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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 10, 13, 14, and 16 – 25, in the reply filed on 24 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the claims share a unity of invention, and that the references fail to disclose the claimed combination having a compressible flex component. This is not found persuasive because the compressible flex component has been mapped to the membrane as taught by Bergh et al, included on the annotated figure 2C which can be found on page 7 of this action. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a valve actuator […] comprising a compressible flex component comprising a pin” encompasses the embodiment of a two-part flex component comprising a flexible membrane deformed by a pin. The open “comprising” in the claim does not prevent the inclusion of a feature such as a membrane, nor does the claim language require that the pin itself be compressible or flexible.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 September 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 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.
Particularly, claim 16 recites the term “actuation means”, wherein “actuation means” comprises a solenoid and piston mechanism, a pneumatic mechanism, or other suitable means for applying a compression force to actuate the pin component of the modular microvalve (as cited in [00202] of the instant specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 10, 13, 14, and 16 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the valve" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 1 to mean “…configured to couple the modular microvalve…” (in line with the language of claim 6).
Claims 2, 3 ,5 – 10, 13, 14, and 16 – 25 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependance on claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the array" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 13 to mean “wherein the assembly comprises…”
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the array" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 13 to mean “wherein the assembly comprises…”
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 – 3, 5, and 19 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergh et al (US 20020124897 A1, cited on the IDS provided 08 September 2023) in view of Gonzalez (US 4425935 A, cited on the IDS provided 08 September 2023).
With regards to claim 1, Bergh et al teaches;
The claimed “A valve supporter comprising a non-compressible valve body having an inner surface, an outer surface, a top surface, a bottom surface, and an inner chamber; and a valve actuator comprising a compressible flex component, a pin, wherein the bottom surface of the valve supporter is in a sealable relationship with a corresponding top surface of the valve actuator” has been read on the taught (See annotated Figure 2C, below);
PNG
media_image1.png
435
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Bergh et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the valve body is cylindrical, and at least one integrated snap-arm coupled to the valve body and configured to couple the valve to a receptacle.
In the analogous art of valve design, Gonzalez teaches;
The claimed “least one integrated snap-arm coupled to the valve body and configured to couple the valve to a receptacle” has been read on the taught (Column 4, line 8, “The actual connection between the stem 84 and the knob 233 is provided by a pair of spring prongs or arms 126 and 128…”; Arms 126 and 128 read on an integrated snap-arm. Stem 84 reads on a valve body. Knob 233 reads on a receptacle).
The claimed “a cylindrical non-compressible valve body” has been read on the taught (Column 2, line 47, “Communication between the inlet passage 24 and the main chamber 26 is controlled by a valve cartridge 30, comprised of five parts molded of semi-rigid resilient plastic material.”; Valve cartridge 30 reads on a valve body. Figure 4, reproduced below, shows valve cartridge 30 having a cylindrical body. Semi-rigid resilient plastic reads on the valve body being non-compressible.);
PNG
media_image2.png
630
223
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the valve as taught by Bergh et al with the snap arms as taught by Gonzalez, for the predictable result of allowing the valve to be coupled to another structure with minimal tool use, as taught by Gonzalez (Column 1, line 38, “The primary object of this invention is to provide an improved valve structure, designed for installation, removal and replacement without tools…).
Regarding the limitation “a cylindrical […] valve body,” the examiner believes this limitation refers to a mere change of shape that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; please see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). As the specification does not explicitly disclose any evidence that the shape of the valve body is significant, this limitation does not distinguish the prior art from that of Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
With regards to claim 2, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
Bergh et al does not explicitly disclose wherein each snap-arm extends outwards from a side of the top outer surface of the valve supporter, and wherein each snap-arm comprises a shoulder feature, an outer flat component extending downwards from the shoulder feature, and a latch-end at a proximal end of the outer flat component.
Gonzalez further teaches;
The claimed “each snap-arm extends outwards from a side of the top outer surface of the valve supporter, and wherein each snap-arm comprises a shoulder feature, an outer flat component extending downwards from the shoulder feature, and a latch-end at a proximal end of the outer flat component” has been read on the taught (Please see annotated figure 4 below, which shows the snap-arm valve coupler taught by Gonzalez);
While the embodiment in Figure 4 shows the flat area extending upwards from the shoulder, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to flip the embodiment by 180 degrees as a mere rearrangement of parts; please see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
PNG
media_image3.png
478
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the valve as taught by Bergh et al with the snap arms as taught by Gonzalez et al, for the predictable result of allowing the valve to be coupled to another structure with minimal tool use, as taught by Gonzalez et al (Column 1, line 38, “The primary object of this invention is to provide an improved valve structure, designed for installation, removal and replacement without tools…).
With regards to claim 3, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
Neither Bergh et al nor Gonzalez explicitly disclose wherein the pin is frustoconical in shape or wherein the pin is a tapered cylinder. However, the examiner believes this to be a mere change in shape. Per MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), changes in shape may be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence that a particular configuration is significant. As the specification does not include any evidence regarding the shape of the pin, this limitation does not distinguish the device of claim 3 from the prior art of Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
With regards to claim 5, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
Bergh et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the pin further comprises a divot feature on a proximal end of the pin, wherein the divot feature comprises an actuatable flow space configured to either block fluid flow when compressed or to allow fluid flow when uncompressed” has been read on the taught (Please see annotated Figure 2C below, showing the divot on the overall pin block 221. The proximal end of the divot creates a point of the pin, which blocks fluid when compressed against the flexible component and allows fluid flow when uncompressed.)
PNG
media_image4.png
493
712
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 19, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
Bergh et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the valve supporter comprises a thermoplastic material.
Gonzalez additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the valve supporter comprises a thermoplastic material” has been read on the taught (Column 2, line 47, “…a valve cartridge 30, comprised of five parts molded of semi-rigid resilient plastic material.”; a semi-rigid resilient plastic material which can be molded reads on a thermoplastic material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microvalve device as taught by Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez with the thermoplastic material taught by Gonzalez. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Bergh et al teaches a valve structure seated in a microfabricated structure. The prior art of Gonzalez teaches a plastic valve seating structure. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of a plastic housing to the base device of Bergh et al’s microvalve, with the predictable result of creating a cheaper and easy-to-produce valve structure.
With regards to claim 20, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez and further in view of
The claimed “wherein the thermoplastic material is selected from a group consisting of polycarbonate (PC), acrytonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), or any other suitable rigid thermoplastic material” has been read on the taught (Column 2, line 47, “…a valve cartridge 30, comprised of five parts molded of semi-rigid resilient plastic material.”; a semi-rigid resilient plastic material which can be molded reads on any other suitable rigid thermoplastic material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microvalve device as taught by Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez with the thermoplastic material taught by Gonzalez. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Bergh et al teaches a valve structure seated in a microfabricated structure. The prior art of Gonzalez teaches a plastic valve seating structure. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of a plastic housing to the base device of Bergh et al’s microvalve, with the predictable result of creating a cheaper and easy-to-produce valve structure.
With regards to claim 21, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
Bergh additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the valve actuator comprises an elastomeric material” has been read on the taught ([0047], “Membranes suitable for use in the invention may generally include polymer or metal films… Particularly preferred membranes include […] fluoropolymer films such as Kalrez® commercially available from DuPont Dow Elastomers, Wilmington, Del.”; A fluoropolymer film from Dow Elastomers reads on an elastomeric material).
With regards to claim 22, the device of claim 21 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
Bergh et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the elastomeric material is selected from a group consisting of silicone, hydrogel, PDMS, TPE material, or any other suitable elastomeric material” has been read on the taught ([0047], “Membranes suitable for use in the invention may generally include polymer or metal films… Particularly preferred membranes include […] fluoropolymer films such as Kalrez® commercially available from DuPont Dow Elastomers, Wilmington, Del.”; A fluoropolymer film from Dow Elastomers reads on any other suitable elastomeric material).
With regards to claim 23, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
Neither Bergh et al nor Gonzalez explicitly disclose wherein the diameter of the modular micro valve is from about 8 mm to about 15 mm.
Bergh et al does disclose that the overall valve should be less than 500mm and more typically 1mm, as read on the taught ([0035], “As used herein, the term "microvalve" is meant to have its ordinary meaning in the art of fluid control, particularly referring to a fluid control device whose critical features are less than about 0.5 cm in size and may more typically have a size ranging from about a micron to about a millimeter.”)
Regarding the limitation “wherein the diameter of the modular micro valve is from about 8 mm to about 15 mm,” the examiner believes this to be a mere change in size or proportion. Per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), changes in size or proportion do not render a claimed device patentably distinct, provided that a device having the claimed dimensions would not operate differently than the prior art device. As the prior art of Bergh et al teaches a device operating on the millimeter scale, this limitation does not render the claimed device patentable over the device of Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
With regards to claim 24, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
Neither Bergh et al nor Gonzalez explicitly disclose wherein the snap-arms extend outward from the valve supporter from about 1 mm to about 2 mm.
Bergh et al does disclose that the overall valve should be less than 500mm and more typically 1mm, as read on the taught ([0035], “As used herein, the term "microvalve" is meant to have its ordinary meaning in the art of fluid control, particularly referring to a fluid control device whose critical features are less than about 0.5 cm in size and may more typically have a size ranging from about a micron to about a millimeter.”)
Regarding the limitation “wherein the snap-arms extend outward from the valve supporter from about 1 mm to about 2 mm,” the examiner believes this to be a mere change in size or proportion. Per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), changes in size or proportion do not render a claimed device patentably distinct, provided that a device having the claimed dimensions would not operate differently than the prior art device. As the prior art of Bergh et al teaches a device operating on the millimeter scale, this limitation does not render the claimed device patentable over the device of Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
With regards to claim 25, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
Neither Bergh et al nor Gonzalez explicitly disclose wherein the height of the modular microvalve is from about 3.6 mm to about 7.6 mm.
Bergh et al does disclose that the overall valve should be less than 500mm and more typically 1mm, as read on the taught ([0035], “As used herein, the term "microvalve" is meant to have its ordinary meaning in the art of fluid control, particularly referring to a fluid control device whose critical features are less than about 0.5 cm in size and may more typically have a size ranging from about a micron to about a millimeter.”)
Regarding the limitation “wherein the height of the modular microvalve is from about 3.6 mm to about 7.6 mm,” the examiner believes this to be a mere change in size or proportion. Per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), changes in size or proportion do not render a claimed device patentably distinct, provided that a device having the claimed dimensions would not operate differently than the prior art device. As the prior art of Bergh et al teaches a device operating on the millimeter scale, this limitation does not render the claimed device patentable over the device of Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
Claims 6 – 10, 13, 14, and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergh et al (US 20020124897 A1, cited on the IDS provided 08 September 2023) in view of Gonzalez (US 4425935 A, cited on the IDS provided 08 September 2023) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ball et al (US 20200038864 A1).
With regards to claim 6, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez.
Bergh et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “an assembly” has been read on the taught (Abstract, “The invention further provides for parallel injection valve arrays…”);
The claimed “one or more fluid openings in fluid contact with corresponding fluid channels arranged to allow for fluid communication between the modular microvalves and the fluid channels” has been read on the taught ([0039], “The fluid transfer channel 211 formed in the first face of the first plate 205 has a floor 211A and extends between the inlet passage 207 and outlet passage 209 of the first plate 205 for fluid communication therebetween.”);
However, Bergh et al does not explicitly disclose one or more valve receptacles protruding upward from a top surface of the microfluidic device and arranged to allow the modular microvalves to engagedly connect to the valve receptacles via the snap-arms; latch features corresponding to the snap-arms arranged for engaging the snap-arms and thereby sealing the modular micro valve into the valve receptacle; or one or more fluid input loading wells in fluid communication with the fluid channels.
Gonzalez additionally discloses;
The claimed “latch features corresponding to the snap-arms arranged for engaging the snap-arms and thereby sealing the modular micro valve into the valve receptacle” has been read on the taught (Column 4, line 8, “The actual connection between the stem 84 and the knob 122 is provided by a pair of spring prongs or arms 126 and 128 […] Together, they fit an elongated square or rectangular hole 130 (FIG. 4) at a recessed hub 132 of the knob.”; The square hole reads on latch features).
However, neither Bergh et al nor Gonzalez explicitly disclose one or more valve receptacles protruding upward from a top surface of the microfluidic device and arranged to allow the modular microvalves to engagedly connect to the valve receptacles via the snap-arms one or more fluid input loading wells in fluid communication with the fluid channels.
In the analogous art of microfluidic devices, Ball et al teaches;
“A microfluidic device including valves” has been read on the taught (Abstract, “The present invention relates to microfluidic check valves, as well as fluidic cartridges including such check valves.”);
The claimed “one or more valve receptacles protruding upward from a top surface of the microfluidic device and arranged to allow the modular microvalves to engagedly connect to the valve receptacles via the snap-arms” has been read on the taught ([0030], “Such valves can be produced as stand-alone, modular components (e.g., that are readily integrated into prototype devices or cartridges having valve seats to accommodate the valves)…”);
The claimed “one or more fluid input loading wells in fluid communication with the fluid channels” has been read on the taught (See Figure 3C below, which shows inlet 3001 which reads on one or more fluid input loading wells. [0048] further teaches downstream reaction channels.);
PNG
media_image5.png
136
364
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez with the drop-in microfluidic device of Ball et al, for the predictable benefit of easy integration into microfluidic devices as taught by Ball et al ([0074], “Such exemplary benefits can include ease of integration into microfluidic or millifluidic devices…”).
With regards to claim 7, the device of claim 6 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez and further in view of Ball et al.
Bergh et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the latch features further comprise lip-edges in corresponding openings in the valve receptacles to engagedly connect to latch-ends.
Gonzalez additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the latch features further comprise lip-edges in corresponding openings in the valve receptacles to engagedly connect to latch-ends” has been read on the taught (Column 4, line 8, “The actual connection between the stem 84 and the knob 122 is provided by a pair of spring prongs or arms 126 and 128 […] Together, they fit an elongated square or rectangular hole 130 (FIG. 4) at a recessed hub 132 of the knob.”; The square hole reads on lip-edges in corresponding openings.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microvalve device as taught by Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez and further in view of Ball et al with the lip-edges as taught by Gonzalez. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Bergh et al teaches a valve structure seated in a microfabricated structure. The prior art of Gonzalez teaches a lip-edge to connect a valve structure. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of a plastic housing to the base device of Bergh et al’s microvalve, with the predictable result of creating a valve structure which can be affixed to a receptacle.
With regards to claim 8, the device of claim 6 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez and further in view of Ball et al.
Bergh et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the modular microvalve is arranged such that compression of the valve actuator prevents liquid flow from the fluid input loading well into the corresponding fluid opening” has been read on the taught ([0053], “The injection valve 301 operates by moving the pistons 321 relative to the first plate 305 between an open position (FIG. 3A) in which the sealing membrane 317 is spaced from the valve seat 313 to permit fluid flow between the inlet passages 307 and outlet passages 309 through the fluid transfer channels 311, and a closed position in which the pistons 321 press the sealing membrane 317 against the valve seats 313 to prevent fluid flow between the inlet passages 307 and the outlet passages 309 through the fluid transfer channels 311…”).
With regards to claim 9, the device of claim 6 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez and further in view of Ball et al.
Bergh et al additionally discloses wherein the assembly comprises an array of microvalves, as read on the taught ([0067], “In a fourth embodiment, the injection valves of the present invention are arranged in a parallel array of injection valves capable of controlling fluids from multiple sources substantially simultaneously.”). However, Bergh et al does not explicitly disclose valve receptacles.
The combination of Gonzalez and Bergh et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the assembly comprises an array of modular microvalves and corresponding valve receptacles.
Ball et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the assembly comprises an array of modular microvalves and corresponding valve receptacles” has been read on the taught ([0023], “FIG. 12A-12C shows photographs of exemplary fluidic cartridges. Provided are (A) a first exemplary cartridge configured to conduct multiple, separate reactions on the same cartridge, in which four separate samples can be introduced in each separate fluidic network…”; The exemplary cartridge reads on an array of microvalves and valve receptacles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluidic device of Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez in view of Ball et al with the array of microvalves as taught by Ball et al, for the predictable benefit of allowing multiple assays to be performed in the same device, on the same sample, in parallel, as taught by Ball et al ([0138], “…such chips can be adapted to conduct parallel assays, in which the same assay can be performed on different samples in a parallel manner or in which different assays can be performed with the same sample in a parallel manner.”).
With regards to claim 10, the device of claim 9 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez and further in view of Ball et al.
Bergh et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the array of modular microvalves and corresponding valve receptacles are configured in a series, in parallel, or a combination thereof” has been read on the taught ([0067], “In a fourth embodiment, the injection valves of the present invention are arranged in a parallel array of injection valves capable of controlling fluids from multiple sources substantially simultaneously.”; A parallel array reads on the valves being configured in parallel.).
With regards to claim 13, the device of claim 6 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez and further in view of Ball et al.
Bergh et al discloses an array (see, e.g. [0068]), but neither Bergh et al nor Gonzalez explicitly disclose an array comprising at least one modular microvalve and a corresponding valve receptacle.
Ball et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the array comprises at least one modular microvalve and a corresponding valve receptacle” has been read on the taught ([0023], “FIG. 12A-12C shows photographs of exemplary fluidic cartridges. Provided are (A) a first exemplary cartridge configured to conduct multiple, separate reactions on the same cartridge, in which four separate samples can be introduced in each separate fluidic network…”; The exemplary cartridge reads on an array of microvalves and valve receptacles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluidic device of Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez in view of Ball et al with the array of microvalves as taught by Ball et al, for the predictable benefit of allowing multiple assays to be performed in the same device, on the same sample, in parallel, as taught by Ball et al ([0138], “…such chips can be adapted to conduct parallel assays, in which the same assay can be performed on different samples in a parallel manner or in which different assays can be performed with the same sample in a parallel manner.”).
With regards to claim 14, the device of claim 6 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez and further in view of Ball et al.
Bergh et al discloses an array (see, e.g. [0068]), but neither Bergh et al nor Gonzalez explicitly disclose an array comprising at least one modular microvalve and a corresponding valve receptacle.
Ball et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the array comprises a plurality of modular microvalves and corresponding valve receptacles” has been read on the taught ([0023], “FIG. 12A-12C shows photographs of exemplary fluidic cartridges. Provided are (A) a first exemplary cartridge configured to conduct multiple, separate reactions on the same cartridge, in which four separate samples can be introduced in each separate fluidic network…”; The exemplary cartridge reads on an array of microvalves and valve receptacles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluidic device of Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez in view of Ball et al with the array of microvalves as taught by Ball et al, for the predictable benefit of allowing multiple assays to be performed in the same device, on the same sample, in parallel, as taught by Ball et al ([0138], “…such chips can be adapted to conduct parallel assays, in which the same assay can be performed on different samples in a parallel manner or in which different assays can be performed with the same sample in a parallel manner.”).
With regards to claim 16, the device of claim 6 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez and further in view of Ball et al.
Bergh et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the microfluidic device further comprises an actuation means for applying a compression force to the modular microvalve” has been read on the taught ([0044], “The microvalve 201 is operated by an actuator (not shown) in fluid communication with fluid activation passage 231.”; An actuator reads on an actuation means).
With regards to claim 17, the device of claim 6 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez and further in view of Ball et al.
Bergh et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the actuation means for applying a compression force is selected from a group consisting of a solenoid and piston mechanism, a pneumatic mechanism, or other suitable means for applying a compression force to actuate the pin of the modular microvalve” has been read on the taught ([0044], “The microvalve 201 is operated by an actuator (not shown) in fluid communication with fluid activation passage 231.”; An actuator reads on “other suitable means for applying a compression force to actuate the pin of the modular microvalve”. ).
With regards to claim 18, the device of claim 6 is obvious over Bergh et al in view of Gonzalez and further in view of Ball et al.
Bergh et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the modular micro valves in fluid communication with the fluid channels are actuatable between a closed configuration that inhibits fluid flow through the fluid openings into the fluid channels when the pin is in a compressed state and an open configuration allowing fluid flow from the fluid input loading wells through the fluid openings into the fluid channels when the pin is in an uncompressed state” has been read on the taught ([0010], “….an open position in which the sealing membrane does not block fluid flow in a corresponding one of the fluid transfer channels between the inlet passage and outlet passage, and a closed position in which the piston deforms the sealing membrane to block fluid flow in said corresponding one of the fluid transfer channels between the inlet passage and outlet passage.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Christy (US 4909441 A1) teaches a fluidic valve with an elastomeric pin.
Clemens et al (US 20080200343 A1) teaches a variety of fluidic arrangements including valves.
Maltezos et al (US 20080142157 A1) teaches a microfluidic, pin-actuated valve.
Heath et al (US 20070051412 A1) teaches a pin-actuated fluidic valve and actuation mechanisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30pm 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.
/ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
