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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barman (US 2019/0351415).
Regarding claim 1, Barman teaches a microfluidic device comprising a) at least partly filling a container with an amount of the first liquid; b) causing a second liquid to flow into the container via a first passage, thereby forcing at least some of the first liquid out of the container, in order to discharge at least some of the first liquid through a second passage (Refer to abstract); wherein the first passage has a first resistance (capillary stop valve) to the flow of the first liquid, and the second passage has a second resistance (capillary stop valve) to flow of the second liquid. Applicants further recite “wherein the first resistance is higher than the second resistance”, Barman teaches different liquids such as reagents and samples, different cross sections of channels and capillary stop valves which inherently all change the resistance of the fluid flow in the passage. Barman discloses the size of the channel aids in minimizing the restriction of flow and this can be particularly useful when viscous fluids are involved. (Refer to paragraph [0018]) (Refer to Figures 10-10B)
Regarding claim 2, supplying a third liquid downstream of the container in order to mix the first liquid with the third liquid at a predetermined concentration of first liquid. (Refer to paragraph [0019])
Regarding claim 3, the first liquid is supplied via a fist inlet (111), and the second liquid is supplied via a separate, second inlet (121). (Refer to Figures 10-10B)
Regarding claim 4, a viscosity of the second liquid is higher than a viscosity of the first liquid. (Refer to paragraph [0018])
Regarding claim 6, a first inlet (111), for letting the first liquid into the chip; a container (130) connected to the first inlet (111), for at least temporarily containing an amount of first liquid; a second inlet (121) connected to the container (130) via a first passage, for letting in a second liquid into the chip; a second passage (120) connecting the container (130) to an outlet, allowing flow of the first liquid into the second passage, thereby delivering the first liquid. As shown in Figure 10b, the cross sections of the passages/channels are different which inherently means the first passage has a first resistance to liquid flow, and the second passage has a second resistance to liquid flow.
Regarding claim 7, the first resistance is higher than the second resistance. As shown in Figure 10b, the cross sections of the passages/channels are different which inherently means the first passage has a first resistance to liquid flow, and the second passage has a second resistance to liquid flow.
Regarding claim 8, a third passage (150) connected to the second passage downstream of the container for supplying a third liquid to the second passage, the chip thereby being suitable for mixing the third liquid with the first liquid. (Refer to Figure 10a)
Regarding claim 9, a third inlet (151) connected to the second and/or third passage.
Regarding claim 10, a minimum cross sectional area of the first passage is smaller than a minimum cross sectional area of the second passage. (Refer to Figures 10a and 10b)
Regarding claim 11, a minimum cross sectional area of the first passage is smaller than a minimum cross sectional area of the second passage, wherein the minimum cross sectional area of the first passage is smaller than a minimum cross sectional area of the third passage. (Refer to Figures 10a and 10b)
Regarding claim 12, a capillary stop valve (112) between the container and the first passage and/or a capillary stop valve between the container and the second passage.
Regarding claim 13, an absorber (electrode) connected to the first inlet.
Regarding claim 14, a vent (air gap) connected to the first passage at a position beyond the container as seen from the inlet.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barman.
Refer above for the teachings of Barman.
Barman fails to teach the first resistance is at least approximately ten times higher than the second resistance.
Barman teaches discloses the size of the channel aids in minimizing the restriction of flow and this can be particularly useful when viscous fluids are involved. Barman further teaches the cross-sectional area of the output channel can be larger at the third interface than it is at the first interface. This decoupling can be useful when the microfluidic device is being used for viscous fluids and especially when the fluid comprises large particles, for example biological cells. (Refer to paragraphs [0018] and [0022])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Barman where the first resistance is at least approximately ten times higher than the second resistance in order to accommodate highly viscous fluids during processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/JYOTI Mutreja/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798