DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on 3/20/24, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 16-23, 27-29 are pending.
Claims 28-29 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-8, 16-23 and 27 are rejected.
Claim 23 is objected to.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 28-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/13/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 23 recites “is a pierced by”. For clarity consider rephrasing to ‘is pierced by’.
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.
Claims 5-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the syringe barrel” in line 1 of claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the syringe barrel” in the claim. To overcome this issue, consider providing antecedent basis for “the syringe barrel” in claim 5 or in a base claim of claim 5, or amending claim 5 to depend on claim 3.
Claim 6 recites “the syringe barrel” in line 1 of claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the syringe barrel” in the claim. To overcome this issue, consider providing antecedent basis for “the syringe barrel” in claim 6 or in a base claim of claim 6, or amending claim 6 to depend on claim 3.
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 1-2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059).
With respect to claim 1, Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) teaches a system (system in [0002]) for assay of a biological sample (see [0049], which recites “biological sample to be assayed by the instrument system”), the system (system) comprising a cartridge system (cartridge 802 in [0090]), the cartridge system (cartridge 802) comprising:
a cartridge frame (cartridge frame 823 in [0083]) to which is mounted a sample receiver (entry port interface 827 in [0087], associated with the sample-containing ‘reservoir 816’, see [0081] and [0087]), at least one reagent receiver (thermally controlled reservoir 814 in [0081], which recites “reservoirs 814… may hold … a reagent”), at least one valve (radial valve assembly 832 in [0084]), and at least one reaction chamber (chamber of biochip 836. i.e. biochip 504) (see [0084], which recites “ports of the bottom of radial valve assembly 832 are utilized to connect to input and output ports of chip 836”) (see also [0088], which recites “biochip 836 is biochip 504 of Figure 5”) (see also [0054], which recites “chamber of chip 504”) (see also [0050], which recites “biochip 504 is thermally coupled to the instrument system via a thermoelectric cooler (TEC)/heat sink assembly 516”);
a plurality of fluid channels (channels of manifold assembly 831 and radial valve assembly 832 which together provide fluid connections between the reservoirs, the radial assembly 832 and the ports of the biochip, see [0084]-[0086], [0096] and [0108]-[0113])) extending between the at least one valve (radial valve assembly 832) (see Fig. 8B), the sample receiver (entry port interface 827) (see Fig. 8B), the at least one reagent receiver (thermally controlled reservoir 814) (see Fig. 8E), and the at least one reaction chamber (chamber of chip 836) (see Fig. 8B);
at least one fluent channel (syringe pump channel in [0096], which recites “assembly 831 includes a syringe pump channel that is to be connected to a central port (e.g., port 720 of Figures 7A-7D) of a radial valve assembly and a syringe pump”) extending from a pressurization mechanism (syringe pump in [0096]) to the at least one valve (radial valve assembly 832, see [0084] and [0096]) and
a main drive gear (drive gear 821 in [0083] which recites “the cartridge includes drive gear 821 that includes a motor engagement interface and gear teeth that engage and rotate gear teeth of a radial valve of the cartridge. …a motor of the instrument engages with the motor engagement interface of drive gear 821 to turn drive gear 821), wherein rotation of the main drive gear (drive gear 821) determines the position of the at least one valve (radial valve assembly 832) (see [0090], which recites “rotation of the valve drive end effector rotates the engaged drive gear and rotates the radial valve of cartridge 802 to select one or more positions of the radial valve”),
wherein the position of the at least one valve (radial valve assembly 832) determines which of the plurality of fluid channels is operably connected to the fluent channel (syringe pump channel) (see [0096], which recites “a syringe pump channel that is to be connected to a central port (e.g., port 720 of Figures 7A-7D) of a radial valve assembly”) (see also [0085], which recites “a seal on selectable ports of manifold assembly 831 that are selectable by rotation of radial valve assembly 832”) (see also [0108]-[0114]) .
Engelbart fails to teach a sample receiver connected to or configured to connect to a sample receptacle.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Williams (US20090221059) teaches a sample receiver (complementary rack 970 in [0112]) connected to or configured to connect to a sample receptacle (holders 972 in [0112], which recites “in FIGS. 1A and 1B, the apparatus 981 (or 971) is configured to operate in conjunction with a complementary rack 970. The rack is itself configured … to receive a number of biological samples 996 …, and a number of holders 972 that are equipped with … receptacles”) (holders 972 contains the biological sample 996, see Fig. 1A).
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 Engelbart by incorporating the sample receiver connected or configured to connect to a sample receptacle as disclosed by Williams, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of enabling receiving and processing a number of biological samples in respective sample holders and reducing contamination (see [0112] and Fig. 1A of Williams).
With respect to claim 2, Engelbart in view of Williams teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sample receiver (complementary rack 970 of William) comprises a sample heater (heater assembly 977 in [0112] of Williams) operably connected to a system controller (processor 980 in [0112] of Williams, which recites “the rack is configured so that, during sample work-up, samples are processed in the respective holders, the processing including being subjected, individually, to heating and cooling via heater assembly 977. The heating functions of the heater assembly can be controlled by the processor 980”).
With respect to claim 17, Engelbart in view of Williams teaches the system of claim 1.
Engelbart teaches that the main drive gear (drive gear 821) is connected to at least one valve drive gear (drive gear 821 in [0083]) driving the at least one valve (radial valve 832) (see [0083], which recites “teeth of drive gear 821 engage with teeth of the radial valve 832 to turn the radial valve 832”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Poppe (US20210128801).
With respect to claim 3, Engelbart in view of Williams teaches system of claim 1.
Engelbart in view of Williams fails to teach that the pressurization mechanism comprises a fixedly mounted syringe housing, and a syringe barrel slidably disposed within the syringe housing, wherein the fluent channel extends from the syringe housing to the at least one valve.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Poppe (US20210128801) teaches a pressurization mechanism (syringe pump in [0046], which recites “as seen in FIGS. 1-2, the syringe pump for delivery of a fluid…, has an outer housing 1 that contains a recess 10 to house syringe 11, which includes syringe housing 2 and plunger 3”) comprises a fixedly mounted syringe housing (outer housing 1 in [0046]), and a syringe barrel (syringe housing 2 in [0046], which recites “syringe housing 2 is an elongate tubular member having (e.g., a cylindrical barrel) slidably disposed within the syringe housing (outer housing 1) (syringe 11 which comprises syringe housing 2 is loaded into the housing 1 by sliding and is pulled from housing 1 by sliding, see [0056], which recites “syringe 11 is pulled out of housing 1. Moreover, the design of housing 1 and the pump enable the patient both to load syringe 11 into housing 1 and pull syringe 11 free of housing”) (see also Fig. 1). Regarding “the fluent channel extends from the syringe housing to the at least one valve”, Engelbart teaches the fluent channel extending from the syringe pump to the at least one valve and Poppe teaches that the outlet of syringe housing 2 is connected to an infusion line through which fluid is dispensed. Accordingly, upon substitution of Engelbart’s syringe pump with Poppe’s syringe pump, Engelbart’s fluent channel would extend from the syringe housing of the substituted syringe pump to the at least one valve.
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 Engelbart in view of Williams by substituting Engelbart’s pressurization mechanism (syringe pump) with Poppe’s pressurization mechanism (syringe pump), with reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of accurately delivering an amount of fluid (see [0011] of Poppe) (the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Ye (US20200061603).
With respect to claim 4, Engelbart in view of Williams teaches the system of claim 1.
Engelbart in view of Williams fails to teach that the main drive gear is connected to a cam drive gear driving a rotating cam.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Ye (US20200061603) teaches a main drive gear (sector gear 30 in [0028]) is connected to a cam drive gear (driving gear 69 in [0034], which recites “the sector gear 30 to rotate through the power shaft 31, engage the sector gear 30 with the driving gear 69, drive the driving gear 69 to drive the rotating shaft 33 to rotate”) driving a rotating cam (cam 25 in [0025], which recites “the camshaft 26 drives the cam 25 to rotate”) (see also [0037], which recites “the rotating shaft 33 drives the transmission shaft 29 to rotate through the pulley 28, and the transmission shaft 29 drives the cam 25 through the second ratchet mechanism 27 and the camshaft 26”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams by substituting Engelbart’s main drive gear (drive gear 821) with Ye’s main drive gear (sector gear 30) such that the main drive gear is connected to a cam drive gear driving a rotating cam with reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of mechanically actuating components of the system by transmitting rotational force to a cam (the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Ye (US20200061603) in view of Stabile (US4046511).
With respect to claim 5, Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Ye teaches the system of claim 4.
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Ye fails to teach that the syringe barrel is connected to a syringe follower, the syringe follower being in contact with the cam.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Stabile (US4046511) teaches syringe barrel (barrel of syringe pump 180, see column 5) is connected to a syringe follower (follower 170 in column 5), the syringe follower (follower 170) being in (operative) contact with the cam (cam 21 in column 5, which recites “shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 5 slide 172 … is provided with a follower 170 which is engaged in groove 174 of cam 21. Upon rotation of cam 21, slide 172, and plunger rods 176 and 178 attached thereto move vertically up and down. The plunger rods 176 and 178 thus move in and out of the barrels of syringe pumps 180 and 182”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Ye by incorporating Stabile’s syringe follower (follower 170) such that the syringe barrel is connected to a syringe follower, the syringe follower being in contact with the cam, with reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of converting rotational motion of the cam into controlled linear movement of the syringe plunger to precisely dispense fluid therefrom.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Ye (US20200061603) in view of Soares (US20210260295).
With respect to claim 6, Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Ye teaches the system of claim 4.
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Ye fails to teach that the syringe barrel is connected to a syringe spring, the syringe spring biasing the syringe barrel relative to the syringe housing.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Soares (US20210260295) teaches a syringe barrel (syringe 114 in [0044]) connected to a syringe spring (syringe spring 124 in [0049], which recites “the syringe spring 124 is a compression spring and is in a compressed state when the syringe is in the pre-use position shown in FIG. 2. The syringe spring 124 is disposed over the syringe ram 120 and seats against the peripheral flange 121. The syringe spring 124 and syringe ram 120 thereby act to bias the syringe 114 towards the use position”), the syringe spring (syringe spring 124) biasing the syringe barrel (syringe 114) relative to the syringe housing (body 111 in [0056], which recites “the syringe ram 120 pushes the syringe 114 towards the distal end 20 of the body 111 under the force of the syringe spring 124”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Ye by incorporating Soares’ syringe spring such that the syringe barrel is connected to a syringe spring, the syringe spring biasing the syringe barrel relative to the syringe housing with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of facilitating controlled movement of the syringe barrel.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Ye (US20200061603) in view of West (US20040134297) in view of Riggs (US4352299).
With respect to claim 7, Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Ye teaches the system of claim 4.
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Ye fails to teach the main drive gear is a worm gear, and the cam drive gear comprises at least one cam gear ratchet and at least one cam gear pawl, wherein the combination of the at least one cam gear ratchet and at least one cam gear pawl forms an intermittent gear by allowing rotation of the cam drive gear in only one direction.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, West (US20040134297A1) teaches a worm gear (worm gear 225 in [0032]), and at least one cam gear ratchet (ratchet cam 260A in [0032]) and at least one cam gear pawl (pawl 266A in [0032], which recites “ratchet cam 260A is disposed distal to power supply 20 with the teeth 262A thereof engaging pawl 266A”), wherein the combination of the at least one cam gear ratchet and at least one cam gear pawl forms a gear by allowing rotation of the cam drive gear in only one direction (see [0024], which recites “the combination of ratchet cam and corresponding pawl(s) may be collectively referred to herein as a ratchet. Moreover, as used herein, the term ‘ratchet’ includes nominally any uni-directional device capable of permitting rotation in one direction, while substantially preventing rotation in the opposite direction”) (see also [0006], which recites “a gear set configured for being forward-driven at an input”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Ye by incorporating worm gear (worm gear 225), and at least one cam gear ratchet (ratchet cam 260A) and at least one cam gear pawl (pawl 266A) disclosed by West such that the main drive gear is a worm gear, and the cam drive gear comprises at least one cam gear ratchet and at least one cam gear pawl, wherein the combination of the at least one cam gear ratchet and at least one cam gear pawl forms a gear by allowing rotation of the cam drive gear in only one direction, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of effectively preventing forces acting on the driven mechanism from back-driving the gear set while permitting the gear set to be forward driven (see [0022] of West, which recites “the universal self-locking device 110 substantially prevents the butterfly valve 40 from back-driving the gear set, while permitting it to be forward-driven by the power source 20.”)
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Ye in view of West fails to teach that the gear formed by the combination of the at least one cam gear ratchet and at least one cam gear pawl is an intermittent gear.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Riggs (US4352299A) teaches an intermittent gear (see the first column, which recites “Applicants' intermittent motion gear mechanism is an improvement over such "geneva lock' mechanisms and directs the position of the control valve only between predetermined angular positions whereby the control valve opens and reaches a fully open position only for a predetermined input”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Ye in view of West by configuring the gear formed by the combination of the at least one cam gear ratchet and at least one cam gear pawl to be an intermittent gear, as disclosed by Riggs, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of intermittently driving the cam while maintaining the cam at a selected position between movements (the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Taylor (US20040166031) in view of Story (US4090532).
With respect to claim 8, Engelbart in view of Williams teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the cartridge frame (cartridge frame 823 of Engelbart) comprises a power source (battery in [0521] of William, which recites “a battery for the real-time clock”) operably connected to a system controller (PC processor base board in [0521] of William, which recites “PC processor base board can include …a battery for the real-time clock”);
the system controller (PC processor base board of Williams) comprises a timer (real-time clock in [0520] of Williams, which recites “the PC processor board … includes one real-time clock”);
the system controller (PC processor base board of Williams) comprises a gear actuator (motor in [0445] of William, which recites “Gears 1406 communicate rotational energy from a motor ….the motor is computer-controlled”);
the cartridge frame (cartridge frame of Engelbart) further comprises a readout (sample reader 990 in [0106] of Williams);
the at least one reaction chamber (lysis tubes in [0652] of Williams) comprises a magnet see [0625, which recites “the lysis heaters can permit the lysis tubes to be in direct contact with the magnets”);
the at least one reaction chamber (process tube in [0142] of Williams) comprises a sample heater (heater assembly in [0142]) operably connected to the system controller (see [0518], which recites “each of the three MUX boards 100 a-c can be controlled by a PC processor board … two lysis heater boards 116 and 117, controlled by the lysis heater MUX board 100 c, that heat lysis tubes”).
Engelbart in view of Williams fails to teach that the at least one reaction chamber comprises a mixing mechanism operably connected to the system controller;
the mixing mechanism comprises at least one vibrating actuator connected to at least one flexible membrane, wherein the at least one flexible membrane forms at least one wall of the at least one reaction chamber.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Taylor (US20040166031) teaches the at least one reaction chamber (lysing chamber 86 in [0149]) comprises a mixing mechanism (transducer 92 in [0149], which recites “the transducer 92 is preferably an ultrasonic horn for sonicating the chamber 86”) operably connected to the system controller (microcontroller in [0113], which recites “a microcontroller for controlling the operation of the solenoids 146, transducer 92”);
the mixing mechanism (transducer 92) comprises at least one vibrating actuator (actuator in [0066], which recites “the actuator be an ultrasonic transducer, such as an ultrasonic horn”) (see [0149] of Taylor, which recites “to disrupt the cells or viruses in the chamber 86, the transducer 92 is activated (i.e., set into vibratory motion). The flexible wall 63 of the lysing chamber 86 transfers the vibratory motion of the transducer 92 to the liquid in the chamber 86”)
connected to at least one flexible membrane (membrane 63 in [0094]) (see also [0150], which recites “as the tip of the transducer 92 vibrates, it repeatedly impacts the flexible wall 63”), wherein the at least one flexible membrane forms at least one wall of the at least one reaction chamber (see [0141] which recites “the transducer 92 contacts an external surface of the flexible gasket 63 forming the bottom wall of the lysing chamber 86, as shown in FIG. 5”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams by incorporating the mixing mechanism disclosed by Taylor, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of effectively disrupting cells or viruses in the chamber (see [0149], of Taylor, which recites “to disrupt the cells or viruses in the chamber 86, the transducer 92 is activated (i.e., set into vibratory motion). The flexible wall 63 of the lysing chamber 86 transfers the vibratory motion of the transducer 92 to the liquid in the chamber 86”).
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Taylor fails to teach that the gear actuator is controlled by the timer, the gear actuator driving the main drive gear.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Story (US4090532) teaches the gear actuator (miniature spool driving motor 132 in Fig. 6) is controlled by the timer (timer 44 in Fig. 2);
the gear actuator (miniature spool driving motor 132) driving the main drive gear (spool driving gear 170 in Fig. 11) (see also column 7, which recites “as the timer rotates, an outer row pin, such as actuator pin 104a, will operate switch 52 to energize the forward motor control circuit, thus driving the pilot valve spool to the left (as viewed in FIG. 11). The motor is energized in a forward direction and rotates gear 170”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Taylor such that ‘the gear actuator is controlled by the timer’ as disclosed by Story, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of achieving automatic time-regulated actuation of the valve (see column 1 of Story, which recites “invention to provide an improved controller for automatic time regulated actuation”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Buermann (US20160002718).
With respect to claim 16, Engelbart in view of Williams teaches the system of claim 1.
Engelbart in view of Williams fails to teach that the at least one reaction chamber is located within the at least one valve.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Buermann (US20160002718) teaches the at least one reaction chamber (reaction chamber 108 in [0079]) is located within the at least one valve (reaction valve 102 in [0079]) (see Fig. 1) (see also [0008], which recites the reaction valve includes a sample chamber, and the valve inlet is in fluid communication with the sample chamber”) (see also [0070], which recites “the substance may be … a biological … the reaction components are delivered through fluid lines that are in flow communication with the reaction valve. The reaction components may be provided to the sample chamber (or reaction chamber) … reactions may be conducted within the sample chamber for generating a substance and/or analyzing a substance”) (see also [0071], which recites “a sample chamber … combined with a valve, thereby forming a reaction valve”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams such that the at least one reaction chamber is located within the at least one valve as disclosed by Buermann with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of efficiently manipulating fluid, reducing dead volume, and providing a compact system with relatively small number of moving parts (see [0071] and [0072] of Buermann).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Yang (CN206378497U, mapped to the English Translation attached).
With respect to claim 18, Engelbart in view of Williams teaches the system of claim 17.
Engelbart in view of Williams fails to teach that a combination of the at least one valve drive gear and at least one valve gear forms an intermittent gear through incomplete toothing of the at least one valve drive gear.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Yang (CN206378497) teaches a combination of the at least one drive gear (second partial gear 18) and at least one gear (gear ring 17) forms an intermittent gear through incomplete toothing (second partial gear 18 …. second incomplete tooth on page 3) of the at least one drive gear (second partial gear 18).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams by incorporating the combination of the at least one drive gear (second partial gear 18) and the at least one gear (gear ring 17) as disclosed by Yang such that a combination of the at least one valve drive gear and at least one valve gear forms an intermittent gear through incomplete toothing of the at least one valve drive gear, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of achieving controlled periodic transmission of rotational motion with intervening dwell periods (the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Yang (CN206378497, mapped to the English Translation attached) in view of Misener (US20160216284) in view of Boehm (US20160231344).
With respect to claim 19, Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Yang teaches the system of claim 18.
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Yang fails to teach that the intermittent gear is an intermittent rack-and-pinion gear, and the at least one valve is a sliding valve.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Misener (US20160216284) teaches a rack-and-pinion gear (rack and pinion configuration in [0090]) (see [0020], which recites “a gear rack … driven pinion gear”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Yang by incorporating the rack-and-pinion gear disclosed by Misener, such that that the intermittent gear is an intermittent rack-and-pinion gear, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of effectively converting rotational motion into translational actuation (see [0020] of Misener, which recites “each driven pinion gear is configured to operably engage one of the gear racks of the cartridge such that, upon rotational driving of the driven pinion gear, the cartridge is translated relative to the guide”). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Yang in view of Misener fails to teach that the at least one valve is a sliding valve.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Boehm (US20160231344) teaches a sliding valve (slide valve in [0097], which recites “a cartridge for dispensing fluid is presented. The cartridge can comprise a slide valve. … the slide valve can further translate the pumping chamber conduit to connect with the outlet conduit. This embodiment may be beneficial because the combination of the slide valve and the plunger can allow accurate dispensing of the fluid. Further, the embodiment may also enable a reduced amount of waste fluid produced when dispensing fluid by the cartridge”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Yang in view of Misener by incorporating the sliding valve (slide valve) disclosed by Boehm, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefits of effectively accurately dispensing a fluid and reducing the amount of waste fluid produced (see [0097] of Boehm, which recites “a cartridge for dispensing fluid is presented. The cartridge can comprise a slide valve. … the slide valve can further translate the pumping chamber conduit to connect with the outlet conduit. This embodiment may be beneficial because the combination of the slide valve and the plunger can allow accurate dispensing of the fluid. Further, the embodiment may also enable a reduced amount of waste fluid produced when dispensing fluid by the cartridge”).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Toku (JP H03-129189 A, mapped to the English translation attached) in view of Riggs (US4352299A).
With respect to claim 20, Engelbart in view of Williams teaches the system of claim 17.
Engelbart in view of Williams fails to teach that the main drive gear is a worm gear, and the at least one valve drive gear comprises at least one valve gear ratchet and at least one valve gear pawl, wherein the combination of the at least one valve gear ratchet and at least one valve gear pawl forms an intermittent gear by allowing rotation of the at least one valve drive gear in only one direction.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Toku (JP H03-129189 A) teaches the main drive gear (worm gear 105 on page 6) is a worm gear (worm gear 105 on page 6), and the at least one valve drive gear (gear 6 on page 2) comprises at least one valve gear ratchet (ratchet gear 8 on page 2) and at least one valve gear pawl (ratchet pawl 83 on page 2), wherein the combination of the at least one valve gear ratchet (ratchet gear 8) and at least one valve gear pawl (ratchet pawl 83) forms a gear by allowing rotation of the at least one valve drive gear in only one direction (see page 2, which recites “the ratchet pawl 83 is engaged with the ratchet gear 8 can only be rotated in the direction of the solid arrow”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams incorporating Toku’s worm gear and the combination of the at least one valve gear ratchet (ratchet gear 8) and at least one valve gear pawl (ratchet pawl 83), with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of enabling rotation of the valve drive gear in only one direction (see page 2, which recites “the ratchet pawl 83 is engaged with the ratchet gear 8 can only be rotated in the direction of the solid arrow”).
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Toku fails to teach that the gear formed by the combination of the at least one valve gear ratchet and at least one valve gear pawl is an intermittent gear.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Riggs (US4352299A) teaches an intermittent gear (see the first column, which recites “Applicants' intermittent motion gear mechanism is an improvement over such "geneva lock' mechanisms and directs the position of the control valve only between predetermined angular positions whereby the control valve opens and reaches a fully open position only for a predetermined input”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Toku such that the gear formed by the combination of the at least one valve gear ratchet and at least one valve gear pawl is an intermittent gear, as disclosed by Riggs, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of selectively moving the valve between positions while maintaining the valve at a selected position between movements (the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
With respect to claim 21, Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Toku in view of Riggs teaches the system of claim 20, wherein the at least one valve (radial valve assembly 832) is a rotating valve (see [0084] of Engelbart, which recites “radial valve assembly 832 to rotate”).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Andeshmand (US20210047678).
With respect to claim 22, Engelbart in view of Williams teaches the system of claim 1.
Engelbart in view of Williams fails to teach that the cartridge frame comprises a first cartridge mounting element and a second cartridge mounting element separable from the first cartridge mounting element, the first cartridge mounting element includes the main drive gear mounted thereto, and the second cartridge mounting element comprises the sample receiver, the at least one reagent receiver, and the at least one valve mounted thereto.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Andeshmand (US20210047678) teaches the cartridge frame (instrument enclosure 2010 in [0197], illustrated in Fig. 1) comprises a first cartridge mounting element (moving bracket assembly 2040 in [0197], illustrated in Figs. 6-7)) and a second cartridge mounting element (fixed bracket assembly 2010 in [0197], illustrated in Figs. 6-7) separable from the first cartridge mounting element (moving bracket assembly 2040) (see Fig. 6 which illustrates the second cartridge mounting element (fixed bracket assembly 2010) is separable from the first cartridge mounting element (moving bracket assembly 2040) (see also [0197], which recites “a reaction imaging assembly 2700 of the optical subsystem is viewed as detached from the fixed bracket assembly 2010 and valve drive assembly 2400 is similarly detached from the moving bracket assembly 2040”), the first cartridge mounting element (moving bracket assembly 2040) includes the main drive gear (see Fig. 29) mounted thereto (see Fig. 9) (see [0094], which recites “FIG. 29 is a perspective view of a valve drive assembly engaging with a rotary valve on an integrated diagnostic cartridge”), and the second cartridge mounting element (fixed bracket assembly 2010) comprises the sample receiver (a fill chamber 1101 in [0320], which recites “the entry port 1140 of the assembly defines an opening of the fill chamber to receive a sample, wherein the fill chamber 1101 is in fluidic communication with metering chamber 1110. A sample loader, such as a bulb, syringe or pipette 1060, can be useful for loading a sample into the cartridge”), the at least one reagent receiver (body in [0045], which recites “a plurality of individual assay chambers, wherein at least one surface in each one of the plurality of individual assay chambers assay chambers is provided by a plug including a body with a bottom surface, a central opening in the body; and a dried reagent on the bottom surface”), and the at least one valve (rotary valve 1400 in [0231]) mounted thereto (see [0231], which recites “rotary valve 1400 on a cartridge 1000”) (see [0253], which recites “the pneumatic subsystem is fixed to the bottom of the instrument, unlike all other subsystems and assemblies which are fixed to either the fixed bracket assembly 2010 or the moving bracket assembly 2040”) (see also [0204], which recites “loading assembly 2230, which accepts and detects a loaded cartridge within the instrument and ejects the cartridge upon completion of a diagnostic test, is attached to the first surface of the fixed support bracket”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams by incorporating the first cartridge mounting element and the second cartridge mounting elements disclosed by Andeshmand, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of clamping and contacting a diagnostic cartridge between the cartridge mounting elements and thereby facilitating interfacing with the diagnostic cartridge during operation.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Ferguson (US20230027159).
With respect to claim 23, Engelbart in view of Williams teaches the system of claim 1.
Engelbart in view of Williams fails to teach a sample system, the sample system comprising:
the sample receptacle receiving the biological sample; and
a sample cap, wherein a sample reservoir is located within the sample cap,
wherein:
a sample holder is connected to the sample cap;
the sample receptacle further comprises at least one reservoir piercer; and
the at least one reservoir piercer is placed within the sample receptacle such that the sample reservoir is a pierced by the at least one reservoir piercer when the sample cap is connected to the sample receptacle.
In the analogous art of analytical systems, Ferguson (US20230027159) teaches a sample system (system in [0429]), the sample system comprising:
the sample receptacle (sample receptacle 110 in [0429]) receiving the biological sample (see claim 1, which recites “the sample receptacle comprises a first open end for receiving a sample”) (see also [0004], which recites “the system might also be used to analyze a sample, e.g., a biological specimen”); and
a sample cap (cap 120 in [0429]), wherein a sample reservoir (reservoir 1201 in [0429]) is located within the sample cap (cap 120) (see [0429], which recites “the cap 120 may comprise a reservoir 1201 for retaining a composition”)(see Fig. 1), wherein:
a sample holder (assembled device 300 in [0402], which recites “said adapter 210 may comprise a sample receiving inlet 2101 configured to be in fluid communication with said sample receiving inlet 3101 of said first layer 310 of an assembled device 300”) is connected to the sample cap (cap 120) (see [0433], which recites “said device 300 further may comprise an adapter 210 for operably coupling to a container 100”) (the sample holder (device 300) is connected to the sample cap (cap 120) and the device 300 is operably coupled to the container 100 and the cap 120 is part of the container 100);
the sample receptacle (sample receptacle 110) further comprises at least one reservoir piercer (second piercing members 1102 in [0434], which recites “the sample receptacle 110 may comprise a first open end 1101 for receiving a sample, and one or more second piercing members 1102…. said sample receptacle 110 may comprise two of said second piercing members 1102”); and
the at least one reservoir piercer (second piercing member 1102) is placed within the sample receptacle (sample receptacle 110) (see Fig. 1) such that the sample reservoir (reservoir 1201) is a pierced by the at least one reservoir piercer (second piercing member 1102) when the sample cap (cap 120) is connected to the sample receptacle (sample receptacle 110) (see claim 1, which recites “said first piercing member and said one or more second piercing members are configured to disestablish the first pierceable barrier from opposite side of said first pierceable barrier when said first open end is closed by said cap”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams by incorporating the sample system disclosed by Ferguson, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of effectively facilitating introduction of a composition into the analytical system while retaining the composition within the reservoir in the sample cap until the pierceable barrier of the reservoir in the sample cap is pierced by the piercing members thereby providing controlled delivery of the composition for analysis.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbart (WO2018091494A1) in view of Williams (US20090221059) in view of Poppe (US20210128801) in view of Ye (US20200061603) in view of Stabile (US4046511) in view of Soares (US20210260295) in view of Story (US4090532) in view of Yang (CN206378497, mapped to the English translation attached) in view of Misener (US20160216284) in view of Boehm (US20160231344).
With respect to claim 27, Engelbart in view of Williams teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the system controller (PC processor base board of Williams) comprises a timer (real-time clock in [0520] of Williams, which recites “the PC processor board … includes one real-time clock”);
the system controller (PC processor base board of Williams) comprises a gear actuator (motor in [0445] of William, which recites “Gears 1406 communicate rotational energy from a motor ….the motor is computer-controlled”)
the cartridge frame (cartridge frame of Engelbart) further comprises a readout (sample reader 990 in [0106] of Williams);
the at least one reaction chamber (lysis tubes in [0652] of Williams) comprises a magnet see [0625, which recites “the lysis heaters can permit the lysis tubes to be in direct contact with the magnets”);
the at least one reaction chamber (process tube in [0142] of Williams) comprises a sample heater (heater assembly in [0142]) operably connected to the system controller (see [0518], which recites “Each of the three MUX boards 100 a-c can be controlled by a PC processor board … two lysis heater boards 116 and 117, controlled by the lysis heater MUX board 100 c, that heat lysis tubes”).
In addition, Williams teaches that the sample receiver (complementary rack 970 of Williams) comprises a sample heater (heater assembly 977 in [0112] of Williams) operably connected to a system controller (processor 980 in [0112] of Williams, which recites “the rack is configured so that, during sample work-up, samples are processed in the respective holders, the processing including being subjected, individually, to heating and cooling via heater assembly 977. The heating functions of the heater assembly can be controlled by the processor 980”).
In addition, Engelbart teaches that the main drive gear (drive gear 821) is connected to at least one valve drive gear (gear including ‘gear teeth of the radial valve’ in [0083]) driving the at least one valve (radial valve 832) (see [0083], which recites “teeth of drive gear 821 engage with teeth of the radial valve 832 to turn the radial valve 832”).
Engelbart in view of Williams fails to teach that the pressurization mechanism comprises a fixedly mounted syringe housing, and a syringe barrel slidably disposed within the syringe housing, wherein the fluent channel extends from the syringe housing to the at least one valve.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Poppe (US20210128801) teaches a pressurization mechanism (syringe pump in [0046], which recites “as seen in FIGS. 1-2, the syringe pump for delivery of a fluid…, has an outer housing 1 that contains a recess 10 to house syringe 11, which includes syringe housing 2 and plunger 3”) comprises a fixedly mounted syringe housing (outer housing 1 in [0046]), and a syringe barrel (syringe housing 2 in [0046], which recites “syringe housing 2 is an elongate tubular member having (e.g., a cylindrical barrel) slidably disposed within the syringe housing (outer housing 1) (syringe 11 which comprises syringe housing 2 is loaded into the housing 1 by sliding and is pulled from housing 1 by sliding, see [0056], which recites “syringe 11 is pulled out of housing 1. Moreover, the design of housing 1 and the pump enable the patient both to load syringe 11 into housing 1 and pull syringe 11 free of housing”) (see also Fig. 1). Regarding “the fluent channel extends from the syringe housing to the at least one valve”, Engelbart teaches the fluent channel extending from the syringe pump to the at least one valve and Poppe teaches that the outlet of syringe housing 2 is connected to an infusion line through which fluid is dispensed. Accordingly, upon substitution of Engelbart’s syringe pump with Poppe’s syringe pump with, Engelbart’s fluent channel would extend from the syringe housing of the substituted syringe pump to the at least one valve.
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 Engelbart in view of Williams by substituting Engelbart’ pressurization mechanism (syringe pump) with Poppe’s pressurization mechanism (syringe pump), with reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of accurately delivering an amount of fluid (see [0011] of Poppe) (The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe fails to teach that the main drive gear is connected to a cam drive gear driving a rotating cam.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Ye (US20200061603) teaches a main drive gear (sector gear 30 in [0028]) is connected to a cam drive gear (driving gear 69 in [0034], which recites “the sector gear 30 to rotate through the power shaft 31, engage the sector gear 30 with the driving gear 69, drive the driving gear 69 to drive the rotating shaft 33 to rotate”) driving a rotating cam (cam 25 in [0025], which recites “the camshaft 26 drives the cam 25 to rotate”) (see also [0037], which recites “the rotating shaft 33 drives the transmission shaft 29 to rotate through the pulley 28, and the transmission shaft 29 drives the cam 25 through the second ratchet mechanism 27 and the camshaft 26”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams by substituting Engelbart’s main drive gear (drive gear 821) with Ye’s main drive gear (sector gear 30) such that the main drive gear is connected to a cam drive gear driving a rotating cam with reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of mechanically actuating components of the system by transmitting rotational force to a cam (The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe in view of Ye fails to teach that the syringe barrel is connected to a syringe follower, the syringe follower being in contact with the cam.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Stabile (US4046511) teaches syringe barrel (barrel of syringe pump 180, see column 5) is connected to a syringe follower (follower 170 in column 5), the syringe follower (follower 170) being in (operative) contact with the cam (cam 21 in column 5, which recites “shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 5 slide 172 … is provided with a follower 170 which is engaged in groove 174 of cam 21. Upon rotation of cam 21, slide 172, and plunger rods 176 and 178 attached thereto move vertically up and down. The plunger rods 176 and 178 thus move in and out of the barrels of syringe pumps 180 and 182”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe in view of Ye by incorporating Stabile’s syringe follower (follower 170) such that the syringe barrel is connected to a syringe follower, the syringe follower being in contact with the cam, with reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of converting rotational motion of the cam into controlled linear movement of the syringe plunger to precisely dispense fluid therefrom.
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe in view of Ye in view of Stabile fails to teach that the syringe barrel is connected to a syringe spring, the syringe spring biasing the syringe barrel relative to the syringe housing.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Soares (US20210260295) teaches a syringe barrel (syringe 114 in [0044]) connected to a syringe spring (syringe spring 124 in [0049], which recites “the syringe spring 124 is a compression spring and is in a compressed state when the syringe is in the pre-use position shown in FIG. 2. The syringe spring 124 is disposed over the syringe ram 120 and seats against the peripheral flange 121. The syringe spring 124 and syringe ram 120 thereby act to bias the syringe 114 towards the use position”), the syringe spring (syringe spring 124) biasing the syringe barrel (syringe 114) relative to the syringe housing (body 111 in [0056], which recites “the syringe ram 120 pushes the syringe 114 towards the distal end 20 of the body 111 under the force of the syringe spring 124”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe in view of Ye in view of Stabile by incorporating Soares’ syringe spring such that the syringe barrel is connected to a syringe spring, the syringe spring biasing the syringe barrel relative to the syringe housing with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of facilitating controlled movement of the syringe barrel.
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe in view of Ye in view of Stabile in view of Soares fails to teach that the gear actuator is controlled by the timer, the gear actuator driving the main drive gear.
In the analogous art of fluidic devices, Story (US4090532) teaches the gear actuator (miniature spool driving motor 132 in Fig. 6) is controlled by the timer (timer 44 in Fig. 2);
the gear actuator (miniature spool driving motor 132) driving the main drive gear (spool driving gear 170 in Fig. 11) (see also column 7, which recites “as the timer rotates, an outer row pin, such as actuator pin 104a, will operate switch 52 to energize the forward motor control circuit, thus driving the pilot valve spool to the left (as viewed in FIG. 11). The motor is energized in a forward direction and rotates gear 170”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe in view of Ye in view of Stabile in view of Soares such that ‘the gear actuator is controlled by the timer’ as disclosed by Story, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of achieving automatic time-regulated actuation of the valve (see column 1 of Story, which recites “invention to provide an improved controller for automatic time regulated actuation”).
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe in view of Ye in view of Stabile in view of Soares in view of Story fails to teach that a combination of the at least one valve drive gear and at least one valve gear forms an intermittent gear through incomplete toothing of the at least one valve drive gear.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Yang (CN206378497) teaches a combination of the at least one drive gear (second partial gear 18) and at least one gear (gear ring 17) forms an intermittent gear through incomplete toothing (second partial gear 18 …. second incomplete tooth on page 3) of the at least one drive gear (second partial gear 18).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe in view of Ye in view of Stabile in view of Soares in view of Story by incorporating the combination of the at least one drive gear (second partial gear 18) and the at least one gear (gear ring 17) as disclosed by Yang such that a combination of the at least one valve drive gear and at least one valve gear forms an intermittent gear through incomplete toothing of the at least one valve drive gear, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of achieving controlled periodic transmission of rotational motion with intervening dwell periods (the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe in view of Ye in view of Stabile in view of Soares in view of Story in view of Yang fails to teach that the intermittent gear is an intermittent rack-and-pinion gear, and the at least one valve is a sliding valve.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Misener (US20160216284) teaches a rack-and-pinion gear (rack and pinion configuration in [0090]) (see [0020], which recites “a gear rack … driven pinion gear”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe in view of Ye in view of Stabile in view of Soares in view of Story in view of Yang by incorporating the rack-and pinion gear disclosed by Misener, such that that the intermittent gear is an intermittent rack-and-pinion gear, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of effectively converting rotation motion into translational actuation (see [0020] of Misener, which recites “each driven pinion gear is configured to operably engage one of the gear racks of the cartridge such that, upon rotational driving of the driven pinion gear, the cartridge is translated relative to the guide”). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe in view of Ye in view of Stabile in view of Soares in view of Story in view of Yang in view of Misener fails to teach that the at least one valve is a sliding valve.
In the analogous art of analytical devices, Boehm (US20160231344) teaches a sliding valve (slide valve in [0097], which recites “a cartridge for dispensing fluid is presented. The cartridge can comprise a slide valve. … the slide valve can further translate the pumping chamber conduit to connect with the outlet conduit. This embodiment may be beneficial because the combination of the slide valve and the plunger can allow accurate dispensing of the fluid. Further, the embodiment may also enable a reduced amount of waste fluid produced when dispensing fluid by the cartridge”).
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 Engelbart in view of Williams in view of Poppe in view of Ye in view of Stabile in view of Soares in view of Story in view of Yang in view of Misener by incorporating the sliding valve (slide valve) disclosed by Boehm, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefits of effectively accurately dispensing a fluid and reducing the amount of waste fluid produced (see [0097] of Boehm, which recites “a cartridge for dispensing fluid is presented. The cartridge can comprise a slide valve. … the slide valve can further translate the pumping chamber conduit to connect with the outlet conduit. This embodiment may be beneficial because the combination of the slide valve and the plunger can allow accurate dispensing of the fluid. Further, the embodiment may also enable a reduced amount of waste fluid produced when dispensing fluid by the cartridge”).
Conclusion
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