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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 13 “is” should be changed to --are--. 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.
Claims 1-9 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.
For claim 1, the phrase “the cell filter” at lines 1-2 is inconsistent with the claimed “microscale cell filter.” The Examiner requests Applicant amend the claims so that the language regarding the microscale cell filter is consistent.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction of flow" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For claim 1, the phrase “the post elements” at line 11 is inconsistent with “the plurality of post elements” at line 6. As such, it is unclear which of the plurality of post elements the phrase “the post elements” references.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the width" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For claim 5, the phrase “integrally formed” is unclear as the Examiner is unable to determine how the post elements can be integrally formed with both the substrate and the cover. Specifically, the Examiner is unable to determine if the filter is a single piece with the post elements attached to the substrate and cover, or if Applicant intends to recite post element attached to either the substrate or the cover. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider any configuration of post elements, a substrate, and a cover as being integrally formed.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations 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.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohman et al., (US 2005/0042766) as evidenced by Miyauchi et al., (US 2004/0125266) in view of Singhal et al., (US 2012/0015347), and further in view of Kamm et al., (US 2014/0057311).
Regarding claim 1, Ohman et al., teach a microfluidic liquid flow system (paragraph 0001) comprising a channel structure having an inlet aperture (paragraph 0060), an exit aperture (paragraph 0060), a cover (paragraph 0060), a plurality of microposts between the inlet and exit apertures (figure 9) wherein the microposts have a diameter of 20 µm (paragraph 0050), and are evenly spaced over a support (paragraph 0050) wherein the space between microposts are evenly spaced (paragraph 0050). Ohman et al., teach the space between microposts ranging between 0.1 to 1000 µm, preferably between 1 to 100 µm (paragraph 0055), with the height of the columns being higher than 10 µm (paragraph 0055). Ohman et al., also teach that the distance between microposts can be selected so that capillary flow of liquids can be maintained (paragraph 0055), thus it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to select an aspect ratio to allow for capillary flow of liquids through the device. Also, the Examiner notes that capillary flow generally exhibits a linear velocity ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 mm/s, thus the capillary flow taught by Ohman et al., would be expected to be within the claimed linear velocity range. Given these teachings, the Examiner contends that the teachings of Ohman et al., meet the limitation of the gap having an aspect ratio ranging from 3.5 to 5. In support of this view, the Examiner notes that reference to Miyauchi et al., who teach that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it easy to form pillars having an aspect ratio of 4 so as to provide a substrate that can be utilized for a great variety of applications (paragraphs 0039, 0180). As such, the Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious within the teachings of Ohman et al., to provide microposts having an aspect ratio ranging from 3.5 to 5 in light of the teachings of Miyauchi et al. Ohman et al., teach the microposts having a diameter of 20 µm, but do not explicitly teach microposts having a width ranging from 15 to 40 µm.
Singhal et al., teach a microfluidic device wherein the device comprises a reversible trap having spaced apart structural members (posts, paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0017) wherein the structural members have a width ranging from 5 to 30 microns. The Examiner is reading this combination as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141 III C). Singhal et al., teach that the structural members allow the fluid to flow through a chamber while providing size selection for a particle within the fluid, which is identical to the microposts of Ohman et al., which also allow for fluid flow while separating particles. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the microposts of Ohman et al., with the structural members of Singhal et al., as they operate in a similar manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ohman et al., to utilize posts having a width ranging from 5 to 30 microns as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. Ohman et al., in view of Singhal et al., do not teach a single row of post elements.
Kamm et al., teach a microfluidic device comprising a plurality of posts located in microchannels (Abstract, paragraph 0008) wherein the posts can be arranged in a single row (paragraph 0089). The Examiner is reading this combination as applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141 III D). Kamm et al., teach that the plurality of posts can be arranged in a variety of orientations depending on the intended use of the device (paragraph 0089). As such, the Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from the teachings of Kamm et al., to for a single row of posts depending on the intended use of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ohman et al., in view of Singhal et al., wherein the plurality of posts are arranged in a single row as taught by Kamm et al., as applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Ohman et al., teach the microposts having a circular shape (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 4, Ohman et al., teach the microposts having an even height (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 5, Ohman et al., teach the microposts formed directly on the surface of a support (paragraphs 0053, 0056).
Regarding claim 6, Singhal et al., teach a substrate formed from PDMS (paragraph 0082).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohman et al., (US 2005/0042766) as evidenced by Miyauchi et al., (US 2004/0125266) in view of Singhal et al., (US 2012/0015347) in view of Kamm et al., (US 2014/0057311) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Delamarche et al., (US 2011/0117539).
Regarding claim 7, Ohman et al., in view of Singhal et al., in view of Kamm et al., do not teach a transparent cover.
Delamarche et al., teach a device comprising a filter having a plurality of circular posts (paragraph 0079) wherein the device also comprises a cover having an optically transparent window (paragraph 0093). The Examiner is reading this combination as applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing a transparent cover prevents contamination from the ambient environment while allowing a user to optically view or analyze the fluid as it flows through the nanopillar array.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ohman et al., in view of Singhal et al, in view of Kamm et al., further in view of Delamarche et al., to provide a transparent cover as applying a known technique to a known device requires ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohman et al., (US 2005/0042766) as evidenced by Miyauchi et al., (US 2004/0125266) in view of Singhal et al., (US 2012/0015347) in view of Kamm et al., (US 2014/0057311) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sloan et al., (US 2015/0231627).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Ohman et al., in view of Singhal et al., in view of Kamm et al., do not teach microposts comprising a surfactant.
Sloan et al., teach a device for sample collection and separation wherein surfaces along the fluid pathway are coated with a surfactant (paragraph 0153). Sloan et al., also teach the surfactant being a pluronic acid (paragraph 0153). Sloan et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide a surfactant as a means of generating a wettable surface to hydrophobic layers and to facilitate filling of the pathway with a liquid sample (paragraph 0153).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ohman et al., in view of Singhal et al., in view of Kamm et al., to coat the pillars with a surfactant in order to provide a wettable surface to hydrophobic layers and to facilitate filling of the flow path with a liquid sample as taught by Sloan et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797