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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “845” has been used to designate both “temperature sensor” and “channel” (see [0055]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1022, 300, 710, and 820.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 150 and 829.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification of the instant invention does not disclose any specific temperature ranges. Nor does the specification include any details regarding controlled conditions for extending or deprotecting the nucleic acid sequences. Accordingly, the limitations of “wherein the controller controls the temperature for extending nucleic acid sequences to -5°C and for deprotection to 120°C” and “wherein the controller controls the temperature for extending nucleic acid sequences to 4°C and for deprotection to 100°C” are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 13 – 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al (US 20190358604 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Nguyen et al teaches;
The claimed “a microfluidic system for performing nucleic acid synthesis” has been read on the taught (Abstract, “A system includes a synthesizer unit…”);
The claimed “a microfluidic plate having a reaction chamber” has been read on the taught ([0036], “…a rotatable stacked assembly of wafers for DNA synthesis is mounted on an axis in a chamber of a DNA synthesis module or unit.”; [0118], “Additional sequencing preparation steps can be performed in the flexible chemistry reaction chamber 1120.”);
The claimed reaction chamber “coupled to a microfluidic plate input and a microfluidic plate output” has been read on the taught ([0042], “…a flexible chemistry reaction chamber module consists of a DNA capture and DNA release at a respective inlet and outlet of a chamber.”);
The claimed “a temperature control plate thermally coupled to the microfluidic plate” has been read on the taught ([0114], “An optional heating element 1128 may be thermally coupled for effecting rapid changes in DNA fluid temperatures in the chamber 1120.”);
The claimed “a reagent injection plate to receive enzymatic synthesis reagents” has been read on the taught ([0119], “A filter layer 1170 may be similar to filter layer 515 in FIG. 5 and is positioned between the top valve layer 1130 and the chamber layer 1165.”);
The claimed “a microvalve plate” has been read on the taught ([0115], “The top valve layer 1130 is coupled to the third linear actuator 1135 that operates to move the top valve layer 1130 laterally with respect to a chamber layer 1165.”);
The claimed “a controller coupled to the temperature control plate and the microvalve plate to control the microfluidic system to controllably synthesize nucleic acid sequences” has been read on the taught ([0087], “Synthesis electronics 450 may include controller 181, or be in communication with controller 181. The control functions for synthesis module unit 400 may also be distributed between the one or more controllers in various embodiments.”);
Regarding the limitation that the microvalve plate is “coupled between the reagent injection plate and the microfluidic plate input,” this is held to be mere rearrangement of parts. According to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious provided that the change does not modify the operation of the device; please see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In the case of the instant invention, the tubes providing the enzymatic synthesis reagent are coupled to microvalve plate before reaching the injection plate, such that the flow can still be started and stopped as desired. Accordingly, this limitation does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
With regards to claim 10, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Nguyen et al.
Nguyen et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the controller is configured to control reagent flow and temperature for forming data encoded nucleic acid sequences” has been read on the taught ([0051], “System 100 may be used to mass produce, store, and access DNA encoded with data to provide an end-to-end solution.”).
With regards to claim 13, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Nguyen et al.
Nguyen et al further teaches;
The claimed system “further comprising an initiator particle input coupled to the reaction chamber for providing microparticle beads having gold initiator particles” has been read on the taught ([0113], “The top valve layer 1130 has an additional opening 1140 to receive the capsule 1020…”).
The claim limitation “for providing microparticle beads having gold initiator particles” is functional language describing the intended use of the device and has been given the appropriate patentable weight. Please see MPEP 2114(II), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As Nguyen et al teaches all of the structural limitations of the apparatus as defined in claim 13, including an inlet capable of receiving a particle, this additional limitation does not define the instant application over the prior art.
With regards to claim 14, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Nguyen et al.
Nguyen et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the reaction chamber is elliptical in shape having a long axis and a short axis” has been read on the taught (See Figure 11A below, which shows a long axis and short axis to the reaction chamber);
PNG
media_image1.png
499
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 15, the system of claim 14 is obvious over Nguyen et al.
Nguyen et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the reaction chamber comprises an input and a first output disposed on opposite sides of the long axis” has been read on the taught ([0121], “…other reagents may be added through tube 1110…”; [0122], “The eluted DNA may then be provided to other units or modules for further processing, such as sequencing or storage, via tube 1155.”; See also Figure 11A, provided on page 6).
With regards to claim 16, the system of claim 15 is obvious over Nguyen et al.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the reaction chamber comprises a second output,” this is held to be mere duplication of parts. According to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”—see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reaction chamber as taught by Nguyen et al with a second output, for the predictable result of allowing a second flow path for reagents.
Regarding the limitation wherein the second output is “radially spaced from the first output along the short axis,” this is held to be mere rearrangement of parts. According to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), rearrangement of parts may be an obvious matter of design choice; please see In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The instant application does not disclose any unexpected results occurring from the position of the second output. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reaction chamber with a second output as is obvious over Nguyen et al, with the radially spaced output as is obvious over the prior art.
With regards to claim 17, the system of claim 15 is obvious over Nguyen et al.
The claimed system “further comprising a filter coupled to the first output” has been read on the taught ([0114], “Once the rehydration completes, the resulting DNA-containing fluid may cleaned up by a filter (similar to filter layer 1170 as shown in FIG. 11B).”).
With regards to claim 19, Nguyen et al teaches;
The claimed “a microfluidic system for performing nucleic acid synthesis” has been read on the taught (Abstract, “A system includes a synthesizer unit…”);
The claimed “a microfluidic plate having a reaction chamber having an input to receive enzymatic synthesis reagents” has been read on the taught ([0036], “…a rotatable stacked assembly of wafers for DNA synthesis is mounted on an axis in a chamber of a DNA synthesis module or unit.”; [0118], “Additional sequencing preparation steps can be performed in the flexible chemistry reaction chamber 1120.”; [0114], “The fluidic structures couple to rehydration unit 1100 at a tube 1110 and provide rehydration solutions to the chamber 1120…”; tube 1110 reads on an input);
The claimed “a reagent injection plate coupled to provide the enzymatic synthesis reagents to the reaction chamber” has been read on the taught ([0119], “A filter layer 1170 may be similar to filter layer 515 in FIG. 5 and is positioned between the top valve layer 1130 and the chamber layer 1165.”);
The claimed “a microvalve” has been read on the taught ([0115], “The top valve layer 1130 is coupled to the third linear actuator 1135 that operates to move the top valve layer 1130 laterally with respect to a chamber layer 1165.”);
Regarding the limitation that the microvalve plate is “coupled between the reagent injection plate and the microfluidic plate input,” this is held to be mere rearrangement of parts. According to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious provided that the change does not modify the operation of the device; please see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In the case of the instant invention, the tubes providing the enzymatic synthesis reagent are coupled to microvalve plate before reaching the injection plate, such that the flow can still be started and stopped as desired. Accordingly, this limitation does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
The claimed “a temperature control plate thermally coupled to the microfluidic plate” has been read on the taught ([0114], “An optional heating element 1128 may be thermally coupled for effecting rapid changes in DNA fluid temperatures in the chamber 1120.”);
The claimed “a controller coupled to the temperature control plate, and the microvalve plate to sequentially control the microvalve plate to provide selected enzymatic synthesis reagents and the temperature control plate to control the temperature of the reaction chamber to synthesize nucleic acid sequences” has been read on the taught ([0087], “Synthesis electronics 450 may include controller 181, or be in communication with controller 181. The control functions for synthesis module unit 400 may also be distributed between the one or more controllers in various embodiments.”; [0069], “Operations 225 may also include the control of valves to provide various fluids, control heating and cooling, and also control actuators to open and close valves and agitate a processing chamber.”).
Claims 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen at al (US 20190358604 A1) in view of Li et al (US 20110124049 A1).
With regards to claim 2, the system of claim 2 is obvious over Nguyen et al.
Nguyen et al further teaches that sensors may be provided in the synthesis module, as read on the taught ([0068], “Operations 220 may include multiple cycles of controlling valves to provide various processing fluids, such as reagents, spinning of the wafers to remove such fluids, controlling valves to provide fluid and modify pressures, as well as one or more heating cycles if desired, activating electronic actuators on the wafers and sensing conditions with on-wafer electronic/mechanical sensors.”);
However, Nguyen et al does not explicitly disclose the system further comprising a temperature sensor thermally coupled to the microfluidic plate.
In the analogous art of microfluidic devices for nucleic acid synthesis, Li et al teaches;
The claimed system “further comprising a temperature sensor thermally coupled to the microfluidic plate” has been read on the taught ([0016], “To carry out the synthesis reactions as described herein, the devices may be operably linked to a heating element, a cooling element, a temperature-sensor, and a temperature controller.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device including sensors as taught by Nguyen et al with the temperature sensor taught by Li et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(B), simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Nguyen et al teaches a synthesis system which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a generic sensor for the temperature sensor. The substituted temperature sensor coupled to a microfluidic plate is known in the art of Li et al. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the temperature sensor for a generic sensor, for the predictable result of monitoring the reaction temperature and providing controller feedback within the synthesis system.
With regards to claim 3, the system of claim 2 is obvious over Nguyen et al in view of Li et al.
Nguyen does not explicitly disclose a temperature controller coupled to receive temperature information from the temperature sensor and to control the temperature control plate.
Li et al further teaches;
The claimed system “further comprising a temperature controller coupled to receive temperature information from the temperature sensor and to control the temperature control plate” has been read on the taught ([0016], “To carry out the synthesis reactions as described herein, the devices may be operably linked to a heating element, a cooling element, a temperature-sensor, and a temperature controller.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device including controllers as taught by Nguyen et al with the linked temperature controller taught by Li et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(B), simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Nguyen et al teaches a synthesis system which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a generic controller for a controller capable of interfacing with a temperature sensor. The substituted temperature controller is known in the art of Li et al. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the temperature controller for a generic controller, for the predictable result of managing the reaction temperature during operation of the device.
With regards to claim 4, the system of claim 3 is obvious over Nguyen et al in view of Li et al.
Nguyen et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature control plate includes heaters that are controlled by the controller using a proportional/integral/derivative (PID) algorithm.
Li et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the temperature control plate includes heaters that are controlled by the controller using a proportional/integral/derivative (PID) algorithm” has been read on the taught ([0132], “The desired temperature profile was programmed into a computer through the FTC control software, which controlled the FTC100 temperature controller using a PID (proportional-integrative-derivative) algorithm to optimize the temperature response time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device including a heater and controller as taught by Nguyen et al in view of Li et al with the PID algorithm taught by Li et al, for the predictable benefit of optimizing the temperature response time as taught by Li et al ([00132], “…the FTC100 temperature controller using a PID (proportional-integrative-derivative) algorithm to optimize the temperature response time.”).
With regards to claim 8, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Nguyen et al.
However, Nguyen et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature control plate comprises at least one resistive heater and at least one temperature sensor.
In the analogous art of microfluidic devices for nucleic acid synthesis, Li et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein the temperature control plate comprises at least one resistive heater and at least one temperature sensor” has been read on the taught ([0065], “Heating and cooling means disclosed included electrical resistors…”; [0085], “A temperature controller varies the temperature of the heating element in conjunction with a temperature sensor linked to a heater element, or integrated into the reaction chamber.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device including a temperature control plate as taught by Nguyen et al with the resistive heater and temperature sensor as taught by Li et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(B), simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Nguyen et al teaches a synthesis system which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a generic sensor and heater for the temperature sensor and resistive heater. The substituted temperature sensor and resistive heater coupled to a microfluidic plate is known in the art of Li et al. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the temperature sensor and resistive heater for a generic sensor and heater, for the predictable result of monitoring and controlling the reaction temperature.
With regards to claim 9, the system of claim 8 is obvious over Nguyen et al in view of Li et al.
Nguyen et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature control plate comprises a first board supporting the at least one resistive heater and at least one temperature sensor.
In the analogous art of microfluidic devices for nucleic acid synthesis, Li et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein the temperature control plate comprises a first board supporting the at least one resistive heater and at least one temperature sensor” has been read on the taught ([0053], “The device consists of a printed circuit board (PCR, bottom layer) with integrated thin film heaters and temperature sensors.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device including a temperature control plate as taught by Nguyen et al with the board supporting the resistive heater and temperature sensor as taught by Li et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(B), simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Nguyen et al teaches a synthesis system which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a generic sensor and heater for the temperature sensor and resistive heater. The substituted temperature sensor and resistive heater coupled to a microfluidic plate is known in the art of Li et al. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the board supporting a temperature sensor and resistive heater for a generic sensor and heater, for the predictable result of monitoring and controlling the reaction temperature.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al (US 20190358604 A1) in view of Jovanovich et al (US 20130203634 A1).
With regards to claim 7, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Nguyen et al.
Nguyen et al further teaches;
The claimed “wherein the microfluidic plate and temperature control plate are vertically stacked” has been read on ([0096], “FIGS. 6A, 6B, and 6C are block cross sections of the flexible chemistry reaction chamber module 500 illustrating different positions of layers during data-encoded DNA processing creating different flexible chemistry reaction chamber module states.”).
Nguyen et al teaches the use of ceramic coatings, but does not explicitly teach wherein the microfluidic plate is formed of ceramic.
In the analogous art of microfluidic devices for nucleic acid amplification, Jovanovich et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein the microfluidic plate is formed of ceramic” has been read on the taught ([0111], “The fluidics layer and actuation layer typically are comprised of a material more rigid than the elastic layer, e.g. plastics, silicon, ceramics, or glass.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device including a microfluidic plate as taught by Nguyen et al with the ceramic fluidics layer as taught by Jovanovich et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(B), simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Nguyen et al teaches a synthesis system which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a generic microfluidics plate for the ceramic plate. The substituted ceramic a microfluidic plate is known in the art of Jovanovich et al. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the ceramic microfluidic plate for a generic plate, for the predictable result of creating a device with a rigid and thermally stable microfluidic plate.
With regards to claim 12, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Nguyen et al.
Nguyen et al further teaches a storage chamber comprising a gold surface, as read on the taught ([0100], “A film or membrane may be provided on a side of the storage plate 720 opposite the side from being filled via fill head 745. […] Example materials for the film may include… gold…”).
However, Nguyen et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the reaction chamber has a surface comprising gold.
In the analogous art of microfluidic devices for nucleic acid amplification, Jovanovich et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein the reaction chamber has a surface comprising gold” has been read on the taught ([0157], “Devices of this invention also can be provided that have functional surfaces treated to decrease their surface energy.”; [0160], “…the material comprises a noble metal, such as gold. The noble metal can be applied directly to the surface to be coated.”; A function surface treated with a noble metal such as gold reads on the reaction chamber having a surface comprising gold.).
According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Nguyen et al teaches a base device with a reaction chamber, upon which the reaction chamber having a surface comprising gold can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Jovanovich et al teaches a comparable device, which has been improved with a gold reaction chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique of a coating a functional surface in gold to in the same way to the device of Nguyen et al, for the predictable result of lowering the surface energy of the reaction chamber.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al (US 20190358604 A1) in view of Hill et al (US 20220090183 A1).
With regards to claim 11, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Nguyen et al.
Nguyen et al further teaches a mixer, as read on the taught ([0093], “Second linear actuator 560 may be used to agitate the chamber 520 in a manner conducive to mixing reagents used for the PCR reaction.”).
However, Nguyen et al does not explicitly disclose the system further comprising a mixer coupled to mix reagents and provide mixed reagents to the reaction chamber wherein the mixer comprises a serpentine channel that includes orthogonal pairs of extensions to promote vortex flow within the extensions.
In the analogous art of microfluidic devices for nucleic acid synthesis, Hill et al teaches;
The claimed system “further comprising a mixer coupled to mix reagents and provide mixed reagents to the reaction chamber wherein the mixer comprises a serpentine channel that includes orthogonal pairs of extensions to promote vortex flow within the extensions” has been read on the taught ([0145], “…routers described herein comprise a vortex element or elements configured to generate a vortex in a flow stream within a desired distance from the microactuator... In some cases, the vortex elements configured to generate a vortex may comprise a recess, turn, and/or protrusion in a channel within a microfluidic device…”; [0121], “Microfluidic channels can be […] serpentine…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device including a reagent chamber and inlet as taught by Nguyen et al with the serpentine channel and mixer as taught by Hill et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Nguyen et al teaches a base device with a reagent channel, upon which the claimed invention having a serpentine mixing channel can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Hill et al teaches a comparable device, which has been improved with a serpentine mixing channel. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique of a serpentine channel with vortex elements in the same way to the device of Nguyen et al, for the predictable result of mixing the reagents before entry into the reagent chamber.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al (US 20190358604 A1) in view of Matsunaga et al (US 20200181682 A1).
With regards to claim 18, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Nguyen et al.
However, Nguyen et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the reaction chamber is deeper in a middle portion of the reaction chamber than around a perimeter of the reaction chamber.
In the analogous art of reaction chambers for nucleic acid amplification reactions, Matsunaga et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein the reaction chamber is deeper in a middle portion of the reaction chamber than around a perimeter of the reaction chamber” has been read on the taught ([0315], “As described above, the reaction chamber 212 is so provided in the downwardly tapered conical shape as to improve efficiency in PCR in the PCR vessel 201 according to this embodiment.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device including a reaction chamber as taught by Nguyen et al with the tapered reaction chamber as taught by Matsunaga et al, for the predictable benefit of improving the efficiency of polymerase chain reactions, as taught by Matsunaga et al ([0315], “As described above, the reaction chamber 212 is so provided in the downwardly tapered conical shape as to improve efficiency in PCR in the PCR vessel 201 according to this embodiment.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30pm 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, 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.
/ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights