DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment filed on 08/01/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are pending in the application and are considered on merits.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haag et al. (US 8,425,863) (Haag).
Regarding claim 1, Limitation 1
“a plurality of first chambers;”
Hagg discloses “reaction chambers” (Fig. 12 and associated description showing multiple chambers connected by microchannels)
Hagg discloses multiple reaction chambers arranged to receive fluid. These are discrete physical volumes that hold fluid, corresponding directly to the claimed plurality of first chambers.
Limitation 2
“a second chamber;”
Hagg discloses: “the valve area includes a fluid chamber… arranged to store sample fluid” (col. 3, line 22-23).
Hagg discloses a fluid chamber distinct from the reaction chambers, located at the valve area and used to store sample fluid prior to distribution. This corresponds to the claimed second chamber.
Limitation 3
“a membrane pump including a diaphragm;”
Hagg discloses: “movement of said actuating element causes a pump and/or valve action of the adjacent arranged flexible membrane” (col. 6, lines 1-5)
Hagg’s flexible membrane is actuated to create pressure changes that move fluid, thereby performing a pump function. The flexible membrane is a deformable structure that acts as a diaphragm, satisfying the claimed membrane pump including a diaphragm.
Limitation 4
“a plurality of first channels each connecting a corresponding one of the plurality of first chambers with the membrane pump;”
Hagg discloses: “the micro channels are aligned radially and start from a center portion… passing the valve area” (col. 3, lines 42-44).
Hagg shows microchannels extending radially from a central valve area, where the membrane pump is located, to peripheral regions containing chambers. Each channel physically connects a chamber to the valve/pump region, thereby corresponding to the claimed first channels connecting each first chamber to the membrane pump.
Limitation 5
“a plurality of second channels each connecting a corresponding one of the plurality of first chambers with the second chamber;”
Hagg discloses: “the sample fluid stored in the fluid chamber is dispensed to different reaction chambers via the micro channels” (col. 3, lines 23-25).
Hagg explicitly describes that fluid moves from the fluid chamber (second chamber) to reaction chambers (first chambers) through microchannels. These channels connect each chamber to the fluid chamber, corresponding to the claimed second channels.
Limitation 6
“a plurality of first membrane valves respectively disposed in the plurality of first channels;”
Hagg discloses: “movement of said actuating element… causes or stop a directed fluid flow between the two micro channels” (col. 6, lines 1-5)
Hagg discloses that fluid flow within microchannels is selectively controlled by the flexible membrane. The membrane acts at specific channel regions to open or close flow paths, thereby forming membrane valves located within the channels. Because multiple channels are controlled, this corresponds to a plurality of first membrane valves disposed in respective first channels.
Limitation 7
“and a plurality of second membrane valves respectively disposed in the plurality of second channels.”
Hagg discloses: “movement of said actuating element causes… valve action… to cause or stop a directed fluid flow” (col. 6, lines 1-5), and
“the sample fluid… is dispensed to different reaction chambers via the micro channels” (col. 3, lines 23-25).
Hagg discloses that the same membrane structure controls flow between the fluid chamber and each microchannel leading to a reaction chamber. Thus, each channel connecting the second chamber and first chambers includes a membrane valve disposed within that channel, corresponding to the claimed second membrane valves.
Thus, Haag discloses a fluid handling device (abstract), comprising:
a plurality of first chambers (peripheral chambers) (Fig. 12, col. 7, lines 24-27);
a second chamber (central chamber 6) (Fig. 12, col. 7, line 24-27);
a membrane pump including a diaphragm (flexible membrane 7) (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 56-64);
a plurality of first channels (4) each connecting a corresponding one of the
plurality of first chambers with the membrane pump (Fig. 12, Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 56-64, col. 6, lines 1-5);
a plurality of second channels (4) each connecting a corresponding one of
the plurality of first chambers with the second chamber (Fig. 12, Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 56-64);
a plurality of first membrane valves (valve/pump-unit 2) respectively disposed in the plurality of first channels (Fig. 12, Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 56-64); and
a plurality of second membrane valves (valve/pump-unit 2) respectively disposed in the plurality of second channels (Fig. 12, Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 56-64).
Regarding claim 2, Haag discloses that wherein:
the plurality of first membrane valves are disposed on a circumference of a first circle (Fig. 12 & 1);
the plurality of second membrane valves are disposed on a circumference of a second circle concentric with the first circle (Fig. 12 & 1); and
the diaphragm of the membrane pump is disposed on a circumference of a third circle concentric with the first circle (Fig. 12 & 1).
As shown in Fig. 12, which depicts radially aligned microchannels symmetrically arranged around a central valve–pump unit, inherently defining concentric circular arrangements of valve regions and the actuated membrane/diaphragm.
Regarding claim 5, Haag discloses that wherein each of the plurality of first membrane valves is disposed under a wall defining a corresponding one of the plurality of first chambers is merely a design of choice (Fig. 1-4).
Hagg discloses that microchannels and chamber regions are formed in a substrate, and a flexible membrane is arranged on the lower surface of the substrate (see Figs. 1-4 and accompanying description).
The valve area—where the membrane performs a valve function—is defined by a protrusion or wall of the substrate separating adjacent microchannels and/or chambers.
As shown in Figs. 1–4, the membrane valve is located directly beneath the substrate wall that defines the boundary of a fluid chamber, such that pressing the membrane against the wall closes flow and releasing it opens flow.
Thus, each membrane valve is disposed under a wall defining a corresponding chamber, because the chamber geometry is defined by the substrate wall above the membrane, and the membrane valve operates directly beneath that wall.
Hagg explicitly describes that fluid flow is controlled between chambers and microchannels via a membrane located beneath the substrate wall structure, which inherently places the membrane valve under the chamber-defining wall (see discussion of valve action at the valve area and substrate protrusion).
Regarding claim 6, Haag discloses that wherein each of the plurality of second membrane valves is disposed under a wall between a corresponding one of the plurality of first chambers and the second chamber (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Haag discloses a fluid handling system (abstract), comprising:
the fluid handling device according to claim 1 (Fig. 12, Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 56-64);
a first pressing member (8) for pressing the plurality of first membrane valves and the plurality of second membrane valves (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 64-67); and
a second pressing member (8) for pressing the membrane pump (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 64-67).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haag et al. (US 8,425,863) (Haag).
Regarding claim 3-4, Haag does not specifically disclose that wherein a bottom surface of each of the plurality of first chambers includes an inclined surface or wherein a bottom surface of the second chamber includes an inclined surface. However, inclined chamber bottoms are a predictable, well-known solution for improving drainage and avoiding fluid retention.
Regarding claim 8, Hagg teaches a fluid handling system with
membrane valves and a membrane pump (Fig. 12, Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 56-64, col. 6, lines 1-5);
radially symmetric chamber/channel layouts centered about a central axis (Fig. 12); and
pressing members that actuate membrane valves and pump regions (col. 6, lines 1-5).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Hagg’s system to employ rotating pressing members because:
Hagg already uses a radially symmetric layout centered on a valve–pump region.
Rotary actuation is a predictable design choice for addressing radially arranged elements.
Rotation about the central axis would allow:
sequential pressing of membrane valves,
coordinated pump actuation, and
reduced mechanical complexity compared to multiple linear actuators.
Such a modification would be fully compatible with Hagg’s membrane-based actuation scheme.
The substitution of linear pressing with rotary pressing:
involves routine mechanical design choices, and
would have been expected to operate successfully without altering the fundamental membrane valve or pump behavior disclosed by Hagg.
Thus, the first pressing member and the second pressing member being configured to rotate about a rotation axis passing through a center of the first circle is merely a design of choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOYUN R XU, Ph. D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/XIAOYUN R XU, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797