DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on 11/29/2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action supersedes the office action mailed on 9/1/2026.
Claims 1-8, 16-18, 21-23, 25, 30, 32, 34-35 and 46 are pending.
Claims 1-8, 16-18 and 21-23 are rejected.
Claims 25, 30, 32, 34-35 and 46 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, 16-18 and 21-23 in the reply filed on 8/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language considering the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is “a fluid driving feature to drive the first fluid through the first fluid channel” recited in claim 8 which is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, i.e. pump in [0183] of US20240286129 or the sampling head in [0183] of US20240286129, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 16-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8, 16-18 and 21-23 are directed to a system which is a statutory category under 35 U.S.C. §101 (see MPEP §2106 “the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter”).
Step 2A, Prong 1: an abstract idea is identified. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea: “generate a comparison of the second image to the first image, generate a binary image using the comparison” which is a mental evaluation and/or mathematical operation which fall within the judicial exceptions. In addition, claim 1 recites “use the binary image to determine whether a first fluid is present in the region of interest of the first fluid channel” which can be performed in the human mind because a person can use a binary image to determine whether a first fluid is present in the region of interest of the first fluid channel. In other words, this part of the abstract idea constitutes an observation, evaluation or judgment that can practically be performed in the human mind because a person can visually inspect the binary image and effectively determine whether the first fluid is present in the region of interest of the first fluid channel. Recitation of a generic processor doesn’t remove the underlying abstract idea from the mental-process grouping. In other words, the addition of general-purpose computer components alone to perform such steps is not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer -in this case, performing a mathematical operation and receiving, processing and storing data- that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via computer. Merely using generic computer components to perform the above identified basic computer functions to practice or apply the judicial exception does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, even though such operations could be performed faster than without a computer (see the USPTO ‘October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility’ Guideline “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: • a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.). Therefore, the claimed invention is directed to a mental process, which US courts have consistently deemed abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106 “the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, “methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’” 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). Even if generation of the binary image is construed as requiring computer-implemented conversion of image pixels rather than an operation capable of performance in the human mind and pen and paper, such image conversion is insufficient by itself to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2: has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
For the system of claim 1, because cessation of communication of the first fluid through the first channel is only required if the processor determines that the first fluid is present in the region of interest of the first fluid channel, claim 1 encompasses performance in which the contingent clause is not satisfied and subsequent operations are not performed. Accordingly, the contingent (if) clause does not integrate the abstract determination into a practical application under the full scope of the claim. Accordingly, the contingent clause does not remove the covered contingency in which the processor does not determine that the first fluid is present in the region of interest of the first fluid channel and ceasing communication of the first fluid through the first fluid channel is not performed.
Claim 1 also recites “an optical sensor having a field of view, the field of view positioned to include a first fluid channel defined by a body”. However, use of the optical sensor for data gathering for the abstract idea constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a particular application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea? Other than the abstract idea, claim 1 recites “an optical sensor having a field of view, the field of view positioned to include a first fluid channel defined by a body; and a processor which are well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05 d) (see Miller (US20150027892)).
In addition, claim 1 further recites “the processor to: receive a first image including a region of interest of the first fluid channel, receive a second image including the region of interest of the first fluid channel, the second image being captured after the first image”, which amounts to insignificant extra- solution activity consisting of mere data gathering (see MPEP §2106.05 g). The USPTO ‘October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility’ Guideline identifies examples that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Technological improvement: claim 1 doesn’t improve the functionality of a computer or of technology, rather the processor is a mere conventional tool that applies the abstract idea. The use of the computer doesn’t improve the functionality of the computer itself or provide technological advancement in field of endeavor (see MPEP 2106.05a).
Under step 2A prong one - MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III is clear that using a computer/controller to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the computer implemented limitations from being considered an abstract idea. Under step 2A prong two - the mental steps are done by a general-purpose computer; the recited processor merely implements the judicial exception using a general-purpose computer and does not impose a meaningful limitation into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Dependent claims 2-8, 16-18 and 21-23 do not cure the eligibility deficiencies of claim 1 and are likewise unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101 (see MPEP §2106.07). Specifically, claim 2 adds a camera including an optical sensor which is well-understood, routine and conventional, see [0051] of Linder (US20140038166).
Claim 3 recites a second channel and further limits the abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea with no further integration into a particular practical application under step 2A prong two.
Claim 5 recites a third channel and further limits the abstract idea with no further integration into a particular practical application under step 2A prong two.
Claim 6 further limits the abstract with no further integration into a particular practical application under step 2A prong two.
Claim 7 further limits the abstract with no further integration into a particular practical application under step 2A prong two.
Claim 8 further limits the abstract with no further integration into a particular practical application under step 2A prong two. Further, the additional elements of claim 8 are well understood, routine and conventional and do not amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Claim 16 further limits the abstract with no further integration into a particular practical application under step 2A prong two.
Claim 17 further limits the abstract with no further integration into a particular practical application under step 2A prong two.
Claim 18 adds well understood, routine and conventional elements. Claim 21 adds well understood, routine and conventional elements.
Claim 22 adds well understood, routine and conventional elements.
Claim 23 adds well understood, routine and conventional elements.
None of the limitations in the dependent claims improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In summary, claims 1-8, 16-18 and 21-23 don’t amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peret (US20150002667).
With respect to Claim 1, Peret (US20150002667) teaches a system (system 1 in [0343], illustrated in Fig. 1) comprising:
an optical sensor (image sensor 11 in [0351]) having a field of view (field of view in [0363], which recites “the image sensor 11 includes a field of view that includes the drip chamber 4”), the field of view positioned to include a first fluid channel (drip chamber 4 in [0363]) defined by a body (drip chamber 4); and
a processor (processor 15 in [0657]), the processor (processor 15) to:
receive a first image (image 96 in [0406], which recites “image 95 of FIG. 15, may be subtracted from a background image, e.g., the image 96 of FIG. 16”) including a region of interest of the first fluid channel (see Fig. 16)
receive a second image (image 95 in [0405]) including the region of interest of the first fluid channel (see Fig. 15), the second image (image 95) being captured after the first image (image 96) (see [0466], which recites “compares the another image (e.g., current or most recent image) to the background image and identifies a plurality of pixels of interest”) (see [0402], which recites “FIG. 15 shows an image 95 showing a stream as captured by the image sensor 63 of FIG. 8 when a free flow condition exists. FIG. 16 shows a background image 96”) (see also Fig. 27, which recites “203 …initialize a background image … 207 … capture another image”).
generate a comparison of the second image (image 95) to the first image (image 96) (see [0141], which recites “the comparison of the image to the background image”),
generate a binary image (binary image in [0472]) using the comparison (see [0402], which recites “FIG. 17 shows an image 97 formed by the absolute value of the difference between the image 96 of FIG. 16 and the image 95 from FIG. 15 when the absolute value is converted either to a white pixel (when the absolute value of the difference is above a threshold) or to a black pixel (when the absolute value of the difference is below the threshold). As shown in FIG. 17, high-contrast spots caused by the reverse orientation of the lines in the stream that run from top to bottom are detectable by processor 90. The processor 90 of FIG. 8 can use the image 97 to determine if a free flow condition exists”),
use the binary image (binary image) to determine whether a first fluid is present in the region of interest of the first fluid channel (see Figs. 17 and 18) (see also the abstract, which recites “the one or more processors (1) receive image data from the image sensor, and (2) determine an existence of a free flow condition by identifying an optical distortion of an area behind the free flow condition within the drip chamber using the received image data”) (see also [0247], which recites “FIG. 10 is a graphic illustration of an image captured by an image sensor of a flow meter for use as a background image”) (see also [0248], which recites “FIG. 11 is a graphic illustration of an image captured by an image sensor when drops are being formed within a drip chamber”) (see also [0249], which recites “FIG. 12 is a graphic illustration of an image captured by an image sensor for use as a background image”) (see also [0250], which recites “FIG. 13 is a graphic illustration of a difference between the images of FIGS. 11 and 12 with additional processing”) (see also [0251], which recites “FIG. 14 is a graphic representation of some of the image processing performed using FIGS. 11-13 to determine if a free flow condition exists”) (see also [0450], which recites “drops or free flow streams within the drip chamber 104 distorts the image taken by the image sensor 103. A processor coupled to the image sensor 103 (e.g. processor 15 FIG. 1) can use the distortions of the background pattern 101 as captured by the image sensor 103 to estimate a flow rate and/or detect free flow conditions”),
if the processor determines that the first fluid is present in the region of interest of the first fluid channel, cease communication of the first fluid through the first fluid channel (see [0017], which recites “issue an alarm when a free flow is detected, (7) communicate alarms to a pump, a monitoring client, or a remote monitoring client, (8) instruct a valve to stop fluid flow when a free flow is detected”).
With respect to claim 2, Peret teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a camera (camera 355 in [0560]), the camera includes the optical sensor (image sensor 355 in [0560]).
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 (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 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 8, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peret (US20150002667) in view of Linder (US20140038166).
With respect to claim 8, Peret (US20150002667) teaches the system of claim 1.
Peret fails to teach a fluid processing assembly, the fluid processing assembly having a fluid driving feature to drive the first fluid through the first fluid channel, the processor being in communication with the fluid processing assembly, the processor to cease communication of the first fluid through the first fluid channel by deactivating the fluid driving feature of the fluid processing assembly.
In the analogous art of analytical fluidic devices, Linder (US20140038166) teaches a fluid processing assembly (microfluid system on [0026] of Linder), the fluid processing assembly (microfluidic system) having a fluid driving feature (pump in [0026] of Linder, which recites “the microfluidic system may include… a fluid flow source 40 such as a pump”) to drive the first fluid through the first fluid channel (channels in [0030] of Linder, which recites “microfluidic device … may have any suitable configuration of channels and/or components”), the processor (control system of Linder) being in communication with the fluid processing assembly (microfluidic system) (see [0028] of Linder, which recites “the components shown illustratively in FIG. 1, … may be operatively associated with a control system 50. … the control system may be used to control fluids and/or conduct quality control by the use of feedback from one or more events taking place in the microfluidic system”), the processor (control system) to cease communication of the first fluid (one or more fluids) through the first fluid channel (channels) (see [0043] of Linder, which recites “the control system may compare a first signal or pattern of signals with a second signal or pattern of signals (e.g., reference signals), and determine whether to initiate, cease, or modulate one or more events or series of events in the microfluidic system …. the control system may determine whether to modulate fluid flow (e.g., …, the ceasing of flow of one or more fluids) in one or more regions of the microfluidic system”) by deactivating the fluid driving feature (pump) of the fluid processing assembly (microfluidic system) (see also [0058], which recites “the analysis can be canceled, for example, by modulating fluid flow in the microfluidic system (e.g., sending a signal to a pump or a vacuum to stop the flow of fluids)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Peret by incorporating Linder’s fluid driving feature and by further configuring the processor with Linder’s control system configuration such that the system includes ‘the processor to cease communication of the first fluid through the first fluid channel by deactivating the fluid driving feature of the fluid processing assembly’, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of achieving feedback control of fluid flow based on detected fluid conditions, thereby enabling automatic cessation of fluid communication and alerting a user to abnormalities (see [0021] of Linder, which recites “provide feedback to modulate subsequent fluid flow in the microfluidic system, and in some cases, to conduct quality control to determine”) (see also [0022], which recites “the feedback control may, for example, cancel the test being performed in the microfluidic system and/or alert the user of the abnormality”) (see [0043] of Linder, which recites “the control system may compare a first signal or pattern of signals with a second signal or pattern of signals (e.g., reference signals), and determine whether to initiate, cease, or modulate one or more events or series of events in the microfluidic system …. the control system may determine whether to modulate fluid flow (e.g., …, the ceasing of flow of one or more fluids) in one or more regions of the microfluidic system”) (see also [0058], which recites “the analysis can be canceled, for example, by modulating fluid flow in the microfluidic system (e.g., sending a signal to a pump or a vacuum to stop the flow of fluids)”).
With respect to claim 18, Peret teaches the system of claim 1.
Peret fails to teach a chip-receiving component, the chip-receiving component to removably receive the body; and the body removably coupled with the chip-receiving component.
In the analogous art of analytical fluidic devices, Linder (US20140038166) teaches a chip-receiving component (microfluidic sample analyzer in [0080] of Linder), the chip-receiving component (microfluidic sample analyzer) to removably receive the body (cassette 20 of Linder); and
the body (cassette 20 of Linder) removably coupled with the chip-receiving component (microfluidic sample analyzer) (see [0080] of Linder, which recites “the microfluidic system includes a device or cassette that may be configured to be inserted in a microfluidic sample analyzer. FIGS. 3-6 illustrate various exemplary embodiments of the cassette 20 for use with an analyzer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Peret by incorporating the chip receiving component (microfluidic sample analyzer of Linder), such that the system includes ‘a chip-receiving component, the chip-receiving component to removably receive the body; and the body removably coupled with the chip-receiving component’ with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of enabling the body to be removably installed in the analyzer for analysis and subsequently removed or replaced, thereby facilitating interchangeability of sample supports while retaining the analyzer components for subsequent analysis.
With respect to claim 21, Peret in view of Linder teaches the system of claim 18, the body (cassette 20 of Linder) comprising a substantially translucent material surrounding the first fluid channel (see [0089] of Linder, which recites “the cassette 20 may also include top and bottom covers 210 and 212, which may, for example, be made of a transparent material”) (see also [0103] of Linder, which recites “the optical elements may guide incident light passing through the cassette”) (see also [0104] of Linder, which recites “cassette can be fabricated of any material suitable for forming a channel .. . suitable material(s) based upon … transparency/opacity to light (e.g., in the ultraviolet and visible regions).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peret (US20150002667) in view of Mostowfi (US20090326827).
With respect to claim 16, Peret teaches the system of claim 1.
Peret fails to teach the processor to use the binary image to determine whether the first fluid is present in the region of interest of the first fluid channel by calculating a ratio.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Mostowfi teaches a processor (one or more processor in [0049], which recites “computer system 1030 includes a one or more processors”) to use the binary image (binary image in [0052] which recites “an image processing routine running on computer system 1030, for example, programmed under Matlab, transforms the original grayscale images such as 1102 into binary images such as 1104. The process involves the sensible choice of some image processing parameters. The binary image itself is then analyzed by a computation routine, for example also programmed under Matlab) to determine whether the first fluid is present in the region of interest of the first fluid channel (see [0057], which recites “each measured line is at first a grayscale image then undergoes the same image processing as described above with respect to FIG. 11. A similar computation gives then the phase state (0 or 1) at the line position for each segment in the processed frame. Finally, this binary value is averaged on all the video frames to have the liquid fraction along the channel) by calculating a ratio (liquid fraction in [0052], which recites “the output of the computation is the liquid fraction in each of the segments composing the microchannel. This liquid fraction is then averaged on all the frames of the captured video, thus giving a more precise measurement and a value of the standard deviation. This process thus provides the evolution of the liquid fraction along the channel”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Peret by calculating a ratio as disclosed by Mostowfi such that the processor uses the binary image to determine whether the first fluid is present in the region of interest of the first fluid channel by calculating a ratio, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of providing a quantitative indication of the presence and extent of liquid within the monitored channel region and thereby more precisely monitoring the evolution of the liquid fraction along the channel (see [0052]-[0053] of Mostowfi).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peret (US20150002667) in view of Linder (US20140038166) in view of Eldridge (US20210322975).
With respect to claim 22, Peret in view of Linder teaches the system of claim 18, the body (cassette 20 of Linder) including:
a plurality of fluid channels (see [0092], which recites “a cassette may include a first channel 206 and a second channel 207 spaced apart from the first channel”), the plurality of fluid channels including the first fluid channel (see [0093], which recites “the first channel 206 may include one or more measurement zones used to analyze the sample”).
Peret in view of Linder fails to teach a plurality of mixing chambers, the mixing chambers to mix fluids communicated along the plurality of fluid channels.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Eldridge (US20210322975) teaches a plurality of mixing chambers, the mixing chambers (mixing chambers in [0005]) to mix fluids communicated along a plurality of fluid channels (see [0010], which recites “a microfluidic device may include: a first fluidic input channel and a second fluidic input channel, wherein the first and second fluidic input channels converge to form a fluidic intersection channel having a depth extending from a top surface to a first bottom surface and a width; a first mixing chamber having a depth extending from the top surface to a second bottom surface, a width extending from a first side to a second side, and a length, wherein the depth of the first mixing chamber is greater than the depth of the fluidic intersection channel and the width of the first mixing chamber is greater than the width of the fluidic intersection channel, further wherein the first mixing chamber is fluidly connected to the fluidic intersection channel at the top surface and proximate the first side; and an outlet channel, wherein the outlet channel is fluidly connected to the first mixing chamber at the top surface and proximate the second side of the mixing chamber”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Peret in view of Linder by incorporating the plurality of mixing chambers as disclosed by Eldridge, such that ‘the mixing chambers to mix fluids communicated along the plurality of fluid channels’, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of enabling highly efficient mixing in a relatively small footprint (see [0005] of Eldridge, which recites “apparatuses that include formulating compositions using a microfluidic mixing chamber (or a series of interconnected microfluidic mixing chambers) that are configured to provide highly efficient mixing in a relatively small footprint. These mixing chambers may operate within a particular flow rate to achieve a high degree of mixing”).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peret (US20150002667) in view of Linder (US20140038166) in view of Eldridge (US20210322975) in view of Kamen (US20170101618).
With respect to claim 23, Peret in view of Linder in view Eldridge teaches the system of claim 22, the body further including a plurality of valves (see [0164] of Eldridge, which recites “apparatuses may include one or more vacuum cap structures and valves”) (see also [0166] of Eldridge, which recites “the microfluidic device may include ports for coupling to one or more pressure lines 352 that may be used to selectively apply pressure (e.g. positive and/or negative air pressure) to control one or more valves (e.g., allowing flow of the reagents on/off the chip)”).
Peret in view of Linder in view Eldridge fails to teach each valve of the plurality of valves being positioned along a corresponding fluid channel of the plurality of fluid channels, each valve of the plurality of valves to selectively prevent fluid from flowing in the corresponding fluid channel of the plurality of fluid channels, the processor to cease communication of fluid through the plurality of fluid channels by activating the plurality of valves.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Kamen (US20170101618) teaches each valve (see Fig. 1) of a plurality of valves (valves 170A-K in [0145]) of a body (fluid circuit 160 in [0145]) being positioned along a corresponding fluid channel of a plurality of fluid channels (fluid paths 196, 186, 188, 184, 172, 164, 166, 168A, 168B, 185 in [0145]) (see Fig. 1), each valve of the plurality of valves to selectively prevent fluid from flowing in the corresponding fluid channel of the plurality of fluid channels (see [0145], which recites “fluid may selectively be transferred through such fluid pathways by actuating valves 170A-K of fluid circuit 160 cooperatively to make and break fluid communication pathways in fluid circuit 160”), a processor (controller in [0020], which recites “each of the plurality of pneumatic valve modules can include, but is not limited to including, a control board receiving at least one controller command from the controller. The control board can command, according to the at least one controller command, actuation of at least one of the plurality of pneumatic valve modules”) to cease communication of fluid through the plurality of fluid channels (fluid paths 196, 186, 188, 184, 172, 164, 166, 168A, 168B, 185) by activating the plurality of valves (valves 170A-K) (see [0145], which recites “fluid may selectively be transferred through such fluid pathways by actuating valves 170A-K of fluid circuit 160 cooperatively to make and break fluid communication pathways in fluid circuit 160”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Peret in view of Linder in view of Eldridge by incorporating the plurality of valves and controller as disclosed by Kamen, such that each valve of the plurality of valves is positioned along a corresponding fluid channel of the plurality of fluid channels, each valve of the plurality of valves to selectively prevent fluid from flowing in the corresponding fluid channel of the plurality of fluid channels, the processor to cease communication of fluid through the plurality of fluid channels by activating the plurality of valves, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of enabling selective and coordinated control of fluid transfer through the respective fluid pathways (see [0145] of Kamen).
Conclusion
With respect to claims 3-7, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the field of view positioned to further include a second fluid channel defined by the body, the first image further including a region of interest of the second fluid channel, the second image further including the region of interest of the second fluid channel, the processor further to: determine whether a second fluid is present in the region of interest of the second fluid channel, and if the processor determines that the second fluid is present in the region of interest of the second fluid channel, cease communication of the second fluid through the second fluid channel, as recited in claim 3.
With respect to claim 17, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a ratio of a first set of pixels to a second set of pixels, the first set of pixels including pixels showing reflected light at an interface between a boundary layer of fluid in the region of interest of the fluid channel and a sidewall of the fluid channel, the second set of pixels including pixels along an entire length of the sidewall of the fluid channel in the region of interest, as recited in claim 17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BORTOLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3179. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM till 6 PM EST Monday through Thursday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571)272-1254. 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.
/JONATHAN BORTOLI/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights