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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 04/30/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a portion of each layer comprises an optically transparent material”. The claim raises antecedent basis issues as it is unclear if “each layer” also refers to the microfluidic layer. Applicant should clarify the language with limitation such as “each layer of the temperature control module”.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites one fin is extended into the temperature regulating flow channel and reaction chamber. According to the parent claim 1, one of the layers of the temperature control module is in between the reaction chamber and the flow channel (See Fig. 2 of the Drawing of the instant application). Thus, for a heat transfer element to be extended into the flow channel and reaction chamber concurrently, at least two fins are required. Therefore, it is unclear if the conjunction in the claim language is intended to be “temperature regulating flow channel [[and]]or reaction chamber” instead, which would have resolved the indefiniteness issue here.
Claims 3-5 and 7-10 are also rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soto-Moreno (US 20200316606 A1) as cited in previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Soto-Moreno discloses a microfluidic device (Fig. 5 and 6), comprising:
a microfluidic layer comprising a reaction chamber (disposable cartridge, Fig. 6); and
a temperature control module (seating surface 501, Fig. 5A; para. [0304]) overlaying the reaction chamber; wherein the temperature control module comprises a temperature regulating flow channel disposed (505 and 503, Fig. 5A; In FIG. 5A, an example of a seating surface 501 is shown removed from the device to illustrate a liquid coolant coupled to the substrate of the seating surface so that coolant may be pumped into 503 and out of 505 through the seating surface 501. para. [0304]) between two layers (upper and lower surface of 501 not including PCB) and in thermal contact with the reaction chamber (the cartridge is to be placed on the seating surface; a seating surface configured to concurrently seat one or more cartridges; para. [0273]), and wherein at least a portion of each layer comprises an optically transparent material (When imaging is performed for the one or more cartridges seated on the seating surface, a two-plate cartridge may have a transparent or translucent upper plate, permitting imaging. Para. [0277]; the claimed a portion of each layer does not exclude the microfluidic layer).
Regarding claim 4, Soto-Moreno discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Soto-Moreno discloses the temperature control module further comprises a second temperature regulating flow channel, wherein the second temperature regulating channel is disposed below the reaction chamber (505 and 503, Fig. 5A; In FIG. 5A, an example of a seating surface 501 is shown removed from the device to illustrate a liquid coolant coupled to the substrate of the seating surface so that coolant may be pumped into 503 and out of 505 through the seating surface 501. para. [0304])
Regarding claim 5, Soto-Moreno discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Soto-Moreno discloses the optically transparent material comprises an optically transparent polymer (acrylic, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Soto-Moreno discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Soto-Moreno discloses the device further comprises a PCB substrate (In FIG. 10, the seating surface is formed on a substrate (e.g., a PCB or other electrically insulated surface), para. [0310]) with embedded traces for heating and temperature sensing (The current, and therefore the temperature of the driving electrodes and/or the adjacent dielectric (and therefore any droplet on the cell under the dielectric/driving electrode) may be regulated, e.g., by a PID control loop, in combination with the thermistor. Para. [0301]).
Regarding claim 10, Soto-Moreno discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Soto-Moreno discloses the microfluidic device further comprises an optical sensor configured to obtain optical signal through the optically transparent material (Any of these apparatuses may include an optical subsystem…The optical subsystem may further include an imaging device configured to detect an optical signal from a cartridge seated on the seating surface. Para. [0042]).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto-Moreno in view of Wu (US 20190329259 A1), as evidenced by Elson (Diffraction and diffuse scattering from dielectric multilayers, 1979).
Regarding claims 2-3, Soto-Moreno discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Soto-Moreno discloses the microfluidic layer is transparent (para. [0144]), but the layers of temperature control module are opaque and the opaque layers do not have window(s) that is optically transparent (note: satisfying the limitation in claim 3 would also have satisfied the limitation in claim 2). In an analogous art, Wu discloses a digital microfluidic device (100, Fig. 1) comprising a first substrate having a dielectric surface disposed on the surface of the first substrate (claim 1), the first substrate is an optically transparent (claim 2).
Similarly, Soto-Moreno also discloses a dielectric layer (555, Fig. 5D-E) disposed on the seating surface (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated an optical transparent material for parts the seating surface to create a window around the dielectric layer (555, Fig. 5D-E) based on the teaching of Wu to derive the claimed invention. Doing so may remove unwanted background fluorescence (para. [0010]), Wu) to improve sensitive optical detection by managing light behavior through wave interference (The optical thicknesses of the layers are most important. Associated with a dielectric multilayer stack on a transparent substrate are a certain angle or angles, defined as polarizing angles, where the transmittance of light polarized parallel to the plane of incidence is a maximum. Elson).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto-Moreno in view of Künz (US 20210041306 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, Soto-Moreno discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Soto-Moreno does not disclose one of the two layers comprises at least one fin which extends from at least one layer into the temperature regulating flow channel and reaction chamber to provide enhanced heat transfer or specifically, a plurality of fins, wherein the plurality of fins are spaced apart to allow for optical interrogation of a reaction mixture in the reaction chamber.
In an analogous art, Künz discloses a system (Fig. 8) for measuring temperatures (Abstract) comprising a sensor array plate (Fig. 2) and pressure plate, comprising fins at the side for connection to the sensor array plate (fins 56, Fig. 6) that are spaced apart (para. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporating a fin or a plurality of spaced apart fins to the upper layer into the reaction chamber of the device of Soto-Moreno based on teaching of Künz to derive the claimed invention. Doing so provide enhanced heat transfer (The pressure plate comprises fins to ensure good thermal contact between microfluidic consumables and the operating plate… Künz, para. [0054]).
Regarding the limitation of “allow for optical interrogation of a reaction mixture in the reaction chamber”, the limitation is interpreted as intended use. First, the claim limitation is broad that any features that do not actively disrupt optical interrogation would have satisfied the claim limitation. In the current iteration of the claim, incorporating fins to improve thermal contact and enhance heat transfer would have aided the optical interrogation by allowing uniform heat transfer into the reaction chamber.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto-Moreno in view of Künz as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 110146956 A).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Soto-Moreno discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 6. Neither Soto-Moreno nor Künz discloses the material of the fins are high thermal conductivity material (defined as transition metals such as copper or aluminum or alloy such as stainless steel in para. [0053]) of the specification even though Soto discloses the seating surface for accommodating the microfluidic layer can comprises thermally conductive material such as copper (para. [0043]).
In an analogous art, Liu discloses an internal heat transmission microstructure in an optical module (Fig. 5) in a liquid cooling application (Page 2, para. 2 and page 4, point 7 of translated description), the microstructures comprising heat-dissipating fins (fins 1, Fig. 1 and 5) and heating-conducting columns (10, Fig. 3). Liu discloses that copper is used for heating-conducting columns (page 4, point 7 of the translated description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted copper as the materials of heat transfer structure/fins of the device of Modified Soto-Moreno to derive the claimed invention based on the teaching of Liu as copper is known to have good thermal conductivity and resistance for heat transfer application (Background Technique, page 1, para. 1 of the translated description).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICKEY HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30 PM ET.
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 5712707698. 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.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights