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 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 2-6 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 2 recites the limitation "the microfluidic structure" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 line 9 recites “an antenna”, but claim 1 recites “an antenna”. It is unclear if these are the same or different antenna. Appropriate clarification is required. Suggestions such as reciting “the antenna” if it’s the same or “a second antenna” if they are different.
Claims 3-6 are rejected because of their dependency and failure to remove the ambiguity of the parent claim 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the antenna" in line 5. As mentioned in the above rejection of claim 2, the support for “the antenna” is confusing if it is the antenna in claim 1 or claim 2 or if they are the same. Once the clarification of claim 2 above is accomplished, this confusion will be resolved.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-11, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klauke et al (2006/0003310) in view of Lo et al (2014/0061049).
Regarding claim 1, Klauke et al teach a method comprising: stimulating, by a device, a cell sample (Abstract: stimulating electrode for cell assay; Para. 0092, Fig. 2a: electrodes connected to printed circuit board 13); sensing, by at least two chemical sensors of the device, the presence of at least two types of biomolecules released by the cell sample (Para. 0041: sensor electrodes; Para. 0043: amperometric electrodes, ions such as K, Na, and Ca measured by ion selective sensor electrodes);
Klauke et al teach the electrodes connected to printed circuit board 13 (Para. 0092; Fig. 2a: 13). Klauke is silent to recording, by a computer chip of the device, data collected by the at least two chemical sensors; and sending, by an antenna of the device, the recorded data to a remote server.
Lo et al teach a microfluidic device with electrodes that uses a computer chip with a printed circuit (Para. 0062: silicon wafer with printed circuit; ); recording, by a computer chip of the device, data collected by the at least two chemical sensors (Para. 0071; Fig. 8: raw data stored in memory of the integrated circuit); and sending, by an antenna of the device, the recorded data to a remote server (Para. 0071; Fig. 8: antenna of integrated circuit sending data to reader 810). It is advantageous to provide a computer chip to record the data collected by the two chemical sensor to provide the data to process. It is advantageous to provide an antenna to send data to a remote server to allow for off device analysis (Para. 0071). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is known. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the recording and sending steps of Lo et al to the method of Klauke et al to provide the above advantage of providing sensing data and allowing for off device analysis.
Regarding claims 7 and 15-16, 19-20, Klauke/Lo teach sensing the presence of the at least two types of biomolecules released by the cell sample further comprises: sensing, by an amperometric chemical sensor of the at least two chemical sensors, the electrical current arising from an interaction between a bioenzyme coated on the amperometric chemical sensor and a first biomolecule of the at least two types of biomolecules released by the cell sample (Para. 0043: sensor electrodes amperometric using enzymes); and sensing, by a resistivity chemical sensor of the at least two chemical sensors, the resistivity arising from the interaction between a second biomolecule of the two types of biomolecules and the resistivity chemical sensor (Para. 0041: impedance)
Klauke also teaches the combination of features (Para. 0063: combination of optional features). Klauke does not explicitly teach the combination of both together. It is desirable to provide multiple sensors that detect analytes either at the surface of the cell and not in contact with the cell to detect different analytes. (Para. 0041). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is known. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the first amperometric sensor and the second impedance sensor to provide the above advantage of detecting analytes either at the surface of the cell and not in contact with the cell to detect different analytes. Specifically regarding claim 15, Klauke/Lo teach the processor with the program instructions (Para. 0008)
Regarding claim 8, Klauke/Lo teach recording the data collected by the at least two chemical sensors further comprises; recording, by the computer chip, the electrical current arising from the interaction between the amperometric chemical sensor and the first biomolecule; and recording, by the computer chip, the resistivity arising from the interaction between the resistivity chemical sensor and the second biomolecule. (See recording step in claim 1 combination of Klauke/Lo)
Regarding claims 9, 14, 17, Klauke/Lo teach wherein stimulating the cell sample is done by a first electrode (Para. 0025: first stimulating electrode to create depolarisation); sensing, by a second electrode, a voltage differential across a cell membrane of the cell sample (Para. 0029: action potential is measured): ; recording, by the computer chip, the voltage differential; and sending, by the antenna, the voltage differential to the remote server (see recording and sending step in claim 1 combination of Klauke/Lo). Specifically regarding claim 14, Klauke/Lo teach the processor with the program instructions (Para. 0008)
Specifically regarding claims 10, Klauke/Lo teach the integrated circuit includes a computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors to perform the above steps of claim 1 (Lo: Para. 0008)
Regarding claim 11, Klauke/Lo teach the program instructions to stimulate the cell sample further comprise: program instructions to stimulate the cell sample using at least one electrode. (Lo: Para. 0008)
Specifically regarding claim 18, Klauke/Lo teach computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions to perform the above steps of claim 1 (Lo: Para. 0008)
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klauke et al (2006/0003310) in view of Lo et al (2014/0061049) and further in view of Mernier et al (20070016151).
Regarding claims 12-13, Klauke/Lo teach the cell can be a neuron that ions may move into or out of the cell (Para. 0009 and 0087) and use of an electrode for stimulation (Abstract: stimulating electrode), but Klauke/Lo are silent to stimulate the cell sample using biomolecules released from a microfluidic structure. Mernier et al to stimulate the cell sample using biomolecules released from a microfluidic structure (Para. 0018-0019, 0059: stimulation electrically driven to neurotransmitter to the cells by access channels). It is advantageous to provide the stimulation using neurotransmitters as its efficient, reproducible, and has a low power supply (Para. 0006-0007). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is known. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the step of stimulating the cell sample using biomolecules released from a microfluidic structure of Mernier to the method of Klauke/Lo provide the above advantage of providing the method with an efficient, reproducible, and low power supply stimulation of the cells.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Klauke (US 20060003310), Lo et al (2014/0061049) and Mernier et al (20070016151), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above limitations obvious. Klauke, Lo, and Mernier et al teaches an electrode, two chemical sensor, and a microfluidic structure, but are silent to the microfluidic structure that encases all but the top side of the computer chip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571)270-3747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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 R. 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.
/Dennis White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights