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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement dated 1/19/2024 has been considered and made of record.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, last line, “trap;” should be “trap.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2019/0336967) (Attached PTO-892).
With respect to claim 1, the reference of Chen et al. discloses:
A microfluidic device (100)(Fig. 1) for facilitating visual determination of a species (target species) in a sample solution (50), the microfluidic device comprising:
an inlet (inlet)(102) arranged to receive a sample solution (50); and
a trap (106) in fluid communication with the inlet (102), wherein the trap (106) comprises a fluid channel (trapping channel)(Fig. 1), wherein the fluid channel is arranged to substantially trap the species, and wherein the fluid channel is arranged such that the species is visible in the trap (¶[0048]).
With respect to claim 2, the microfluidic device (100) further comprises a capillary pump (source) (110) arranged for causing or facilitating movement of the sample solution towards the trap (¶[0048]).
With respect to claim 3, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the device of Chen et al. is considered to be structurally capable of being used with a plurality of species.
With respect claim 4, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the device of Chen et al. is considered to be structurally capable of being used with a processed solution.
With respect to claims 7 and 10, the capillary pump is immediately downstream of the fluid channel/trap (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 12, the microfluidic device includes a processing arrangement (magnetic separator)(104) that can function as an extractor, reactor or mixer (¶[0048] and [0051]).
With respect to claim 15, the trap includes an indicator (108) arranged along the fluid channel for indicating the presence of the species (Fig. 1).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, the indicator includes reference markings for indicating a relative or absolute amount of one or more trapped species (¶[0048]).
With respect to claim 18, the reference of Chen et al. discloses:
A method (¶[0051]) for visually detecting or determining a species in a sample solution by the steps of:
a. providing a microfluidic device (100)(Fig. 1)comprising:
i. an inlet (102) arranged to receive a sample solution (50); and
ii. a trap (106) in fluid communication with the inlet, wherein the trap comprises a fluid channel (Fig. 1) , wherein the fluid channel is arranged to substantially trap the species, and wherein the fluid channel is arranged such that the species is visible in the trap (¶[0048]);
b. providing a sample solution (50)(¶[0051]), the sample solution comprising a species (20);
c. adding the sample solution (50) to the inlet (102)(¶[0051]);
d. collecting the species in the trap (¶[0051]); and
e. visually detecting the species in the trap (¶[0051]).
With respect to claims 19 and 20, the method includes a step of processing (magnetic separator)(104)(Fig. 1 and ¶[0051]) the sample solution into a processed solution which occurs within the microfluidic device (Fig. 1 and ¶[0051]).
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.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0336967) (Attached PTO-892) in view of Delamarche et al. (US 2019/0094178) (Attached PTO-892).
The reference of Chen et al. has been discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 2.
While the reference Chen et al. discloses that the device includes a capillary pump (110) provided downstream of the fluid channel/trap, the reference is silent with respect to the specific details of the capillary pump required of claims 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11.
The reference of Delamarche et al. discloses (Figs. 2A and 2B and ¶[0067]) that it is known in the art to employ either a liquid absorbent material and/or capillary structures (106) in an area (105) of a microfluidic device (100) to form a capillary pump structure.
In view of this teaching and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ either a removable liquid absorbent material (filter or porous material) or microstructures in the capillary pump area of the reference of Chen et al. for the known and expected result of providing art recognized structures for creating a capillary pump within a microfluidic device. Additionally, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum dimensions of the capillary pump structures through routine experimentation while optimizing the flow within the device and preventing the desired analyte material from entering the capillary pump area of the device.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0336967) (Attached PTO-892).
The reference of Chen et al. has been discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to claim 13, while the device of the reference of Chen et al. includes a processing arrangement (104) between the inlet (102) and the trap (106), when processing sample that do not require filtering or additional processing, it would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to employ a device without processing arrangement (104) for the known and expected result of reducing manufacturing costs and simplification of the test device.
With respect to claim 14, the fluid channel of the reference of Chen et al. includes a tapered or narrowed portion (106T) for blocking or trapping the species to be detected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H BEISNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1269. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/William H. Beisner/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1799
WHB
Prosecution Insights