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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7, “the internal pressure” should be “an internal pressure”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 is 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 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN113791016, see attached English translation) in view of Amanullah et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20160061701).
Regarding claim 1, Wei teaches a particle-containing discontinuous phase seepage experimental apparatus, comprising a micro-liquid volume injection system (Fig.1, 2+4), a pressure acquisition and transmission system (Fig.1, 7 and 8), a microscopic observation system (Fig.1, 9 and 10), and an in-microchannel particle screening and transfer system (Fig.1, 1+3); the micro-liquid volume injection system being configured to inject different types of particle solutions (Paragraph 59); the pressure acquisition and transmission system being configured to monitor pressure fluctuation features of particles transferring in and blocking a microchannel (Paragraphs 2-3 and 29-30); the microscopic observation system being configured to visually study a transfer state and a blockage mode of the particles in the microchannel (Paragraph 53); and the in-microchannel particle screening and transfer system being configured to accurately screen out target particles (Paragraph 58).
Wei is silent about the particle is gel particle.
Amanullah teaches the particle is gel particle (Paragraphs 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Wei’s system to monitor gel seepage because it would maximize oil recovery and minimize downtime as taught by Amanullah.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wei and Amanullah teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Wei further teaches wherein the micro-liquid volume injection system comprises a micro-injection pump, a micro-injector, and a pipeline; and the micro-injector is matched with the micro-injection pump and is fixed on the micro-injection pump, and a liquid in the micro-injector is pumped into the in-microchannel particle screening and transfer system via the pipeline by using the micro-injection pump (Paragraphs 58-59).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wei and Amanullah teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, the combination of Wei and Amanullah is silent about wherein the material of the pipeline is a polytetrafluoroethylene, a fluorinated ethylene propylene copolymer or a Tygon silica gel, and an inner diameter of the pipeline is 0.039-2.54 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a polytetrafluoroethylene, a fluorinated ethylene propylene copolymer or a Tygon silica gel for the material of the pipeline, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make an inner diameter of the pipeline 0.039-2.54 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wei and Amanullah teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, the combination of Wei and Amanullah is silent about wherein the material of the single-channel microfluidic chip is poly(methyl methacrylate) or polydimethylsiloxane, and the thickness of the single-channel microfluidic chip is 0.5-1.5 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use poly(methyl methacrylate) or polydimethylsiloxane for the material of the single-channel microfluidic chip, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the thickness of the single-channel microfluidic chip 0.5-1.5 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wei and Amanullah teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, the combination of Wei and Amanullah is silent about wherein the micro-injection system further comprises a filter that is connected to the micro-injector and configured to filter out large particulate impurities from the solution.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the micro-injection system further comprises a filter that is connected to the micro-injector and configured to filter out large particulate impurities from the solution, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN113791016, see attached English translation) in view of Amanullah et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20160061701) and Lecacheux et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4478071).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wei and Amanullah teaches all the features of claim 2 as outlined above, Wei further teaches wherein the pressure acquisition and transmission system comprises a pipe connector, a pressure sensor, a controller, a communication module, and a computer, the pipe connector, the controller, the communication module, and the computer are connected successively; and the pipe connector is connected into the pipeline, and when a fluid passes through the pipe connector, the internal pressure of a pipe is sensed by the pressure sensor through the connector, then data acquisition and control is performed by the controller, and finally the communication module communicates with the computer for data transmission (Paragraphs 2-3 and 29-30).
The combination of Wei and Amanullah is silent about the pipe connector is a T-shaped pipe connector.
Lecacheux teaches the pipe connector is a T-shaped pipe connector (Column 4, lines 37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace Wei’s pipe connector with a T-shaped pipe connector because it would provide more accurate pressure measurement.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wei, Amanullah and Lecacheux teaches all the features of claim 3 as outlined above, Wei further teaches wherein the microscopic observation system comprises a high-speed camera and a microscope; and the observed target particles are first captured by using the microscope, and subsequently, blockage and transfer forms of the target particles in the microchannel are observed by using the high-speed camera (Paragraphs 53-54 and 66)
Wei is silent about the particle is gel particle.
Amanullah teaches the particle is gel particle (Paragraphs 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Wei’s system to monitor gel seepage because it would maximize oil recovery and minimize downtime as taught by Amanullah.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Also, claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reasons for allowance of dependent claim 5 is the inclusion of the specific limitations of “the gel particle injection port and the waste liquid discharge port are located on the same straight line, and a channel where the gel particle screening port is located is perpendicular to a communication channel between the gel particle injection port and the waste liquid discharge port; the main transfer microchannel forms an included angle of 125°-150° with the communication channel between the gel particle injection port and the waste liquid discharge port, a channel where the continuous phase injection port is located is vertically communicated with a main channel, and the main transfer microchannel, the S-shaped channel, the convergent channel, the narrow throat, and the gel particle discharge port are communicated successively; and the adjustable valve is located at the leftmost end of the main transfer microchannel, and the communication between a screening channel and a transfer channel is controlled through the adjustable valve”, in combination of with all other recited associated elements in a gel particle-containing discontinuous phase seepage experimental apparatus. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855