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 10/10/2023, 11/28/2023, and 11/22/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 5/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 1-11 are pending with claims 1-8 being examined and claims 9-11 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2-8 read “according to Claim” where each of the dependent claims should read “according to claim”. 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) 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laska et al (US 20020045243 A1; hereinafter “Laska”; already of record on IDS filed 10/10/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Laska teaches a microfluidic cartridge (Laska; Abstract; fluid flow cartridges), comprising: a base having an L-shape (Laska; Fig. 6; para [58]; Cartridge 100 includes a body 101).
Regarding claim 2, Laska teaches the microfluidic cartridge according to claim 1, wherein: the base is based on a rectangle and a corner region of the rectangle is missing (Laska; Fig. 7, 8; cartridge 100 is a rectangle with the corner missing when the sample container is not present), so that the microfluidic cartridge is positionable relative to a second microfluidic cartridge having the same base, such that a respective projection of the base of the microfluidic cartridge engages in the missing corner region of the base of the second microfluidic cartridge (Laska; Fig. 8; the Examiner interprets the bottom left corner as seen in Figure. 8 to be the respective projection). The bolded limitations are interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The base disclosed by Laska teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of performing the intended use and/or function language of engaging a second microfluidic cartridge. Further, the Examiner notes that the second microfluidic cartridge is not a positively recited limitation and not a required element of the claimed microfluidic cartridge.
Regarding claim 3, Laska teaches the microfluidic cartridge according to claim 2, wherein: the projection comprises a sub-projection, and the sub-projection is located on a front side of the projection (Laska; the examiner interprets the sub-projection tab seen in Fig. 7 and highlighted in Image 1).
Regarding claim 4, Laska teaches the microfluidic cartridge according to claim 2, wherein: the projection has a width which tapers at least in sections (Laska; Fig. 8; the corners in the bottom left of the cartridge are tapered), and a first longitudinal side and a second longitudinal side converge along the projection (Laska; Image 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1. Annotated Figure 6 of Laska.
Regarding claim 5, Laska teaches the microfluidic cartridge according to claim 2, wherein the projection is configured such that an area of the projection and an area of the missing corner region have the same dimensions (Laska Fig. 8). The Examiner notes that the area of the projection which is interpreted as the left bottom portion in Figure 8 and the part “missing” space above have the same dimension. Specifically, the limitation does not require for the projection area and the whole “missing” corner region to be the same. Further, the limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the projection, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Laska and the projection of Laska is capable of being “configured such that an area of the projection and an area of the missing corner region have the same dimensions”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed projection is not differentiated from the projection of Laska (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 6, Laska teaches the microfluidic cartridge according to claim 1, wherein a longitudinal side and a transverse side of the base are at an angle greater than 90 degrees to one another (Laska; Fig. 8). The Applicant does not specify the orientation or direction of the microfluidic cartridge, thus the top corner is greater than 90 degrees depending on the orientation.
Regarding claim 8, Laska teaches the microfluidic cartridge according to claim 1, wherein one or more corners of the microfluidic cartridge are rounded (Laksa; Fig. 7, 8; the corners of the cartridge are rounded)
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laska.
Regarding claim 7, Laska teaches the microfluidic cartridge according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of a length of a first dimension of the base and a length of a second dimension of the base is between 1.4 and 2.0 (Laska; Fig. 8). In re Boesch (205 USPQ 215) teaches the optimization of a result effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art. A result effective variable is one that has well known and predictable results. The choice of the first length and the second length is a result effective variable that gives the well-known and expected results of receiving the sample container. Specifically, the second length is interpreted as the top with the missing area. In the absence of a showing of unexpected results, the Office maintains the ratio between the first length and the second length would have been within the skill of the art as optimization of a results effective variable.
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