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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the upper and lower ends of the downward passage; the one side and other side of the test zone passage, the one side and other side of bridge passage (claim 1); the connecting channel layer is a multi-layer (claim 3); a device comprising all of the structural elements as recited in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The features are not labeled by any reference numerals in the specification and drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
A claim is only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus.
It is noted that claim 1 mentions waste and claim 4 mentions a gas. However, neither are positively claimed as elements of the device. The waste and gas are materials intended to be, can be worked upon, used with the device. However, there is no requirement for the device to be used in any process at all including for any gas ventilation nor to hold any unspecified “waste”.
It is noted that the names of the various layers do not provide for any structure of the respective layers, passages, etc. For example, the connecting channel layer is not claimed as comprising any channel and the same is applicable to the test zone channel layer. Furthermore nor is any “test zone” claimed and structurally defined in the claim.
It is noted that the term “or” recited throughout the claims is directed to alternatives not requirements.
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 1-10 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 1 recites the limitations "the upper end of the downward passage"; “the lower end of the downward passage”; “the other side of the test zone passage”; and the other side of the bridge passage. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Furthermore, it is noted that the phrases “located above” and “below” do not provide for any structural connectivity nor definitive, relative distance, but are directed to general, broad locations.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what is structurally considered as one side and another side of the zest zone passage and the bridge passage because such sides are not structurally defined in the claims nor shown in the drawings. It is unclear if such are referring to side walls or some other sides not defined in the claim.
As to claims 1 and 10, it is unclear what is structurally required to be considered as an incident surface and an emergent surface because the claims do not define such. It is unclear what is the structural nexus of the elements of the prism, the bottom surface, incidence surface, and emergent surface, because the claims does do not provide for such. It is also unclear what is the structural connectivity of the prism and gold film because the claim does not provide for such the phrase “located above” does not require nor provide for any structural connectivity.
As to claim 1, it is unclear how the invention as claimed can exist because the claim does not account for structural elements described in the specification and as shown in the drawings. For example, it is unclear how the prism module is present without provide for the bottom plate bottom plate 116, that has an opening 116a in which the prism module 120 is located. Furthermore, the first hydrophilic film 112 and a second hydrophilic film 114 are not claimed. The claim is not consistent with the specification and drawing.
Claims 2-9 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim.
As to claim 4, it is presumed that it is intended for the top layer to comprise a ventilation hole 111b as described in specification. Therefore, the claim should clearly recite such.
As to claim 5, although a glass layer and light transmissive layer are alternatives, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of such to the gold film because the phrase “between” does not provide for nor require any structural connections. The same as the terms “above” and “below”, a structure can be located between other structures and not be structurally connected to the other structures.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required for the light transmissive layer to be “homogenous with” the prism because the claim does not provide for such.
The term “substantially same” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially same” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no indication of what differences in refractive index are considered as “substantially same” because the claim does not provide for such. What may be considered as “substantially same” to one person may not be considered as such to another and vice versa.
As to claim 6, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the first hydrophilic film and the connecting channel layer and top layer channel layer because the term “between” does not require nor provide for any connectivity.
As to claim 7, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the second hydrophilic film and the connecting layer and test zone channel layer because the term “between” does not require nor provide for any connectivity.
As to claim 9, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the bottom plate to the prior positively claimed elements because the claim does not provide for such the term “beneath” does not provide for nor require any structural connectivity.
Claim 10 employs the same or similar language as claim 1. Therefore, see also applicable rejections above.
As to claim 10, it is unclear what the phrase “each of which” references because the claim does not clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is unclear what/which structure corresponds to a test channel.
The term “hat-shaped” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hat-shaped” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The number of shapes that hats can have is exhaustive. What may be considered as “hat-shaped” by one person may not be considered as such by another, and vice versa.
As to claim 10, it is unclear how such a device exists without provided for the various layers, films, and plate provided for in the specification. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required to define “a test zone” because such is not structurally defined in the claim by any definitive structure(s), structural boundaries, dimensions so as to determine where such zone begins and ends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fulpagare; Yogesh Shantaram et al.; Koppes; Ryan A. et al.; LIN; Bill Kengli et al.; URAKAWA; Satoshi et al.; Chen; Kun Lung et al.; Govyadinov; Alexander; KARTIGANER; Zev et al.; ISHIZAWA; Naoya et al.; LIN; YI-SHENG et al.; ITO; Yu; HAKII; Hidemitsu et al.; KOTANI; Yuzo et al.; Van Loenhout; Marinus Theodorus Johannes; Pezzuoli; Denise et al.; Abbasi; Usama Ahmed et al.; PENG; Kang et al.; Sharpe; Johnathan Charles et al.; Stadlober; Barbara et al.; Pugia; Michael J.; LEE; Jae Hong et al.; Dorrestijn; Marko et al.; HOU; Mengjun et al.; DENG; Ruijun et al.; ZHAO; Zijian et al.; Samsoondar; James; Van Workum; Stefan Leo et al.; Dorrestijn; Marko et al.; ZHAO; Zijian et al.; Masuhara; Shin et al.; POLLARD; Robert et al.; AOKI; Youichi et al.; Wada; Shigeru; Battrell; C. Frederick et al.; HORII; Kazuyoshi et al.; Shen; Pao-Lin et al.; Yoo; Jae-chern; Notcovich; Ariel G. et al.; Takayama, Hidehito; and Takenaka, Kei et al. disclose devices including channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights