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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 05/12/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected election, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/19/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first fluid resistor” in claim 1, line 2;
“fluid distributor” in claim 1, line 2;
“second fluid resistor” in claim 1, line 3;
“third fluid resistor” in claim 1, line 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In this instant case, the corresponding structure for:
the “first fluid resistor”, the “second fluid resistor” and the “third fluid resistor” is a channel that serves to impede or resist the flow of a liquid, such as parallel channels that are in fluid communication that run back and forth in a repeated "S" or "Z" pattern, a passive valve (para. 0036), and equivalents thereof.
the “fluid distributor” is a plurality of parallel channels (para. 0034 and Fig. 1B) and equivalents thereof.
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 1-18 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 first assembly defining a first fluid resistor, a fluid distributor, and a second fluid resistor …” in lines 2-3; “the second assembly defining a third fluid resistor and a plurality of capillary arrays …” in lines 7-8, and “the device further defining a working fluid inlet…a working fluid outlet…, a water inlet… and a water outlet” in lines 11-13 . With the use of “defining,” it is unclear whether the “first fluid resistor”, the “fluid distributor”, the “second fluid resistor”, the “third fluid resistor”, the “plurality of capillary arrays”, the “working fluid inlet”, the “working fluid outlet”, the “water inlet” and the “water outlet” are positively recited as parts of the invention. For the purpose of examination, they are being interpreted as positively recited. Clarification is requested. If the Applicant intends to positively recites the above components, it is suggested to use terms such as “comprises” or “includes” to clearly indicates the above components are parts of the invention.
Claims 2-18 are indefinitely because of their dependence on claim 1.
Prior Art
Claims 1-18 are free of the prior art since the prior art whether taken individually or in combination would not disclose all the cumulative limitations of claim 1.
Holman et al. (US 20180299374 A1; provided in Applicant’s IDS of 10/19/2023)(hereinafter, ‘374) teaches a device comprising a first assembly (lower piece, Fig. 1), the first assembly defininga media reservoir;
a porous membrane (porous membrane, Fig. 1, para. 0095) overlying the media reservoir, the porous membrane forming a surface of the media reservoir; and
a second assembly (upper pierce, Fig. 1), the second assembly disposed on the first assembly (para. 0095), the second assembly defining
the device further defining a working fluid inlet (media inlet)
‘374 fails to teach all the strike-through parts including the second assembly defining a plurality of capillary arrays surrounding a window, wherein the capillary arrays having openings on edges of the window of the second assembly and being operable to direct moisture across a surface of the porous membrane.
Holman et al. (“Real-Time Chemical Imaging of Bacterial Activity in Biofilms Using Open-Channel Microfluidics and Synchrotron FTIR Spectromicroscopy.” Anal. Chem. (2009) 81 (20): 8564–8570; provided in Applicant’s IDS of 10/19/2023)(hereinafter Holman-2009) teaches a device comprising a second assembly (Fig. 1) defining a plurality of capillary arrays (Fig. 1b and 1c) surrounding a window (Fig. 1C) in the second assembly, wherein the capillary arrays having openings on edges of the window of the second assembly and being operable to direct moisture across a surface. However, ‘374 uses a porous membrane that allow the media in the reservoir below to keep the cells above moist, while Holman-2009 uses the plurality of capillary to keep the cells moist; therefore, there is a lack of motivation to combine the teachings of ‘374 and Holman 2009. Furthermore, the combination of ‘374 and Holman-2009 still fails to teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Deng et al. (“A two-compartment microfluidic device for long-term live cell detection based on surface plasmon resonance” Biomicrofluidics 10, 044109, 2016) also teaches a device for live-detection of cells (Fig. 3), the device comprises a first assembly defining a two-compartment chamber, a porous membrane sandwich between the two-compartment chamber; and a second assembly (all the layers above the two-compartment chamber) disposed on the first assembly (Fig. 3), the second assembly defining a plurality of capillary (flow channels) surrounding a window in the second assembly that exposes the porous membrane; the device further defining a working fluid inlet, a working fluid outlet, a water inlet, and a water outlet in fluid communication with the plurality of capillary channels, and each of the capillary channel having openings on edges of the window of the second assembly and being operable to direct moisture across a surface of the porous membrane. However, Deng fails teach a number of limitations including a first resistor, a fluid distributor, a second resistor, a third resistor, and a plurality of capillary arrays, and there is a lack of motivation to combine the teachings of Deng with the teachings of ‘374 and Holman-2009.
Moon et al. (“Application of an open-chamber multi-channel microfluidic device to test chemotherapy drugs.” Sci Rep 10, 20343; 2020) teaches a device (Fig. 1) that comprises a first assembly (bottom two layers, Fig. 1A) with a first and second resistors (branched channels) and a fluid distributor (parallel channels), a porous membrane, a second assembly (top) with a plurality of capillary arrays (inlet/outlet holes) surrounding a window, but Moon does not teach the second assembly (top layer) has a third resistor and the capillary arrays (inlet outlet holes on the top layer) having openings on edges of the window.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY CHIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1054. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm.
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 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.
/M.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights