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 .
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 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the number of pillars decreases" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isokawa et al, "Liquid Chromatography Chip with Low-Dispersion and Low-Pressure-Drop Turn Structure Utilizing a Distribution-Controlled Pillar Array" Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 6485−6491 in view of Jonsson et al, "Silane–dextran chemistry on lateral flow polymer chips for immunoassays", Lab Chip (2008) 8 (7): 1191–1197.
Regarding claim 1, Isokawa et al teach a microfluid device comprising: a separation channel having a tunnel shape (Fig. 4B); an obstacle having a columnar shape and provided in the separation channel (Fig. 1 and 4C: pillar array); and
Isokawa et al is silent to a ligand supported on a surface of the obstacle, the ligand being an optically active polymer.
Jonsson et al teach a microfluidic test chips with a micropillar array with dextran coating to allow for antibody immobilization for an immunoassay (Abstract). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is known. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dextran coating to provide the above advantage of allowing for antibody immobilization for an immunoassay.
Regarding claim 2, Isokawa/Jonsson teach the optically active polymer is a polysaccharide or a derivative thereof. (Jonsson: Abstract: dextran. It is noted that dextran is an optically active polymer because of the asymmetric carbon chiral center, and is a polysaccharide made of D-glucose molecules).
Regarding claim 3, Isokawa/Jonsson teach wherein the separation channel has a turn structure, and the turn structure is a structure formed in a tapered shape such that a shape formed by an inner wall surface in a plan view expands toward an outer peripheral side (Fig. 1B, 4B: tapered turn formed by an inner wall expands toward the outer peripheral side).
Regarding claim 4, Isokawa/Jonsson teach wherein in the turn structure, a length of an outer periphery and a length of an inner periphery in a plan view are identical (Fig. 1b: inner and outer lengths are identical) .
Regarding claim 5, Isokawa/Jonsson teach the separation channel has a turn structure, and the turn structure has a gradient in which a density of the number of pillars decreases from an inner peripheral side to an outer peripheral side. (Fig. 1: narrower to wider inter-pillar distance creating a gradient of density)
Regarding claim 6, Isokawa/Jonsson teach further comprising a sample channel for introducing a sample. (Fig. 4: sample channels)
Regarding claim 7, Isokawa/Jonsson teach the separation channel and the sample channel are provided on a same substrate (p. 6487 col. 1 para 4: silicon chip).
Regarding claim 8, Isokawa/Jonsson teach a shape of the substrate is a chip shape (p. 6487 col. 1 para 4: silicon chip).
Regarding claim 9, Isokawa teach a method for producing a microfluid device, the method comprising: preparing a substrate (p. 6487 col. 1 para 4: silicon chip) including a separation channel having a tunnel shape and an obstacle having a columnar shape and provided in the separation channel (Fig. 4). Isokawa is silent to causing a solution containing a ligand to pass through the separation channel to allow a surface of the obstacle to support the ligand, the ligand being an optically active polymer.
Jonsson et al teach a microfluidic test chips with a micropillar array immersed in dextran solution to prepare a coating over the surface to allow for antibody immobilization for an immunoassay (Jonsson: Abstract; p. 1193 col. 1 para. 2: surfaces are immersed in dextran solution). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is known. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of causing a solution of dextran to coat the surface to provide the above advantage of allowing for antibody immobilization for an immunoassay.
Regarding claim 10, Isokawa/Jonsson teach a shape of the substrate is a chip shape (p. 6487 col. 1 para 4: silicon chip).
Regarding claim 11, Isokawa/Jonsson teach the substrate further includes a sample channel for introducing a sample (Fig. 4: sample channels).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571)270-3747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Dennis White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights