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 Status
Claims 1-15 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received on 5/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the inner edge comprising a second shoulder, said shoulder being found on one side of said inner edge while said second shoulder is found on another side opposite the side comprising the first shoulder, said first shoulder and said second should together forming two parallel sides on which said at least one second part rests must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a plurality of holes” is not preceded by an “and”, despite being the last item in the list.
Regarding claim 5, Ln. 7 recites, “two parallel slides”, where “slides” appears to be a typo of the word “sides”.
Regarding claim 6, Lns. 2-3 recite, said inner edge 5 is circular…”. The “5” in this limitation appears to be a typo, and should be deleted.
Regarding claim 9, Lns. 3-4 recite, “at least one microfluidic chip 9 has a length…”. The “9” in this limitation appears to be a typo, and should be deleted.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “manual or motorised control means” in claim 7, “a means for gripping said microfluidic chip” in claim 8, and “clamping means arranged to fix the microfluidic chip via mechanical clamping”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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: “fixing means arranged to fix said first part to said plate” in claim 2, .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: [0022] of the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant Application, US 2024/0326059 A1 (“Van Loo”) teaches the fixing means being a screw, a clamp, or a pinching device. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the fixing means to be a screw, a clamp, or a pinching device, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, Lns. 6-7 recite, “the fluidic connection tubings”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “a set of fluidic connection tubings”.
Claims 2-15 are rejected at least for depending on a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 2, Lns. 2-3 recite, “said plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “a plate”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “said first part being arranged to be housed in a hole made in said plate”, and the claim also recites “preferably resting on a shoulder found on said plate”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 5, Ln. 3 recites, “said shoulder being found on one side of said inner edge”. However, claim 5 depends on claim 4, which recites “at least one shoulder”, and claim 5 previously recites “a second shoulder”. Therefore, it is unclear if this “said shoulder” is referring to a shoulder of the at least one shoulder, the second shoulder, or a different shoulder. Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “a first shoulder being found on one said of said inner edge”.
Regarding claim 5, 4th to Last Ln.-2nd to Last Ln. recite, “said at least one second part rests…said at least one second part moves…”. However, the claims on which claim 5 depends refer only to a second part, not at least one second part. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “said second part rests…said second part moves”.
Regarding claim 6, Ln. 3 recites, “said shoulder”. However, claim 6 depends on claim 4, which recites “at least one shoulder”. Therefore, it is unclear if this this “said shoulder” is referring to a shoulder of the at least one shoulder, or a different shoulder. Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “said at least one shoulder”.
Regarding claim 14, Lns. 3-6 recite, “wherein the accessory for a plate of a microfluidic experimentation device can be moved relative to the optical axis in several dimensions thanks to an x, y or x, y, z moving table.” However, it is unclear from this limitation whether the moving table is positively recited or not. For purposes of compact prosecution, the moving table has been examined as not positively recited, and the accessory has been examined as being capable of moving by a moving table.
Claim 15 is dependent from claim 14 and similarly recites the moving table, where the moving table has similarly been examined as not positively recited.
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 1-3, 8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leslie et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0240898; hereinafter Leslie; already of record on the IDS received 5/28/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Leslie discloses a plate accessory for a microfluidic experimentation device ([0127]-[0135], see Fig. 12 at manifold assembly 100, and Fig. 20 showing the manifold assembly loaded onto a microscope plate). The plate accessory comprises a first part comprising a first wall ([0127]-[0135], see Fig. 12 at rigid piece 110) and at least a second part comprising a second wall of a predetermined thickness ([0127]-[0135], see Fig. 12 at mounting base 90), said second part being detachable from said first part ([0127]-[0135], see Fig. 12 at screws 94 which are used to attach rigid piece 110 to mounting base 90), said first wall having a plurality of through-holes arranged to allow a set of fluidic connection tubings to pass through said first wall ([0127]-[0135], see Figs. 12, 19 at rigid piece 110 having bores 111 for accepting fluidic connectors 152a, 154a, and central bore 120), said second wall having:
at least one housing for at least one microfluidic chip dug into the thickness of said second wall and which has a hole for the passage of light from which a flat peripheral edge extends, forming a support wall for said at least one microfluidic chip terminated by at least one shoulder in order to connect an upper face of said flat peripheral edge and an upper face of said second wall ([0127]-[0135], see Fig. 12 at central empty space 95 for receiving an imaging chip 50. The borders of the central empty space have a lip for supporting the chip), and
a plurality of holes, each hole being arranged to receive a fluid reservoir ([0127]-[0135], see Fig. 12 at apertures 93 for providing access to connectors 152a, 152b, 154a, 154b, 150).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “arranged to allow the fluidic connection tubings to pass through said first wall...”, “for at least one microfluidic chip…”, “for the passage of light…”, etc.). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 2, Leslie discloses the plate accessory for a microfluidic experimentation device according to claim 1, wherein said first part comprises fixing means arranged to fix said first part to said plate of a microfluidic experimentation device in a semi-permanent manner ([0127]-[0136], [0155], see Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 3, Leslie discloses the plate accessory for a microfluidic experimentation device according to claim 1, wherein said first part forms a frame around said at least second part (see Figs. 12-13), said first part being arranged to be housed in a hole made in said plate, preferable resting on a shoulder found on said plate (the plate is not positively recited. Nevertheless, Leslie discloses that the first part can be housed in a hole made in a plate in Figs. 13, 14, 16-20).
Regarding claim 8, Leslie discloses the plate accessory for a microfluidic experimentation device according to claim 1, wherein said housing for at least one microfluidic chip comprises a hollow cavity arranged to introduce a means for gripping said microfluidic chip ([0127]-[0135], see Fig. 12 at central empty space 95).
Regarding claim 10, Leslie discloses the plate accessory for a microfluidic experimentation device according to claim 1, wherein the housing for at least one microfluidic chip comprises clamping means arranged to fix the microfluidic chip via mechanical clamping ([0127]-[0135], see Fig. 12. The screws 94 connecting the rigid piece 110 to the base 90, in combination with the sealing gasket 60, act to clamp the chip 50 in place).
Regarding claim 11, Leslie discloses the plate accessory for a microfluidic experimentation device according to claim 1. Leslie further discloses a microfluidic experimentation device for a microfluidic chip comprising a microscopy module ([0155], see Fig. 20), an optical module ([0155], see Fig. 20, where the microscope is an optical module), a pneumatic module ([0014]-[0019], [0155]-[0156]), a fluidic module ([0014]-[0019], [0155]-[0156]), an electronic module ([0159]), a mechanical module ([0155], the table can be considered a mechanical module), a piece of user interface software ([0159]) and a plate arranged to accommodate the plate accessory ([0155], see Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 12, Leslie discloses the microfluidic experimentation device for a microfluidic chip according to claim 11, wherein the pneumatic module and/or the fluidic module are housed in an enclosure placed underneath the plate ([0155]-[0156], the fluidic manifold is placed on top of the flow cell, and the flow cell contains the pneumatic module and the fluidic module).
Regarding claim 13, Leslie discloses the microfluidic experimentation device for a microfluidic chip according to claim 12, wherein said first part of the accessory for a plate of a microfluidic experimentation device is attached to said plate in a semi-permanent manner thanks to at least one side screw ([0155], see Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 14, Leslie discloses the microfluidic experimentation device for a microfluidic chip according to claim 11, wherein the accessory for a plate of microfluidic experimentation device can be moved relative to the optical axis in several dimensions thanks to an x, y or an x, y, z moving table (as previously stated in the Claim Rejections-35 USC 112 section, the moving table has been examined as not positively recited. The device is capable of being moved by a moving table).
Regarding claim 15, Leslie discloses the microfluidic experimentation device for a microfluidic chip according to claim 14, wherein the x, y or x, y, z moving table is manually controlled and/or is motorised (as stated in Claim 14 and in the Claim Rejections-35 USC 112 section, the moving table has been examined as not positively recited).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie as applied to claims 1-3, 8, and 10-15 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US Pub. No. 2025/0091053; hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 4, Leslie discloses the late accessory for a microfluidic experimentation device according to claim 1, and all limitations recited therein.
Leslie fails to explicitly disclose that the first part comprises an outer edge and an inner edge, said inner edge comprising at least one shoulder on which said second part rests.
Cho is in the analogous field of molecular diagnosis cartridges (Cho [0001]). Cho teaches a first part that comprises an outer edge and an inner edge, the inner edge comprising at least one shoulder on which a second part rests (Cho; [0032]-[0034], see Fig. 2 at hinge sub-ring 104 and cartridge outline member 106, where the hinge sub-ring 104 has two steps for seating the cartridge outline member 106). The inner edge comprises a second shoulder, a first shoulder being found on one side of the inner edge while the second shoulder is found on another side opposite the side comprising the first shoulder, the first shoulder and second shoulder together forming two parallel sides on which the second part rests, and between which the second part moves (Cho; [0032]-[0034], see Fig. 2 at hinge sub-ring 104 and cartridge outline member 106, where hinge sub-ring 104 has two steps for seating the cartridge outline member 106. The cartridge outline member can move vertically on the hinge sub-ring). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plate accessory of Leslie with the teachings of Cho so that the first part comprises an outer edge and an inner edge, said inner edge comprising at least one shoulder on which said second part rests, and the inner edge comprises a second shoulder, a first shoulder being found on one side of the inner edge while the second shoulder is found on another side opposite the side comprising the first shoulder, the first shoulder and second shoulder together forming two parallel sides on which the second part rests, and between which the second part moves. The motivation would have been to be able to securely accommodate the second part within the first part.
Regarding claim 5, modified Leslie discloses the plate accessory for a microfluidic experimentation device according to claim 4. Modified Leslie further discloses that the inner edge comprises a second shoulder, a first shoulder being found on one side of said inner edge while said second shoulder is found on another side opposite the side comprising the first shoulder, said first shoulder and said second shoulder together forming two parallel sides on which said at least one second part rests, optionally on which several second parts rest, and between which said second part moves, optionally several second parts (see Claim 5 above at Cho teaching the claimed inner edge in [0032]-[0034], see Fig. 2).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie as applied to claims 1-3, 8, and 10-15 above, and further in view of Thorslund et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0164192; hereinafter Thorslund; already of record on the IDS received 5/28/2024).
Regarding claim 4, Leslie discloses the late accessory for a microfluidic experimentation device according to claim 1, and all limitations recited therein.
Leslie fails to explicitly disclose that the first part comprises an outer edge and an inner edge, said inner edge comprising at least one shoulder on which said second part rests.
Thorslund is in the analogous field of microfluidic capsules (Thorslund [0001]). Thorslund teaches a first part that comprises an outer edge and an inner edge, the inner edge comprising at least one shoulder on which a second part rests (Thorslund; [0037]-[0055], see Fig. 5 at bottom piece 300 and middle piece 200, where middle piece rests on bottom piece). The inner edge is circular and a shoulder is found on the periphery of the inner edge, the second part being circular and resting on the shoulder in a movable manner (Thorslund; [0037]-[0055], see Fig. 5 at bottom piece 300 and middle piece 200, where middle piece rests on bottom piece. Bottom piece 300 additionally comprises a light window 320, meaning that the rest of bottom piece is considered to comprise a circular shoulder that middle piece rests on). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plate accessory of Leslie with the teachings of Thorslund so that the first part comprises an outer edge and an inner edge, said inner edge comprising at least one shoulder on which said second part rests, and the inner edge is circular and the shoulder is found on the periphery of the inner edge, the second part being circular and resting on the shoulder in a moveable manner. The motivation would have been to be able to securely accommodate the second part within the first part.
Regarding claim 6, modified Leslie discloses the plate accessory for a microfluidic experimentation device according to claim 4. Modified Leslie further discloses that said inner edge is circular and where said shoulder is found on the periphery of said inner edge, said second part being circular and resting on said shoulder in a moveable manner (see Claim 4 above at Thorslund teaching the claimed inner edge in [0037]-[0055], see Fig. 5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie as applied to claims 1-3, 8, and 10-15 above, and further in view of Malan et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0168746; hereinafter Malan).
Regarding claim 7, Leslie discloses the plate accessory for a microfluidic experimentation device according to claim 1.
Leslie fails to explicitly disclose that said second part is connected to a manual or motorized control means arranged to allow its movement.
Malan is in the analogous field of sample analysis (Malan [0034]). Malan teaches a part that is connected to a manual or motorized control means arranged to allow its movement (Malan [0032]-[0035]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plate accessory of Leslie with the teachings of Malan so that the second part is connected to a manual or motorized control means arranged to allow its movement, in order to be able to move the plate accessory to a microscope for analysis (Malan [0032]-[0035]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie.
Regarding claim 9, Leslie discloses the plate accessory for a microfluidic experimentation device according to claim 1.
Leslie fails to explicitly disclose that the housing for at least one microfluidic chip has a length of between 5 and 10 cm and a width of between 1 and 5 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the housing for at least one microfluidic chip have a length between 5 and 10 cm and width between 1 and 5 cm, since where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). The motivation for providing a housing of this size would be to ensure that the plate accessory is of a size that can be easily transported to a desired destination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights