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 .
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/060876 Gonzalez et al. in view of Challa et al., “Microfluidic devices fabricated using fast wafer-scale LED-lithography patterning”, Microfluidics, 11.014113, 2007, pages 014113-1 to 11,014113-8.
Gonzalez discloses a microgel generator, noting Gonzalez, page 18, lines 11-18, particularly the suspended species and polymers of lines 15-16, which encompasses gelled polymers which will necessitate “suspended species” as opposed to “dissolved species”. See also claim 1 of Gonzalez. Gonzalez’ devices comprise a continuous phase fluid inlet (Gonzalez, page 16, lines 2-3) for receiving a continuous phase fluid (Gonzalez, page 15, line 26 and page 22, claim 18), a dispersed phased fluid inlet for receiving a dispersed phase fluid (Gonzalez, page 22, claims 17-18), a plurality of exposure lanes which are in fluid communication with the continuous phase inlet and the dispersed phase inlet (Gonzalez, page 12, lines 21-27), and a plurality of flow focusing generators, a flow focusing generator defining a microdroplet outlet through which discrete portions of the dispersed phase fluid are exerted (Gonzalez, the abstract, page 12, lines 20-21 and 25-27).
Gonzalez does not disclose an exposure lane being in fluid communication with the microdroplet outlet of a flow focusing generator associated with that exposure lane, and a radiation source which is configured to illuminate at least a portion of the exposure lanes so as to effect curing of polymer comprised microdroplets disposed in the exposure lanes.
Challa discloses an exposure lane being in fluid communication with the microdroplet outlet of a flow focusing generator associated with that exposure lane, and a radiation source which is configured to illuminate at least a portion of the exposure lanes so as to effect curing of polymer comprised microdroplets disposed in the exposure lanes. See Challa, page 1, Introduction, first paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to have modified the generator disclosed by Gonzalez to have a radiation source to cure the polymer as disclosed by Challa to provide the benefit of dissolving the unexposed polymer during the development step while using higher resolution channels for the exposure step.
Challa discloses the generator comprising a shield that at least partially blocks illumination of the radiation source, the shield being disposed to shield the plurality of flow focusing generators from the radiation at page 2, second paragraph and page 4, fourth paragraph, figure 3.
Gonzalez in view of Challa does not disclose the particulars of the instant claims 2 and 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to shield the device of Gonzalez in view of Challa according to the instant claims 2 and 3 because it would have been expected to provide the benefit of the whole area not being exposed to curing radiation and will therefore not cure material which is not yet desired to be cured.
Gonzalez discloses the collection channel in fluid communication with the exposure lane of the instant claim 4 at page 12, lines 21-27, which is taken as being part of the device noted in the above obviousness statements.
Gonzalez discloses particulars falling within the scope of the instant claim 5 at page 11, lines 23-26, which is taken as being part of the device noted in the above obviousness statements.
Gonzalez discloses the microdroplet outlet of a flow focusing generator defines a cross-sectional dimension that is larger than a cross-sectional dimension selected from a long list of dimensions of the exposure lane of the flow focusing generator at page 3, lines 15-21. Gonzalez does not disclose these dimensions for the flow focusing generator according to the instant claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to have modified the cross-sectional dimension of the output lane, as previously disclosed by Gonzalez, to include an output lane cross-sectional dimension such that the flow focusing generator cross-sectional dimension is larger than the cross-sectional dimension of the exposure lane associated with the flow focusing generator according to the instant claim 6 because the previous discussed disclosure of Gonzalez includes a range of output lane dimensions including ones smaller thane the flow focusing cross-sectional dimension, and would provide the benefit of ensuring that the droplets do not overlap each other to provide full exposure of each droplet predictably to the ordinary skilled artisan.
Gonzalez discloses the particulars of the instant claim 7 at page 3, lines 15-21, which is taken as being part of the device noted in the above obviousness statements.
Challa discloses using UV radiation at page 7, second paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to use UV radiation in the above discussed microgel generator of Gonzalez in view of Challa because Challa discloses using UV light in such devices to be known and UV radiation would have been expected to give predictable curing to known UV curable polymers.
Gonzalez, page 15, lines 5-8 discloses the particulars of the instant claim 9, which is taken as being part of the device noted in the above obviousness statements.
Operating the above discussed microgel generator of Gonzalez in view of Challa necessarily gives the method of the instant claim 10 because the curing step of Challa gives microgel particles.
The particulars of Gonzalez, page 6, line 8, and Figure 7, page 15, line 26, page 22, claim 18, and page 20, claim 1 and Challa, page 4, figure 3, fourth paragraph and page 1, Introduction, first paragraph encompass the invention of the instant claim 11.
Gonzalez does not disclosed using polymerizable material and curing the discrete droplets by radiation exposure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to use polymerizable material and to cure the discrete droplets by radiation exposure in the above discussed microgel generator of Gonzalez in view of Challa because such curing would have been expected to give the benefits thereof of Challa, including the disclosed benefits and the benefits inherent to the particles of Challa as well as to more efficiently form microgel particles on a microfluidic chip.
Gonzalez, page 15, line 28 discloses the particulars of the instant claim 12, which is taken as being part of the device noted in the above obviousness statements.
Gonzalez, page 5, lines 2-4, teaches using water as the dispersed phase liquid. Since the polymer will be part of the dispersed phase and is therefore in water when water is used as the disperse liquid, the microgel particles will necessarily be hydrogels of the instant claim 13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to use water as the disperse phase according to the instant claim 13 in operation of the microgel generator of Gonzalez in view of Challa, as discussed above, because it is encompassed by Gonzalez, as noted above, and would have been expected to give only predictable results to the final particles.
Gonzalez, page 20, claim 1, discloses collecting the microgel particles according to the instant claim 14, which is taken as being part of the device noted in the above obviousness statements.
Surface tension of dispersed polymer particles necessitates that they will be generally spherical according to the instant claim 15 necessarily and inherently. See MPEP 2112.
Gonzalez discloses the particulars of the instant claim 17 at page 22, claim 18, which is taken as being part of the device noted in the above obviousness statements.
Gonzalez discloses the particulars of the instant claim 18 at the abstract and page 20, claim 1, which is taken as being part of the device noted in the above obviousness statements.
Gonzalez discloses the particulars of the instant claim 19 at page 3, lines 17-18, which is taken as being part of the device noted in the above obviousness statements.
3. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/060876 Gonzalez et al. in view of Challa et al., “Microfluidic devices fabricated using fast wafer-scale LED-lithography patterning”, Microfluidics, 11.014113, 2007, pages 014113-1 to 11,014113-8, as applied to claims 1-15 and 17-19 in paragraph 2 above, further in view of Heida, “Mechanically Defined Microgels by Droplet Microfluidics”, Macromolecular Journals, 26 October 2016, DOI:10.1002/macp.201600418, pages 1-19.
The discussion of paragraph 2 above is repeated here in its entirety.
Gonzalez in view of Challa does not disclose the particulars of the instant claim 16.
Heida discloses microgel particles which are nonspherical at page 3, third column, third paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to form nonspherical particles according to the instant claim 16 in the operation of the microgel generator of Gonzalez in view of Challa because these references do not limit the particle shape and therefore encompass nonspherical particles and Heida teaches that nonspherical particles give benefits of having control over particle geometry and morphology.
4. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/060876 Gonzalez et al. in view of Challa et al., “Microfluidic devices fabricated using fast wafer-scale LED-lithography patterning”, Microfluidics, 11.014113, 2007, pages 014113-1 to 11,014113-8, as applied to claims 1-15 and 17-19 in paragraph 2 above, further in view of Domenech, “High Loading Capacity Nanoencapsulation and Release of Hydrophobic Drug Nanocrystals from Microgel Particles”, American Chemical Society, 13 December 2019, DOI:10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b04241, pages 498-509.
The discussion of paragraph 2 above is repeated here in its entirety.
Gonzalez in view of Challa does not disclose the particulars of the instant claim 20.
Domenech discloses particulars falling within the scope of the instant claim 20 at page 500, second column, second paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to use the particulars of the instant claim 20 in the operation of the microgel generator of Gonzalez in view of Challa because Domenech shows such CV to give the benefit of having monodisperse particle sizes.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D NILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1121. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10 to 5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert S Jones, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PATRICK D NILAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights