaches a liquid handling device (See the Abstract, fluid handling device 100, and the Claim(s) 1-3 in [0039]-[0088] in Fig. 1A-7B), further comprising, a rotary membrane pump connected to the other end of the third channel (See the rotary member 160 in [0070],[0075]-[0088] Fig. 1 and 3A. Also, see how the pressure-increasing port 1023 is an opening that can be connected to a pump for increasing the atmospheric pressure inside second housing portion 526 in [0266], [0272]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to modify the combined device of Kirschhoffer et al. and Watanabe et al. by incorporating a rotary membrane pump connected to the other end of the third channel (as taught by Ono et al.) for the benefit of controlling the pressure and sample flow in the channels of the device.
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Kirschhoffer et al., Watanabe et al., and Ono et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 3.
The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Ono et al. fails to explicitly teach a liquid handling system using a liquid handling device, comprising: a first light detection part disposed to face the first to-be-detected region; and a second light detection part disposed to face the second to-be- detected region.
However, in the analogous art of microchips, Watanabe et al. teaches a liquid handling system using a liquid handling device (See the Abstract, the microchip 1a, in [0013]-[0054] in Fig. 1-3), comprising a first light detection part disposed to face the first to-be-detected region; and a second light detection part disposed to face the second to-be- detected region (See the light transmission parts in [0047]-[0052], [0104]-[0109]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to modify the system and device of Kirschhoffer et al. by incorporating a first light detection part disposed to face the first to-be-detected region and a second light detection part disposed to face the second to-be- detected region (as taught by Watanabe et al.) for the benefit of using light to visually detect fluid changes in a channel or analysis region of the device.
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Kirschhoffer et al., Watanabe et al., and Ono et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 6.
The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Ono et al. fails to explicitly teach a liquid handling system using a liquid handling device, comprising: a first light detection part disposed to face the first to-be-detected region; and a second light detection part disposed to face the second to-be- detected region.
However, in the analogous art of microchips, Watanabe et al. teaches a liquid handling system using a liquid handling device (See the Abstract, the microchip 1a, in [0013]-[0054] in Fig. 1-3), comprising a first light detection part disposed to face the first to-be-detected region; and a second light detection part disposed to face the second to-be- detected region (See the light transmission parts in [0047]-[0052], [0104]-[0109]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to modify the system and device of Kirschhoffer et al. by incorporating a first light detection part disposed to face the first to-be-detected region and a second light detection part disposed to face the second to-be- detected region (as taught by Watanabe et al.) for the benefit of using light to visually detect fluid changes in a channel or analysis region of the device.
Regarding Claim 11, The combination of Kirschhoffer et al., Watanabe et al., and Ono et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 8.
The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Ono et al. fails to explicitly teach a liquid handling method for weighing a liquid by using a liquid handling system, the liquid handling method comprising: performing a procedure more than once, wherein, in the procedure, a liquid is introduced from the introduction port into the third channel until a surface of the liquid is positioned at the first light detection part, and then the liquid inside the third channel and with the surface thereof at the first light detection part is moved toward the one end of the third channel so that the surface of the liquid is positioned at the second light detection part.
However, in the analogous art of microchips, Watanabe et al. teaches a liquid handling method for weighing a liquid by using a liquid handling system (See the Abstract, the microchip 1a, in [0013]-[0054] in Fig. 1-3), the liquid handling method comprising: performing a procedure more than once, wherein, in the procedure, a liquid is introduced from the introduction port into the third channel until a surface of the liquid is positioned at the first light detection part, and then the liquid inside the third channel and with the surface thereof at the first light detection part is moved toward the one end of the third channel so that the surface of the liquid is positioned at the second light detection part (See in [0007]-[0015], [0047]-[0052], [0104]-[0109] in Fig. 1-9).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to modify the combined method of Kirschhoffer et al. and Ono et al. by incorporating the step of: performing a procedure more than once, wherein, in the procedure, a liquid is introduced from the introduction port into the third channel until a surface of the liquid is positioned at the first light detection part, and then the liquid inside the third channel and with the surface thereof at the first light detection part is moved toward the one end of the third channel so that the surface of the liquid is positioned at the second light detection part (as taught by Watanabe et al.) for the benefit of using light to visually detect fluid changes in a channel of the device.
Regarding Claim 12, The combination of Kirschhoffer et al., Watanabe et al., and Ono et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 9.
The combination of Kirschhoffer et al. and Ono et al. fails to explicitly teach a liquid handling method for weighing a liquid by using a liquid handling system, the liquid handling method comprising: performing a procedure more than once, wherein, in the procedure, a liquid is introduced from the introduction port into the third channel until a surface of the liquid is positioned at the first light detection part, and then the liquid inside the third channel and with the surface thereof at the first light detection part is moved toward the one end of the third channel so that the surface of the liquid is positioned at the second light detection part.
However, in the analogous art of microchips, Watanabe et al. teaches a liquid handling method for weighing a liquid by using a liquid handling system (See the Abstract, the microchip 1a, in [0013]-[0054] in Fig. 1-3), the liquid handling method comprising: performing a procedure more than once, wherein, in the procedure, a liquid is introduced from the introduction port into the third channel until a surface of the liquid is positioned at the first light detection part, and then the liquid inside the third channel and with the surface thereof at the first light detection part is moved toward the one end of the third channel so that the surface of the liquid is positioned at the second light detection part (See in [0007]-[0015], [0047]-[0052], [0104]-[0109] in Fig. 1-9).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to modify the combined method of Kirschhoffer et al. and Ono et al. by incorporating the step of: performing a procedure more than once, wherein, in the procedure, a liquid is introduced from the introduction port into the third channel until a surface of the liquid is positioned at the first light detection part, and then the liquid inside the third channel and with the surface thereof at the first light detection part is moved toward the one end of the third channel so that the surface of the liquid is positioned at the second light detection part (as taught by Watanabe et al.) for the benefit of using light to visually detect fluid changes in a channel of the device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRITNEY N WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:30pm CT.
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.
/BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights