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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/28/2023, 1/16/2026, 7/15/2026, and 8/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 12-14, 16, and 18-28 are pending with claims 1-2, 7-9, 12-14, 16, and 18-24 being examined and claims 25-28 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7-9, 12-14, 16, and 18-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2, 7-9, 12-14, 16, and 18-24 read “A liquid handling apparatus” in the preamble. However, the claims are dependent upon claim 1 and should read “The liquid handling apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 1-2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kersaudy-Kerhoas et al (US 20210031195 A1; hereinafter “Kersaudy”; already of record on IDS filed 9/28/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Kersaudy teaches a liquid handling apparatus (Kersaudy; Abstract; fluidic device), comprising:
a capsule configured to store a liquid reagent (Kersaudy; para [196]; first fluid F1 is isolated in the first chamber 321, for example sealed therein, such as required for storage);
a liquid handling device, comprising:
a first conduit in fluidic communication with a first port (Kersaudy; Fig. 8; para [199, 200]; a first inlet passageway 313…first inlet 311); and
a second conduit in fluidic communication with a second port (Kersaudy; Fig. 8; para [199, 200]; a first outlet passageway 314…first outlet 312); and
a capsule interface mechanism configured to create: a first opening in the capsule in fluidic communication with the first port; and a second opening in the capsule in fluidic communication with the second port1 (Kersaudy; Fig. 5, 6, 7; para [192]; The fluidic device 30 is arranged to move from the first configuration to the second configuration by the first inlet 311 and the first outlet 312 perforating through the first wall portion 322 into the first chamber 321);
wherein creating the first opening and the second opening allows the liquid reagent to be removed from the capsule (Kersaudy; Fig. 8; para [215])2.
1 The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the capsule interface mechanism, all the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Kersaudy and the capsule interface mechanism of Kersaudy is capable of being “configured to create: a first opening in the capsule in fluidic communication with the first port; and a second opening in the capsule in fluidic communication with the second port”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed capsule interface mechanism is not differentiated from the capsule interface mechanism of Kersaudy (see MPEP §2114).
2 The limitation of “the first opening and the second opening” is not positively recited. Specifically, the elements are functional language/intended use of the “capsule interface mechanism”. Therefore, the limitations of the first opening and the second opening are not required elements of the liquid handling apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Kersaudy teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the liquid handling device further comprises a gas supply port configured to receive gas supplied by a variable pressure source (Kersaudy; para [212]; the first inlet 311 is fluidically coupleable to a gas source; The gas supply port is interpreted as the end of the first inlet passageway that is not depicted and connected to the gas source);
wherein the gas supply port is in fluidic communication with the first conduit (Kersaudy; para [212]; the first inlet 311 is fluidically coupleable to a gas source); and
wherein the first conduit is configured to supply gas received via the gas supply port to the first opening to expel liquid reagent from the second opening after the first and second openings have been created (Kersaudy; para [200]; by increasing the first pressure P1 in the first chamber 321 via the first inlet 311, for example by introducing a gas or a liquid into the first chamber 321 through the first inlet 311, at least the part of the predetermined first amount A1 of the first fluid F1 is urged (i.e. driven or pumped) through the first outlet 312 in turn).
Regarding claim 7, Kersaudy teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein one or more of the capsule and the liquid handling device comprises a compressible layer configured to bias the capsule apart from the capsule interface mechanism (Kersaudy; para [199]; the fluidic device 30 is arranged to move from the first configuration to the second configuration by the first inlet 311 and the first outlet 312 perforating through the first wall portion 322; the first wall portion is interpreted as the compressible layer); wherein the capsule interface mechanism is configured to create the second opening in the capsule when the compressible layer is compressed (Kersaudy; para [199]; the first wall portion 322 into the first chamber 321, thereby providing a first inlet passageway 313 and a first outlet passageway 314 from the first part 310 into the first chamber 321 of the second part 320). The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the capsule interface mechanism, all the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Kersaudy and the capsule interface mechanism of Kersaudy is capable of being “configured to create the second opening in the capsule when the compressible layer is compressed”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed capsule interface mechanism is not differentiated from the capsule interface mechanism of Kersaudy (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 8, Kersaudy teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the compressible layer comprises a passageway in fluidic communication with the second conduit, wherein the passageway is configured to permit the flow of liquid reagent from the second opening through the compressible layer (Kersaudy; para [200]; by introducing a gas or a liquid into the first chamber 321 through the first inlet 311, at least the part of the predetermined first amount A1 of the first fluid F1 is urged (i.e. driven or pumped) through the first outlet 312 in turn). The passageway is created when the first part 310 goes from the first configuration to the second configuration.
Regarding claim 9, Kersaudy teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the capsule interface mechanism comprises a puncturing element configured to puncture the capsule to create the second opening, wherein the puncturing element is disposed within the passageway (Kersaudy; para [50]; the first inlet and the first outlet perforate (also known as pierce) through the first wall portion). The puncturing element is interpreted as the sharp/puncturing portion of the inlet.
Claim(s) 1, 12-14, 16, 18-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivan et al (US 20080283439 A1; hereinafter “Sullivan”).
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan teaches a liquid handling apparatus (Sullivan; Abstract), comprising:
a capsule configured to store a liquid reagent (Sullivan; Fig. 13; para [73]; A unit of the dosage strip 27);
a liquid handling device (Examiner interprets the liquid handling device to be the structures/components described below), comprising:
a first conduit in fluidic communication with a first port (Sullivan; Fig. 13, 14; the Examiner interprets the first conduit to be the pathway that is blocked by the first delamination zone but opens the pathway which mixes the two chambers as depicted in Figure 14); and
a second conduit in fluidic communication with a second port (Sullivan; Fig. 14, 15; the Examiner interprets the second conduit to be the pathway that is blocked by the second delamination zone but opens the pathway and expels the mixture as depicted in Figure 15); and
a capsule interface mechanism configured to create: a first opening in the capsule in fluidic communication with the first port; and a second opening in the capsule in fluidic communication with the second port (Sullivan; Fig. 14, 15; para [73]; In the first stage of dispensing the combined agent(s) as shown in FIG. 14, a first force 35 pushes the first plunger 33, collapsing the dispensing chamber 30… A second force 36 then pushes the second plunger 34 against the first dosage chamber 28, causing the first delamination zone 31 to release its seal and causing the first component 146 to mix with the second component 147; the Examiner interprets the opening to be of the fluid between the chambers blocked by the delamination zone);
wherein creating the first opening and the second opening allows the liquid reagent to be removed from the capsule (Sullivan; Fig. 15; para [73]; when the second plunger 34 is completely depressed, it causes the collapse of the combined chambers and drives the agent mixture through the dispensing chamber 30, through the piercing nozzle 165 and out discharge port 212 in discharge pattern 214).
Regarding claim 12, Sullivan teaches the liquid handling device according to claim 1, wherein the capsule comprises:
a liquid storage chamber configured to store the liquid reagent (Sullivan; Fig. 13; para [73]; First chamber 28 contains a first component 146);
an inlet chamber (Sullivan; Fig. 13; para [73]; second chamber 29 contains a second component 147) and an outlet chamber (Sullivan; Fig. 13; para [73]; a dispensing chamber 30), wherein each of the inlet and outlet chambers is in fluidic communication with the liquid storage chamber (Sullivan; Fig. 13, 14, 15);
a first restriction configured to prevent the flow of liquid between the liquid storage chamber and the outlet chamber prior to creation of the openings in the capsule (Sullivan; Fig. 13; para [73]; a first dosage chamber 28 connected to a second dosage chamber 29 by a first delamination zone 31; the delamination zone prevents flow of liquid between the chambers until the plunger applies the external force as seen in Fig. 14); and
a second restriction configured to prevent the flow of liquid between the liquid storage chamber and the inlet chamber prior to creation of the openings in the capsule (Sullivan; Fig. 13; para [73]; a dispensing chamber 30 connected to the second dosage chamber 29 by a second delamination zone 32; the delamination zone prevents flow of liquid between the chambers until the plunger applies the external force as seen in Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 13, Sullivan teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the capsule interface mechanism is configured to create the first opening in the inlet chamber and/or is configured to create the second opening in the outlet chamber (Sullivan; Fig. 14; para [73]; second force 36 then pushes the second plunger 34 against the first dosage chamber 28, causing the first delamination zone 31 to release its seal and causing the first component 146 to mix with the second component 147).
Regarding claim 14, Sullivan teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the cross-sectional area of the first restriction is greater than or equal to the cross-sectional area of the second conduit (Sullivan; Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 16, Sullivan teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the outlet chamber comprises a recess in a surface of a capsule body that defines the outlet chamber (Sullivan; para [73]; the housing 18 includes a discharge opening 219 positioned in front of piercing nozzle 165).
Regarding claim 18, Sullivan teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the capsule comprises a sealing layer configured to seal an aperture in the capsule body (Sullivan; Fig. 13; membrane 163 seals the aperture which is interpreted as the opening of the entire dosage strip); wherein the interior surface of the recess is in contact with the sealing layer prior to creation of the openings in the capsule (Sullivan; para [73]; a first force 35 pushes the first plunger 33, collapsing the dispensing chamber 30, and driving the piercing nozzle 165 through the membrane 163).
Regarding claim 19, Sullivan teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the interior surface of the recess is sealed to the sealing layer prior to creation of the openings in the capsule (Sullivan; Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 20, Sullivan teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the liquid storage chamber has a half-teardrop shape having a bulbous portion (Sullivan; Fig. 12; the first chamber 28 is interpreted as the bulbous portion/half-teardrop shape near the base as the lower half is domed shape) adjacent to the first restriction (Sullivan; Fig. 13) and an apex portion that provides a taper between the bulbous portion and the second restriction (Sullivan; Fig. 12; the Apex is interpreted as the top surface of the first chamber 28).
Regarding claim 21, Sullivan teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 20, wherein:
the shape of the bulbous portion is defined by an inlet angle, wherein the inlet angle is the minimum angle between: a first line that is located on the plane of symmetry of the liquid storage chamber and is tangential to the surface of the bulbous portion; and a second line that is normal to the base of the capsule (Sullivan; Image 1; as described above the bulbous portion is interpreted as the lower half comprising the “dome shape” and the first line is depicted to be tangential to the lower half surface);
the shape of the apex portion is defined by an outlet angle, wherein the outlet angle is the minimum angle between: a third line that is located on the plane of symmetry of the liquid storage chamber and is tangential to the surface of the apex portion; and a fourth line that is normal to the base of the capsule (Sullivan; Image 1; as described above the apex is interpreted as the top of the first chamber is the second line is depicted to be tangential to the edge of the top of the first chamber); and
the outlet angle is larger than the inlet angle (Sullivan; Image 1; as depicted below, the outlet angle on the left is larger than the inlet angle on the right).
PNG
media_image1.png
697
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1. Annotated Figure 12 depicting the inlet angle (the one on the right) and the second angle (the one on the left).
Regarding claim 22, Sullivan teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the outlet chamber comprises:
a lower portion having a truncated dome shape with a concave surface having a first curvature (Sullivan; Fig. 13; the lower half of the dispensing chamber 30 is domed shaped that is truncated by the upper portion as seen in Fig. 12); and
an upper portion joined to the lower portion (Sullivan; Fig. 12), wherein the upper portion has a dome shape with a concave surface having a second curvature different to the first curvature (Sullivan; Fig. 12; the Examiner notes that the upper portion of Figure 12 comprises a dome shape that is more rigid but portions that curve as seen in Fig. 13);
wherein the difference between the first curvature and the second curvature provides a step change in curvature at the join between the upper portion and the lower portion (Sullivan; Fig. 12, 13; the step is interpreted as the area where the lower half widens with respect to the upper half).
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 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 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kersaudy.
Regarding claim 23, Kersaudy teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the capsule comprises:
a capsule body comprising a first aperture and a second aperture (Kersaudy; Fig. 6; the aperture is interpreted as the opening of the first chamber and the second chamber which is sealed by the first wall portion and the second wall portion);
a first sealing layer configured to seal the first aperture and a second sealing layer configured to seal the second aperture (Kersaudy; Fig. 6; first wall portion 322 and second wall portion 422).
Kersaudy does not teach wherein the area of the second aperture is less than the area of the first aperture.
However, Kersaudy teaches that the microfluidic chamber may have a dimension, for example a diameter or a width or an effective diameter or an effective width, of less than 3000 μm, less than 2000 μm, less than 1000 μm, less than 500 μm, less than 250 μm or less than 100 μm (Kersaudy; para [110]). It would have been obvious to one of having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a diameter for the first chamber to be less than the diameter of the second chamber, since it has been held that a mere change in size of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A). Thus, selecting a diameter for the second chamber that is smaller than the first chamber would result in the area of the second aperture is less than the area of the first aperture.
Regarding claim 24, Kersaudy teaches the liquid handling apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the capsule interface mechanism is configured to create the first and second openings in the first sealing layer (Kersaudy; Fig. 5, 6, 7; para [192]; The fluidic device 30 is arranged to move from the first configuration to the second configuration by the first inlet 311 and the first outlet 312 perforating through the first wall portion 322 into the first chamber 321).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/A.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights