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 1 (claim 1-2, 4-9) in the reply filed on 04/27/2027 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Phaneuf does not teach certain elements of claim 1. This is not found persuasive because:
Point 1 – Phaneuf teaches dual heating filaments and each filament is deemed read on “a heating element”
Point 2 – Phaneuf teaches dual heating filaments in at different points in space and are deemed to be at different distances from the axis
Point 3 – the applicant argues “generating multiple heating zones” and this limitation is not recited in the claim language
Point 4 - the applicant argues “necessarily implies the presence of a plurality of distinct and separately addressable heating elements” and this limitation is not recited in the claim language. The examiner points out that the “and/or” claim language is interpreted as “or”. Furthermore, Phaneuf teaches a controller operating the dual heating filaments and is deemed to read on the “in groups” limitation
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/20/2023 was filed before the mailing date of the FAOM. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
claim 1 – “detection module” is revealed in the specification as a “detector designed to detect an electromagnetic radiation” or equivalents thereof.
claim 1 – “heating module” is revealed in the specification as “a plurality of heating elements” or equivalents thereof.
claims 5 and 9 – “measurement module” and “measurement element” are revealed in the specification as a plurality of measurement elements, the measurement element corresponding to an infra-red detector (Spec., para [0066]) or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phaneuf et al (US Pat No. 10,406,528 B1 09/10/2019; hereinafter Phaneuf).
Regarding claim 1, Phaneuf teaches a control device (a system 3000 – Fig. 3B) comprising:
a device site (a lower enclosure 3015 – Fig. 3B) provided for placing a microfluidic device and rotating the microfluidic device about an axis (the lower enclosure 3015 holds and rotates a microfluidic disc 3005 – Fig. 3B), and comprising:
a detection area (a detection region above the detection module 3040 – Fig. 3B), and
a heating area (a mask 3003 to provide selective heating of assay areas – Fig. 3B);
a detection module (a detection module – column 8 line 12) comprising a detector designed to detect an electromagnetic radiation coming from the detection area (detection module may include a detector e.g., an optical detector – column 8 line 12); and
a heating module arranged to heat the heating area (an infrared emitter was used to heat aqueous samples – column 16 line 24 and Fig. 3B);
wherein the detection area being offset circumferentially from the heating area (the detection region and the mask 3003 are offset circumferentially – Fig. 3B), so that at least one portion of the microfluidic device, for example a chamber, can be moved between the detection area and the heating area by rotation about the axis (a chamber of the microfluidic disc 3005 can be moved between detection region and the mask 3003 – Fig. 3B); and
wherein the heating module comprises a plurality of heating elements located at different radial distances from the axis (carbon infrared emitter from Heraeus Noblelight Ltd., Hanau, Germany comprises multiple filaments – column 17 lines 11-12),
PNG
media_image1.png
319
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and wherein the control device further comprises a control unit (a controller, logic circuitry, and/or software for performing functionalities described herein – column 8 lines 46-48) configured to control the heating elements in groups and/or independently of one another (a method for uniformly heating an array of biological samples on a centrifugal microfluidic device using an infrared emitter – column 16 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 2, Phaneuf teaches the control device as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least two of the heating elements are circumferentially offset from each other (the dual heating filaments in at different points in space and are deemed to be capable of being placed at different distances from the axis – column 17 lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, Phaneuf teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the heating module allows an electromagnetic heating, preferably by radiation or induction (the system employs an infrared emitter to provide non-contact heating – column 3 lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 5, Phaneuf teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the device site comprises a measurement area (a top surface of the disc – Fig. 6A and paragraph 37-39), the control device comprising a measurement module (an infrared camera – Fig. 6A and paragraph 37-39) arranged to measure a parameter on the measurement area (an infrared camera positioned above the disc to measure the top surface temperature of the disc – Fig. 6A and paragraph 37-39).
Regarding claim 6, Phaneuf teaches the control device according to claim 5, wherein the measurement area is offset circumferentially from the detection area and from the heating area (a portion of the top surface of the disc is offset circumferentially from the detection area and from the heating area – Fig. 6A and paragraph 37-39).
Regarding claim 7, Phaneuf teaches the control device according to claim 5, wherein the parameter is a temperature (an infrared camera positioned above the disc to measure the top surface temperature of the disc – Fig. 6A and paragraph 37-39).
Regarding claim 8, Phaneuf teaches the control device according to claim 7, arranged to control, at least in part, the heating module and/or a rotation of the microfluidic device (a controller, logic circuitry, and/or software for performing functionalities described herein – column 8 lines 46-48) as a function of the temperature measured by the measurement module (Collected data were correlated with true sample temperatures measured using the embedded thermocouple. This correlation, plotted in FIG. 6B, was then used for open loop operation of the disc – column 18 lines 42-45 ).
Regarding claim 9, Phaneuf teaches the control device according to claim 5, wherein the measuring module comprises a plurality of measuring elements (sample temperature measurements collected using an embedded micro-thermocouple – column 3 lines 5-6) (an infrared camera (FLIR T420, FLIR Systems, Inc., Boston, Mass.) – column 18 lines 37-38) located at different radial distances from the axis (the infrared camera is offset from the embedded micro-thermocouple and therefore located at different radial distances from the axis – Figs. 6 and 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINGCHEN SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/T.C.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights