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 in the reply filed on 05/15/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the art failed to teach the newly amended limitation. This is not found persuasive because in the claim’s currently drafted form, lines 17-20 are interpreted to be conditional limitation wherein the determination can be done with or without the perturbation. As such, the method disclosed in Weigl would have still taught the embodiment without the perturbation.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 20 and 27 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
“presence/absence at least one element should be presence/absence of at least one element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9-10, 18, 20-23, 27, 29, 33-35, 52, 57, and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites determination said property of the at least one of the first liquid and the second liquid from said signal row using a computer system.
The limitation of determination said property, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with assistance from a generic computing device. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determination of property” in the context of this claim encompasses the user making conjecture/hypothesis/conclusion/diagnosis based the signal data displayed by a computer. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of method, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, after the determination of a broadly and generically-stated “property” has been determined, nothing is done with this information. By definition, there is no integration of the determination into an application, let alone a practical one. Moreover, the fact that the judicial exception is performed by a computer does not constitute integration of the judicial exception into a practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Feeding liquids into a fluidic device (See Weigl below, figure 2A; paragraphs [0033]-[0034], the liquids are in succession in the width direction of the channel) and collecting signal data using an analytical device (figure 4A; paragraphs [0040], [0055], [0089], Weigl) other than the abstract idea appears to be routine and conventional ways of collecting data using analytical technique. Routine and conventional ways of collecting data/signal using analytical device cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 7, 9, and 10 do not cure the efficiency of claim 1. Though these claims positively require perturbation to be present in the signals, the claims do not provide/address details on how the perturbation are being specifically used for determination of a specific property. For instant, perturbation in intensity signals can be sign of unwanted noises. Claim 4 specifies one should expect at least 10 intensity readings but does not specify if the intensity readings include noise or not. Claims 7, 9, and 10 specify the property of the signal spike or perturbation one of ordinary skill in the art should look for but do not address the significance of the selected spike or perturbation for purpose of determination of a specific property.
Claims 18, 20-23, 27, 29 specifies the specific property the determination method is looking to address. Due to the Markush structure of these claims, some broadly stated property such as ability of reactions between the elements of the first and the second liquids or presence/absence of specific compounds may not be able to cure the deficiency as these properties can be done with mental analysis of visualized data (i.e. one look at signal data to determine if the compound is present or not).
Claims 33-35 do not cure the deficiency as the claims merely state the generic class of compounds for the liquids and solvent.
Claims 52, 57, and 59 do not cure the deficiency of claim 1. The claim concerns with additional experimental procedure perform before the determination step. These procedures are well-known or conventional and therefore cannot provide patent-eligible claim.
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.
Claim(s) 59 is/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.
Regarding claim 59, the claim recites “method comprise reducing the flow velocity… and/or subjection said liquid portions a temporally flow stop when the read intensity of two or more consecutive readings differs beyond a threshold”. Due to the grammatical phrasing, it is unclear if the bolded conditional statement is only for subjection of said liquid portions a temporally flow stop or both the subjection or the reduction of flow velocity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 18, 20-23, 27, 29, 33-35, 52, 57 and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weigl (US 20020090644) as cited in previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Weigl discloses a method for determining a property of at least one liquid (paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0022]), the method comprising
• providing at least a first liquid (analyte fluid, paragraph [0022]) and a second liquid (diffusion fluid, paragraphs [0019] and [0024]) wherein at least one component of the first and/or the second liquid comprises a detectable marker (paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0019]);
• feeding liquid into a channel comprising feeding a portion of said first liquid and a portion of the second liquid in succession into a channel to provide an interfacial contact across the channel between said first liquid portion and said second liquid portion (Interdiffusion zone 32, figure 2A; paragraphs [0033]-[0034], the liquids are in succession in the width direction of the channel);
• obtaining a row of signals by reading out intensity of said marker of a plurality of volume fractions of said first liquid portion and said second liquid portion located at an interface region comprising said interface between said first liquid portion and said second liquid portion (figure 4A; paragraphs [0040], [0055], [0089]), wherein the reading is performed using a reader arrangement comprising an electronic detector (one- or two-dimensional detector array, para. [0089]) and
• determining said property of the at least one of the first liquid and the second liquid from said signal row (paragraphs [0005], [0007] and [0055]) using a computer system (paragraphs [0052]),
wherein said determination is based on lack of signal perturbations (in the claim’s currently drafted form, the determination can be done without considering signal perturbation) of the row of signals obtained at the interface region (paragraphs [0005], [0007] and [0055]; figure 4), and
wherein the reading out is performed after a contacting time Tc from establishing said interfacial contact between said first liquid portion and said second liquid portion (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Weigl discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Weigl discloses the first and the second liquid differs from each other in at least one chemical property, selected from presence/absence of at least one element (binding particles in diffusion fluids, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 21, Weigl discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Weigl discloses the first and the second liquid differ in viscosity (The viscosities of the analyte fluid and the diffusion fluid need not be the same and can differ greatly so long as diffusion from the analyte fluid into the diffusion fluid is significant enough to allow measurement. Paragraphs [0026]).
Regarding claim 22-23, Weigl discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Weigl discloses the determination of property of at least one liquid comprises determining a characteristic property of a liquid-liquid phase interaction, wherein the characteristic property comprises a characteristic property of ability of mixing between the first and the second liquid (This allows the movement of different fluidic layers next to each other in a channel without mixing other than by diffusion. Para. [0083]).
Regarding claim(s) 27, Weigl discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Weigl discloses the determination of the property of at least one liquid comprises determining a chemical property of a sample liquid (analyte fluid), provided as one of the first liquid and the second liquid wherein the other of the first liquid and the second liquid is provided as a test liquid for testing the sample liquid (diffusion fluid),
wherein the determination of the chemical property of the sample liquid comprises determining a chemical property selected from presence/absence of at least one element and concentration of at least one element (…determining the presence or concentration of sample analyte particles in an analyte fluid…paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 29, Weigl discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 27. Weigl discloses the determination of the chemical property of the sample liquid comprises determining a chemical property associated to a target element in the sample liquid or to a target element suspected to be present in the sample liquid (…determining the presence or concentration of sample analyte particles in an analyte fluid…paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 33, Weigl discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1, Weigl discloses the at least one of the first liquid and the second liquid comprise a protein (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claims 34-35, Weigl discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Weigl discloses the at least one of the first and the second liquid comprises a biological liquid obtained from a living organism (A drop-sized hollow is formed in the gel and a drop of analyte fluid, e.g., blood, paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 52, Weigl discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Weigl discloses the method comprises providing said first liquid portion and said second liquid portion to a flow within said channel, wherein said provision of said first liquid portion and said second liquid portion to flow within said channel comprises, subjecting the liquid portions to a laminar flow (…flowing said first and second fluids in adjacent laminar flow in a laminar flow channel; paragraph [0011] and [0095]) for at least about 10 seconds (This corresponds to an average interdiffusion time of 14.4 seconds…paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 57, Weigl discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Weigl discloses the reading out of intensity of said marker of a plurality of volume fractions of said first liquid portion and/or said second liquid portion comprises performing intensity reading at at least one reading location of the channel (detection zone 26, Fig. 2A; the concentration profile of LA across the d-dimension of the main channel is measured at an appropriate distance l along laminar flow channel 24 at detection zone 26. Paragraph [0092]), wherein the reading out comprises performing consecutive readings from different volume fractions of said liquid portion as the respective volume fractions are passing said at least one reading location of said channel (To experimentally determine the time required for appreciable diffusion of LA across the d-dimension in the absence of Ab, diffusion profiles of LA were measured at a fixed distance l at different flow rates (FIG. 3A). Paragraph [0104], As the flow rates of the streams are different, the volume fraction of the first to the second liquid portions, by extension, will also be different).
Regarding claim 59, Weigl discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Weigl discloses method comprise reducing the flow velocity of said liquid portions (Buffer was pumped through the left side of the device, and LA was pumped through the right side. Note that at slower pumping rates the diffusion of the LA has proceeded further into the left side of the device…The slowed diffusion of LA upon binding resulted in an accumulation of LA near the center of the channel. As SA concentration was increased…Different diffusion profiles were thus observed for each SA concentration tested over the range of 50 nM to 1.6 μM. Para. [0104]-[0105]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICKEY HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30 PM ET.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 5712707698. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights