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(s) (IDS) was submitted on:
07/29/2024
Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Regarding all drawings, the size and font of the text is such that it cannot be easily discerned. Please use a size and font of the text so that the words can be read within the drawings. See MPEP § 1.84 “Standards for drawings”:
(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding the specification, paragraph [0007], the phrase “the multiple capillary channels is configured to” should be “the multiple capillary channels are configured to”.
Regarding the specification, paragraph [0030], the paragraph should end with a period punctuation mark.
Regarding the specification, paragraph [0039], the phrase “material of device doesn’t limit to PDMS” should be “material of the device is not limited to PDMS”.
Regarding the specification, paragraph [0057] or pg. 11, lines 9-11, the source code contains integer variables that are not set to integers:
int sensorPin1 = A0;
int sensorPin2 = A1;
int sensorPin3 = A2;
Regarding the specification, paragraph [0057] or pg. 11, lines 12-13, the source code contains integer variables that are not set to the pinout diagram of Fig. 5 of the Drawings:
int PWM1 = 3;
int PWM2 = 5;
The examiner thinks that these two pulse-width-modulation pins are set to pins 2 and 4, respectively in Fig. 5 of the Drawings.
Regarding the specification, paragraph [0057] or pg. 12, lines 1-2, the source code contains commented-out commands:
//R2 = 1023 / sensorVal3 – 1;
//R2= R1 / R2;
It is unclear if these commented out commands are necessary components of the source code.
Regarding the specification, paragraph [0057] or pg. 12, lines 20 and 27, the source code contains the phrases, respectively, “1nd high” and “2st high” which are not standard English.
Regarding the specification, paragraph [0057] or pg. 12, lines 28-35, the source code may not have the intended function because the section containing the following commands is commented-out:
/*
if(temperature > 70){
PWMVal3 = 255;
}
*/
This commented-out section results in commands (in lines 41 and 47), regarding the integer PWMVal3, to be undefined.
Regarding the specification, in paragraph [0057] or pg. 12, in at least line 45, the indentation is incorrect on the beginning of the line. Please indent the source code correctly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in the last line, the term “time” should be “times”.
Regarding claim 4, in the last line, the term “the flow” should be “flow”.
Regarding claim 6, in lines 1-2, the term “each heating plates” should be “each of the heating plates”.
Regarding claim 6, in line 2, the term “the length” could be “a length”.
Regarding claim 7, in line 2, the term “across droplets” should be “across the droplets”.
Regarding claim 9, in line 1, the term “the device” should be “the device of claim 8”.
Regarding claim 11, in line 1, the term “the number” could be “a number”.
Regarding claim 11, in lines 1-2, the phrase “each with” should be “each of the heating plates with”.
Regarding claim 11, in line 2, insert a serial comma after the term “78℃”.
Regarding claim 13, in line 1, the phrase “each heating plate” should be “ each of the heating plates”.
Regarding claim 13, in line 3, the phrase “the heater” should be “the respective heater”.
Regarding claim 13, in line 3, the phrase “when the thermistor” should be “when the respective thermistor”.
Regarding claim 13, in line 4, the phrase “the heater” should be “the respective heater”.
Regarding claim 14, in line 2, the phrase “the oil-to-sample ratio” should be “an oil-to-sample ratio”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 in light of 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(s) is/are:
“a flow focusing structure” – in claim 1
“a mechanism for adjusting the oil-to-sample ratio to optimize droplet generation efficiency” – claim 14
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 14 are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification as filed shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structures, materials, or acts described in the specification as filed for the following 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) limitations:
“a flow focusing structure to generate droplets from a provided aqueous sample and extract oil” – claim 1: “the channel is in a cross-junction structure, so that the oil shears off the aqueous flow (with sample) at the junction into droplets” (instant specification, paragraph [0031]); and,
“a mechanism for adjusting the oil-to-sample ratio to optimize droplet generation efficiency” – claim 14: “the droplet generation layer includes a mechanism for adjusting the oil-to-sample ratio, optimizing droplet generation efficiency and overall performance” (instant specification, paragraph [0034]).
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 § 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.
Claims 2 and 14 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the outlet” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the outlet” should be “an outlet”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the opening” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the opening” should be “an opening”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the outlet” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the outlet” should be “an outlet”.
Regarding claim 14, the term “a mechanism for adjusting the oil-to-sample ratio to optimize droplet generation efficiency” does not have sufficient structure to understand what the limitation is attempting to claim. The only description found in the specification to the knowledge of the examiner is “the droplet generation layer includes a mechanism for adjusting the oil-to-sample ratio, optimizing droplet generation efficiency and overall performance” (instant specification, paragraph [0034]). Therefore, the limitation is to be held indefinite and will be interpreted broadly in lieu of a defined structure under the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation as described above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abate (US 20190330701) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Abate discloses a portable, miniaturized microfluidic (paragraph [0005]) droplet-based digital polymerase chain reaction (PCR) device (paragraphs [0480] and [0509]-[0510]), comprising:
a droplet generation layer (Fig. 5; paragraph [0091]) with a flow-focusing channel (annotated Fig. 5) and multiple capillary channels (annotated Fig. 5), wherein the flow-focusing channel has a flow focusing structure (annotated Fig. 5) to generate droplets (annotated Fig. 5) from a provided aqueous sample and extract oil (paragraph [0122] “oil and aqueous phases”), and the multiple capillary channels is configured to perform an oil extraction (paragraphs [0040] and [0055] “water-in-oil-in-water double emulsions”; Fig. 23);
PNG
media_image1.png
381
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Abate, annotated Fig. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
182
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Abate, annotated Fig. 23
an incubation layer (paragraphs [0018] “incubated at 37℃”), comprising heating plates (paragraph [0030] “copper blocks”), a microfluidic channel (Figs. 5 and 23) and a container (paragraphs [0147]-[0148] “container” or “containers”) and configured to conduct a PCR thermal cycling program (paragraph [0018]);
a controller (paragraph [0030]); and
a power supplier (paragraph [0233] inherent to “power control”);
wherein the PCR thermal cycling program maintains each of the heating plates at a predefined temperature (paragraph [0234] “at least one zone is maintained at about 65℃ and at least one zone is maintained at about 95℃”), respectively, so as to heat the droplets to different temperatures at different time (paragraph [0234]).
Regarding claim 2, Abate discloses wherein the outlet (annotated Fig. 5, paragraph [0037]) of the flow-focusing channel (annotated Fig. 5) is coincided with the opening of the microfluidic channel (annotated Fig. 5), and the outlet (annotated Fig. 5, paragraph [0037]) of the microfluidic channel (annotated Fig. 5; paragraphs [0184] and [0192]) is connected to the container (paragraphs [0147]-[0148]).
Regarding claim 3, Abate discloses wherein the droplets enter and flow through the microfluidic channel (paragraph [0147]) to the container (paragraph [0148]).
Regarding claim 4, Abate discloses wherein the microfluidic channel (annotated Fig. 5; paragraphs [0184] and [0192]) is positioned on the heating plates (paragraph [0030]), so that the droplets flowed through are heated to the different predefined temperatures throughout the flow (paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 5, Abate discloses wherein the microfluidic channel travels back and forth among the heating plates (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0030] and [0089]).
PNG
media_image3.png
180
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Abate, Fig. 1
Regarding claim 7, Abate discloses wherein the microfluidic channel is designed with serpentine patterns (paragraphs [0018] and [0502] “snaking channel”).
Regarding the phrase “to enhance thermal homogeneity across droplets during PCR thermal cycling”, the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of Abate would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the serpentine microfluidic channel.
Regarding claim 8, Abate discloses wherein the droplets completing the PCR thermal cycling program (paragraph [0145] “PCR amplification products”) are stored in the container as a final product (paragraph [0148] “sorted into different containers”).
Regarding claim 9, Abate discloses wherein the device further comprises a fluorescent detecting module (paragraph [0018] “flow cytometry”) to measure a fluorescent intensity of the final product (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 14, Abate discloses wherein the droplet generation layer comprises a mechanism (paragraph [0050] “T-junction drop maker” … “with ridges”) for adjusting the oil-to-sample ratio to optimize droplet generation efficiency (paragraphs [0050] and [0541]-[0542]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 | 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abate (US 20190330701) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 6, Abate discloses wherein a duration that the droplets spend on each heating plates (paragraph [0030]) is adjustable by regulating the length, geometry and shape of the microfluidic channel (inherent to the dimensions of the microfluidic channel and intended use or manner of operation of the flow rates of the droplets; Fig. 1; paragraphs [0166] and [0199], as well as [0018] and [0502] “snaking channel”) on the heating plates (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding the limitation “a duration that the droplets spend on each heating plates is adjustable” the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of Abate would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the flow rates of the droplets and dimensions of the microfluidic channels in the device of Abate.
In addition, according to MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D), adjustability of a part is not a patentable advance. In addition, the claim limitation is obvious under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions … [and the claimed device] would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. In addition, the claim limitation is obvious, as the configuration of the claimed shape is a matter of choice, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). In addition, the limitation is obvious as a matter of routine optimization, because the duration of time spent for a droplet over a heating plate is a result-effective variable based on the dimensions of the microchannel and flow of the droplets. The motivation for optimizing this result-effective variable is based on how long the droplet needs to complete each step of polymerase chain reaction. MPEP § 2144.05(II). For all of these additional reasons, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Abate with the dimensions of the microchannels and the flow rates of the droplets in order to govern the duration of time spent for a droplet over a heating plate for the purpose of completing each step of polymerase chain reaction.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Abate (US 20190330701) (newly cited) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abate (US 20190330701) (newly cited) as applied to claim 1, in view of Link (US 20080003142) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 10, Abate discloses wherein the droplet generation layer (Fig. 5; paragraph [0091]) and the incubation layer (paragraphs [0018] “zones”) are connected in a dock-wise manner (Fig. 1).
Regarding the limitation “are connected in a stack-wise manner or a dock-wise manner”, if it has been deemed that this limitation has not been met by Abate, Link discloses this limitation (Figs. 1 (dock-wise) and 14 (stack-wise); paragraph [0072]).
In the analogous art of microfluidic devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Abate with the modular dock-wise connections of Link in order to integrate modules for a droplet-based, high-throughput microfluidic reactor system for the purposes of biological, chemical, or diagnostic applications (Link, paragraph [0072]-[0073]).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abate (US 20190330701) (newly cited) as applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, Abate discloses wherein there are a number of the heating plates, each with the predefined temperature of 65°C and 95°C, respectively (paragraph [0018]); and, the device is incubated at 37℃ (paragraph [0018]).
Abate does not disclose wherein the number of the heating plates is 3, each with the predefined temperature of 50°C, 78°C and 95°C, respectively.
Regarding the term “the number of the heating plates is 3”, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the number of the heating plates to be three in order to incubate the droplets at three different temperatures in different spatial locations according to the steps of PCR, similarly to the Abate’s two heating blocks that alternate the temperature of the droplets between 65℃ and 95℃.
Regarding the limitation “each with the predefined temperature of 50°C, 78°C and 95°C, respectively”, the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified Abate would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the different heating blocks of modified Abate.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abate (US 20190330701) (newly cited) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Stafford (US 20240118187) (newly cited) (specifically as seen in provisional application US 63415235).
Regarding claim 12, Abate discloses wherein heaters (paragraph [0030] “Peltier heaters under the copper blocks”) are respectively connected to each of the heating plates for temperature maintenance (paragraph [0030] “copper blocks”), wherein there are thermometers for temperature monitoring (paragraph [0030]) and the controller (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding the phrase “wherein each of the heaters is attached with a thermistor for temperature monitoring and electrically connected to the controller”, Abate does not literally disclose this limitation however Stafford discloses this limitation (paragraph [0131]).
In the analogous art of measurement and control of droplet sizes, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Abate with the thermistor and controller of Stafford in order to use a controller to operate the heating elements and to read the current temperature of the heating elements (Stafford, paragraph [0131]) for the purpose of finding treatments to biopsied tissues or biological materials from patients (Stafford, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 13, Abate discloses heating plates (paragraph [0030] “copper blocks”); and the controller regulates and cycles the temperature (paragraph [0030]).
Stafford discloses wherein each heating plate is attached with a thermistor for temperature monitoring (paragraph [0021] and [0131]).
In the analogous art of measurement and control of droplet sizes, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Abate with the thermistor and controller of Stafford in order to use a controller feedback loop to operate the heating elements and to read the current temperature of the heating elements (Stafford, paragraph [0131]) for the purpose of finding treatments to biopsied tissues or biological materials from patients (Stafford, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding the limitation “and the controller turns off the heater when the thermistor detects a temperature higher than the predefined temperature and turns on the heater when a lower temperature is detected”, Abate does not literally disclose this limitation however, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Abate with the controller feedback loop of Stafford to accomplish this limitation in order to operate the heating elements and to read the current temperature of the heating elements (Stafford, paragraph [0131]) for the purpose of finding treatments to biopsied tissues or biological materials from patients (Stafford, paragraph [0002]).
Additional Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Esmail (US 20150209785) (newly cited) – This invention is an integrated microfluidic system for performing assays.
Wang (US 20160298173) (newly cited) – This invention is a droplet-based microfluidic chip with fluorescent detection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN G ESPERON whose telephone number is 571-272-9807. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am - 6 pm every other Friday.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/N.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights