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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 2-10, Invention I, in the reply filed on 3/20/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 2-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarofim et al. (WO 2008/037485, “Sarofim”).
Regarding claim 2, Sarofim teaches a method of controlling flow in a fluidic channel of fluidic cartridge (method of controlling fluid flow using a valve in a fluidic device, see Field of the Invention) the method comprising:
engaging a cartridge comprising a fluidic channel (fluidic device 10, including covering part 5, contains channel 3 therebetween, see Fig. 3 and Abstract) with a cartridge interface comprising a mechanical actuator (the fluidic device is engaged with actuator 8 during operation, see Page 3, Lines 14-23) wherein the cartridge comprises:
a body (sealing wall 5, see Fig. 3) having a surface defining a valve body fluidically connected to a fluidic channel (the surface of the sealing wall 5 contains open cross section 9 connected to channel 3, see Fig. 3 and Page 3, Lines 14-23) the valve body comprising a groove defined by a wall including an upper part and a floor (see annotated Fig. 3), wherein the wall is curved or sloped in a direction that is non-normal to a plane defined by the surface of the body (the open cross section 9 is curved, see Fig. 3), and
a layer comprising an elastically deformable material (2) attached to a surface of the cartridge body and sealing the at least one valve body at points of attachment wherein the layer is spaced from the floor (thermoplastic elastomeric element 2 attached to sealing wall 5 used to cover open cross section 9 at upper part, see annotated Fig. 3 and Page 16, Lines 11-26);
actuating the mechanical actuator and thereby pressing the layer against the floor of the valve body such that contact between the layer blocks fluidic connection between portions of the fluidic channel fluidically connected by the valve body (the actuator 8 is mechanically actuated to press elastomeric material 2 against floor, see Fig. 1 and Page 3, Lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 3, Sarofim teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising further actuating the mechanical actuator to release the force exerted on the layer, thereby releasing the layer from being pressed against the floor of the valve body (the actuator 8 is moved up to release pressure from member 2 and release member from bottom of cross-section 9, see Fig. 3 and Page 3, Lines 15-23) .
Regarding claim 4, Sarofim teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising, in the released state of the layer, applying a pressure to the channel to cause liquid in the channel to flow through between the portions of the fluidic channel connected by the valve body in the released state of the layer (when the valve is open and released, a pressure is introduced to fill channel 3 with fluid, see Page 3, Lines 14-23 and Page 9, Lines 5-14).
Regarding claim 5, Sarofim teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the layer retains sufficient elasticity to resist being pressed against the floor of the valve body in response to negative pressure up to about 10 psi is exerted on the fluidic channel fluidically connected to the valve body (the elastomeric layer is subjected to a pressure of 1.5-2 bar (21.76-29 psi) prior to sample exposure to create sealing, and requires mechanical actuator for depression into cross-section, see Fig. 3 and Pages 21-24, and therefore retains sufficient elasticity to withstand pressures of up to 10psi).
Regarding claim 6, Sarofim teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the mechanical actuator comprises a ram and actuating the mechanical actuator causes the ram to apply mechanical pressure on the layer in the direction of the cartridge body (the actuator 8 is a plunger that applies mechanical pressure to the cartridge 10/5, see Fig. 3 and Page 18, Lines 16-21).
Regarding claim 7, Sarofim teaches the method of claim 6, the valve body exerts a centering action on the ram toward a center of the valve body as the ram applies pressure on the layer in the direction of the cartridge body (the cross-section 9 has a shape that forces plunger 8 to enter in center-wise fashion, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Sarofim teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the cartridge is removably engaged with the cartridge interface (the actuator and cartridge are removed from each other when actuation ends, see Page 3, Lines 14-23).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarofim et al. (WO 2008/037485, “Sarofim”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kurowski et al. (WO2008/037485).
Regarding claim 8, Sarofim teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the ram is mounted (the plunger is attached to a plunger drive, see Page 18, Lines 16-23), but does not teach that the ram is mounted on a pivotable arm and actuating the mechanical actuator pivots the arm.
However, in the analogous art of methods for deforming membranes for fluid transportation, Kurowski et al. teaches a method of moving fluid from a chamber to a channel, comprising using a ram (impressing member 15, see Fig. 2D) mounted on a lever arm, and actuating the arm by pivoting, see Claim 42.
The prior art of Sarofim teaches that the drive of the plunger is “state of the art,” meaning one possessing skill in the art would have been motivated to find a plunger drive suitable for the method claimed. The reference of Kurowski et al. teaches such an improvement to plunger drives and actuating an impressing member toward an elastic film to expel fluid contents from a specified area in a microfluidic platform, see Claims 40 and 42.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the plunger to have been mounted on a pivotable drive as exemplified by Kurowski et al. because if a technique has been used to improve one device, and the method is used to improve a similar device in a similar way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill, see MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarofim et al. (WO 2008/037485, “Sarofim”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hahn et al. (US 20030026719 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Sarofim teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the ram is mounted (the plunger is attached to a plunger drive, see Page 18, Lines 16-23), but does not teach that the ram is mounted on a rotatable wheel and actuating the mechanical actuator comprises rotating the wheel.
However, in the analogous art of methods for deforming membranes for fluid transportation, Hahn et al. teaches a method comprising using a ram (gear tooth 101) mounted on a rotatable wheel (rotor 10) and actuating the mechanical actuator comprises rotating the wheel (moving the actuator to close fluidic path involves rotating rotor 10 to engage tooth 101, see Figs. 1A-1C and [0029]) .
The prior art of Sarofim teaches that the drive of the plunger is “state of the art,” meaning one possessing skill in the art would have been motivated to find a plunger drive suitable for the method claimed. The reference of Hahn et al. teaches such an improvement to compressing members and their respective drives to propel fluid contents to and from a specified area in a microfluidic platform, see [0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the plunger to have been mounted on a rotatable drive as exemplified by Hahn et al. because if a technique has been used to improve one device, and the method is used to improve a similar device in a similar way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill, see MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5:00PM (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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/A.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SAMUEL P SIEFKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights