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 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 5-9 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. Claim 5 recites “each of the configurable areas of the gasket are provided configured with: an aperture spanning the corresponding one of the energy directors … and no aperture adjacent to another corresponding one of the energy directors.” However, the specification does not provide support for each of the each of the configurable areas are provided with both an aperture (spanning an energy director) and no aperture (adjacent one of the energy directors) at the same time. The specification teaches that each of the configurable areas are provided with either an aperture or no aperture, but not both at the same time.
Claims 10-13 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. Claim 10 recites “each of the configurable areas of the gasket are provided configured with: an aperture spanning the corresponding one of the energy directors … and no aperture adjacent to another corresponding one of the energy directors.” However, the specification does not provide support for each of the each of the configurable areas are provided with both an aperture (spanning an energy director) and no aperture (adjacent one of the energy directors) at the same time. The specification teaches that each of the configurable areas are provided with either an aperture or no aperture, but not both at the same time.
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 5-13 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 5 recites “each of the configurable areas of the gasket are provided configured with: an aperture spanning the corresponding one of the energy directors … and no aperture adjacent to another corresponding one of the energy directors.” However, it is unclear how each of the configurable areas are provided with both an aperture (spanning an energy director) and no aperture (adjacent one of the energy directors) at the same time. It would appear that if the configurable area has an aperture spanning an energy director that you couldn’t also have no aperture adjacent one of the energy directors as if there is an aperture you couldn’t have no aperture at the same time. Claims 6-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim 10 recites “each of the configurable areas of the gasket are provided configured with: an aperture spanning the corresponding one of the energy directors … and no aperture adjacent to another corresponding one of the energy directors.” However, it is unclear how each of the configurable areas are provided with both an aperture (spanning an energy director) and no aperture (adjacent one of the energy directors) at the same time. It would appear that if the configurable area has an aperture spanning an energy director that you couldn’t also have no aperture adjacent one of the energy directors as if there is an aperture you couldn’t have no aperture at the same time. Claims 11-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2018/0303083, hereinafter Echeverri.
Regarding claim 1, Echeverri teaches a manifold assembly (figure 29) comprising: an interface layer (item 110), comprising: an interface plate (items 300-360), the interface plate defining a first channel (item 322) and a second channel (another of item 343) separated from one another (figure 29), the interface plate including a plurality of spaced apart energy directors (item 332) disposed between the first channel and the second channel (figure 29); a first pressure inlet (one of item 362) in flow communication with the first channel (figure 29), and a second pressure inlet (another of item 362) in flow communication with the second channel (figure 29); a plurality of exit apertures (item 364), each of the exit apertures extending through the interface layer and being aligned with a corresponding one of the energy directors carried by the path plate (figure 29); and a flow manipulation gasket (item 310) sized for placement adjacent the interface plate (paragraph [0120]) and arranged to cover the first channel and the second channel thereby defining a first flow path at a first pressure and a second flow path at a second pressure (paragraph [0120]), wherein the flow manipulation gasket includes a plurality of configurable areas (each location where a gasket is), each of the configurable areas disposed adjacent a corresponding one of the energy directors (paragraph [0120]); and wherein each of the configurable areas of the gasket is configured with a selected one of: a first aperture spanning the energy director and the first channel thereby providing flow communication between the first channel, the energy director, and an adjacent one of the exit apertures (optional); a second aperture spanning the energy director and the second channel thereby providing flow communication between the second channel, the energy director, and the adjacent one of the exit apertures (optional); or no aperture, thereby preventing flow between the first channel and the second channel and the adjacent one of the exit apertures (there is no aperture near each of the energy directors).
Regarding claim 2, Echeverri teaches wherein the interface layer includes an exit side (item 111), each of the exit apertures adjacent the exit side being arranged to receive a solenoid valve (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echeverri in view of United States Patent No. 5,496,520, hereinafter Kelton.
Regarding claim 3, Echeverri teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Echeverri fails to teach the flow manipulation gasket includes a plurality of alignment apertures, and wherein the interface plate includes alignment bosses positioned to engage the alignment apertures of the flow manipulation gasket.
Kelton teaches a device which has alignment slots and bosses in the upper and lower portions to assist in the mating of the two components together (Kelton, column 6, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added alignment apertures on the flow manipulation gasket and bosses on the interface plate because it would assist in the mating of the two components together (Kelton, column 6, lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echeverri in view of United States Application Publication No. 2008/0047836, hereinafter Strand.
Regarding claim 4, Echeverri teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Echeverri fails to teach the interface layer and the flow manipulation gasket are secured to another by threaded fasteners.
Strand teaches a microfluidic device which utilizes bolts to connect a multilayer structure together as it would provide a compressive contact with the plates (Strand, paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have secured the interface layer and the fluid manipulation gasket with threaded fasteners because it would provide a compressive contact with the plates (Strand, paragraph [0072]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Echeverri does not disclose a flow manipulation gasket having a plurality of configurable areas is not persuasive. The claim has not specified what is meant by a configurable area and therefore any area of the gasket is considered to be a configurable area. One of the options which is stated as being a configurable area is no aperture, and as described above in the rejection, there is an area near an energy director which has no aperture.
Regarding applicant’s argument that claim 1 requires a flow manipulation gasket that includes a plurality of configurable areas with each configurable area having one of the three specified options (a first aperture, a second aperture or no aperture). The claim is currently written as each of the configurable areas having a selected one of the three options. Therefore, even if all of the configurable areas have the same option, the claim would be anticipated by the prior art. In this case, it is interpreted that all of the configurable areas have no aperture (which Echeverri discloses) and therefore would read on the instant claims. The claim has not required that the other options be present in the configurable areas and therefore the other two options do not need to be taught by the prior art to anticipate the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that each of the energy directors takes the form of a “raised edge”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As the claims have not specified the structural shape of the claimed energy directors, item 332 is able to be considered the claimed energy director and read on the instant claims. As can be seen in figures of Echievrri, item 332 is physically located between the first channel (item 322) and the second channel (item 343).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights