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 .
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-6, 8-18, and 20, drawn to a microfluidic device.
Group II, claim(s) 21-22, drawn to a method of at least partially filling a fluid chamber in a microfluidic device.
Examiner’s Note: although claim 12 has not been constructed as dependent from claim 1, it has been examined as dependent from claim 1, as detailed in the Claim Objections section of this instant Office Action.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a microfluidic device comprising a microfluidic circuit comprising a main fluid channel and an inlet coupled to the main fluid channel for introducing fluid into the microfluidic circuit and at least one fluid chamber configuration, wherein the fluid chamber configuration comprises:
- at least one fluid chamber;
- a fluid chamber inlet channel coupling the main fluid channel to an inlet of the fluid chamber;
- a fluid chamber outlet channel coupled to an outlet of the fluid chamber;
-a pressure stop valve arranged in the main fluid channel downstream of the coupling with the fluid chamber inlet channel, wherein the pressure stop valve is arranged to block fluid at a pressure below a first burst pressure; and
- a flow restrictor arranged in the fluid chamber outlet channel, wherein the flow restrictor is arranged to provide a back pressure which is higher than the first burst pressure of the pressure stop valve, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Kanai et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0036862; hereinafter Kanai; already of record on the IDS received 3/21/2024).
Kanai teaches a microfluidic device comprising a microfluidic circuit comprising a main fluid channel and an inlet coupled to the main fluid channel for introducing fluid into the microfluidic circuit and at least one fluid chamber configuration ([0002], see Fig. 1 at inlet 13 and main fluid channel 3). The fluid chamber configuration comprises:
- at least one fluid chamber (see Fig. 1 at fluid chamber 7. Although not specifically indicated in the figure, the chamber branching from channel 3 immediately closest inlet 13 is also a fluid chamber).
- a fluid chamber inlet channel coupling the main fluid channel to an inlet of the fluid chamber (see Fig. 1 at fluid chamber inlet channel 5. Although not specifically indicated in the figure, the channel branching from channel 3 immediately closest inlet 13 also includes a fluid chamber inlet channel).
- a fluid chamber outlet channel coupled to an outlet of the fluid chamber (see Fig. 1 at fluid chamber outlet channel 9. Although not specifically indicated in the figure, the channel branching from channel 3 immediately closest inlet 13 also includes a fluid chamber outlet channel).
-a pressure stop valve arranged in the main fluid channel downstream of the coupling with the fluid chamber inlet channel, wherein the pressure stop valve is arranged to block fluid at a pressure below a first burst pressure ([0221], see Fig. 1 at high inflow-withstanding pressure section 17. See also Fig. 2B at high inflow-withstanding pressure section 17).
- a flow restrictor arranged in the fluid chamber outlet channel, wherein the flow restrictor is arranged to provide a back pressure which is higher than the first burst pressure of the pressure stop valve ([0223], see Fig. 1 at walls of fluid chamber outlet channel 9).
During a telephone conversation with Jeffrey Chamberlain on 9/1/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 21-22 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-22 are pending, with claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20 being examined, and claims 21-22 deemed withdrawn. Claims 7, 19, and 23 are canceled.
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 3/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, 11-12, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Lns. 6-7 recite, “the fluid chamber”. However, claim 1, previously recites “at least one fluid chamber”. Therefore, the above limitation needs to recite “a respective fluid chamber” to be proper.
Claim 1 Ln. 8, Claim 5 Lns. 2-3, Claim 6 Ln. 4, and Claim 20, Lns. 2-3 similarly recite, “the fluid chamber”, and is similarly objected to, and needs to be amended to recite, “the respective fluid chamber” to be proper.
Regarding claim 11, Ln. 5 recites, “the fluid chamber”, and is similarly objected to, and needs to be amended to recite, “their respective fluid chamber” to be proper.
Further regarding claim 11, Lns. 4-5 recite, “wherein the fluid chamber outlet channels couples”, which is grammatically incorrect. The above needs to be amended to recite, “wherein the fluid chamber outlet channels couple” to be grammatically correct.
Regarding claim 12, the preamble recites, “The microfluidic device according to,”, but does not recite a claim that claim 12 depends on. However, it appears that the Applicant intended to have claim 12 depend from one of the preceding claims. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 12 has been examined as depending from claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Ln. 3 recites, “a fluid chamber configuration”. However, claim 15, which claim 16 depends on, recites, “a plurality of fluid chamber configurations”. Therefore, the above limitation has been examined as, “a fluid chamber configuration of the plurality of fluid chamber configurations”.
Further regarding claim 16, Ln. 4 recites, “a subsequent fluid chamber configuration”. However, claim 15, which claim 16 depends on, recites, “a plurality of fluid chamber configurations”. Therefore, the above limitation has been examined as, “a subsequent fluid chamber configuration of the plurality of fluid chamber configurations”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 and 13 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 11, Ln. 6 recites, “the single shared pressure stop valve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “the pressure stop valve”.
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 13 recites the broad recitation “a pressure stop valve”, and the claim also recites “preferably a capillary stop valve”, 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.
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, 8-9, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanai.
Regarding claim 1, Kanai discloses a microfluidic device comprising a microfluidic circuit comprising a main fluid channel and an inlet coupled to the main fluid channel for introducing fluid into the microfluidic circuit and at least one fluid chamber configuration ([0002], see Fig. 1 at inlet 13 and main fluid channel 3). The fluid chamber configuration comprises:
- at least one fluid chamber (see Fig. 1 at fluid chamber 7. Although not specifically indicated in the figure, the chamber branching from channel 3 immediately closest inlet 13 is also a fluid chamber).
- a fluid chamber inlet channel coupling the main fluid channel to an inlet of the fluid chamber (see Fig. 1 at fluid chamber inlet channel 5. Although not specifically indicated in the figure, the channel branching from channel 3 immediately closest inlet 13 also includes a fluid chamber inlet channel).
- a fluid chamber outlet channel coupled to an outlet of the fluid chamber (see Fig. 1 at fluid chamber outlet channel 9. Although not specifically indicated in the figure, the channel branching from channel 3 immediately closest inlet 13 also includes a fluid chamber outlet channel).
-a pressure stop valve arranged in the main fluid channel downstream of the coupling with the fluid chamber inlet channel, wherein the pressure stop valve is arranged to block fluid at a pressure below a first burst pressure ([0221], see Fig. 1 at high inflow-withstanding pressure section 17. See also Fig. 2B at high inflow-withstanding pressure section 17. As can be seen in Fig. 1C, there are multiple high inflow-withstanding pressure sections after each fluid chamber branch).
- a flow restrictor arranged in the fluid chamber outlet channel, wherein the flow restrictor is arranged to provide a back pressure which is higher than the first burst pressure of the pressure stop valve ([0223], see Fig. 1 at walls of fluid chamber outlet channel 9).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “for introducing fluid into the microfluidic circuit…”, “arranged to block fluid at a pressure below a first burst pressure…”, “arranged to provide a back pressure which is higher than the first burst pressure…”, 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 8, Kanai discloses the microfluidic device according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of fluid chambers coupled to the main fluid channel, wherein each of the chambers is provided with a respective fluid chamber inlet channel and with a respective outlet channel provided with a flow restrictor (see Fig. 1, which shows multiple fluid chambers, each with a fluid chamber inlet channel and outlet channel with a flow restrictor, i.e. walls of fluid chamber outlet channel 9).
Regarding claim 9, Kanai discloses the microfluidic device according to claim 8, wherein at least two fluid chambers are arranged at opposite sides of the main fluid channel and are coupled thereto with respective fluid chamber inlet channels (see Fig. 1, which shows fluid chambers with corresponding fluid chamber inlet channels on opposite sides of the main fluid channel).
Regarding claim 12, Kanai discloses the microfluidic device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one fluid chamber configuration further comprises:
-a second fluid chamber;
-a second fluid chamber inlet channel coupling the main fluid channel to an inlet of the second fluid chamber, wherein the pressure stop valve in the main fluid channel is also arranged downstream of the coupling with the second fluid chamber inlet channel;
-a second fluid chamber outlet channel coupled to an outlet of the second fluid chamber; and
-a second flow restrictor arranged in the second fluid chamber outlet channel, wherein the second flow restrictor is arranged to provide a back pressure which is higher than the first burst pressure of the pressure stop valve in the main fluid channel ([0221], [0223], see Fig. 1 at high inflow-withstanding pressure section 17. See also Fig. 2B at high inflow-withstanding pressure section 17. As can be seen in Fig. 1C, there are multiple high inflow-withstanding pressure sections after each fluid chamber branch, and each fluid chamber branch comprises a fluid chamber 7, a fluid chamber inlet channel 5, a fluid chamber outlet channel 9, and flow restrictor at walls of fluid chamber outlet channel 9).
Regarding claim 15, Kanai discloses the microfluidic device according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of fluid chamber configurations coupled to the main fluid channel (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Kanai discloses the microfluidic device according to claim 15, wherein the plurality of fluid chamber configurations are arranged in series along the main fluid channel, wherein a pressure stop valve of a fluid chamber configuration is arranged upstream of a fluid chamber inlet channel of a subsequent fluid chamber configuration (see Fig. 1 at high inflow-withstanding pressure sections 17, which are upstream of fluid chamber inlet channels 5 of subsequent fluid chamber configurations).
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 2-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 12, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Lenk et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0410159; hereinafter Lenk).
Regarding claim 2, Kanai discloses the microfluidic device according to claim 1.
Kanai fails to explicitly disclose that the pressure stop valve comprises a capillary stop valve.
Lenk is in the analogous field of microfluidic devices (Lenk [0002]). Lenk teaches a capillary stop valve (Lenk [0205]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microfluidic device of Kanai with the teachings of Lenk so that the pressure stop valve comprises a capillary stop valve, as Lenk teaches that capillary stop valves can act as a pressure barrier until additional pressure pushes liquid across the pressure barrier (Lenk [0205]), meaning that it would be suitable as a high inflow-withstanding pressure section as in Kanai (Kanai; [0221], see Figs. 1, 2B).
Regarding claim 3, Kanai discloses the microfluidic device according to claim 1.
Kanai fails to explicitly disclose that the flow restrictor comprises a pressure stop valve.
Lenk teaches a pressure stop valve (Lenk [0205]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microfluidic device of Kanai with the teachings of Lenk so that the flow restrictor comprises a pressure stop valve, as Lenk teaches that pressure stop valves can act as a pressure barrier until additional pressure pushes liquid across the pressure barrier (Lenk [0205]), meaning that it would be suitable to be an element for withstanding pressure as in Kanai, as Kanai teaches that the air vent channel must have a higher inflow-withstanding pressure than the high inflow-withstanding pressure section in order to allow liquid sample to pass through the high inflow-withstanding pressure section (Kanai; [0223], see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kanai discloses the microfluidic device according to claim 1.
Kanai further discloses that the flow restrictor comprises an element having a second burst pressure higher than the first burst pressure of the pressure stop valve in the main fluid channel ([0223], see Fig. 1).
Kanai fails to explicitly disclose that the flow restrictor comprises a capillary stop valve.
Lenk teaches a capillary stop valve (Lenk [0205]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microfluidic device of Kanai with the teachings of Lenk so that the flow restrictor comprises a capillary stop valve, as Lenk teaches that capillary stop valves can act as a pressure barrier until additional pressure pushes liquid across the pressure barrier (Lenk [0205]), meaning that it would be suitable to be an element for withstanding pressure as in Kanai, as Kanai teaches that the air vent channel must have a higher inflow-withstanding pressure than the high inflow-withstanding pressure section in order to allow liquid sample to pass through the high inflow-withstanding pressure section (Kanai; [0223], see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kanai discloses the microfluidic device according to claim 12.
Kanai fails to explicitly disclose that the second fluid chamber inlet channel comprises a pressure stop valve, having a third burst pressure which is lower than the first burst pressure of the pressure stop valve in the main fluid channel.
Lenk teaches a capillary stop valve (Lenk [0205]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microfluidic device of Kanai with the teachings of Lenk so that the second fluid chamber inlet channel comprises a pressure stop valve, as Lenk teaches that capillary stop valves can act as a pressure barrier until additional pressure pushes liquid across the pressure barrier (Lenk [0205]), meaning that it would be a suitable element for controlling flow in the microfluidic device of Kanai.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the pressure stop valve have a third burst pressure which is lower than the first burst pressure of the pressure stop valve in the main fluid channel, in order to allow fluid to travel to the second fluid chamber before passing the pressure stop valve, thereby ensuring that the second fluid chamber is filled before fluid passes through the pressure stop valve.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 12, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0053106; hereinafter Wu; already of record on the IDS received 3/21/2024).
Regarding claim 10, Kanai discloses the microfluidic device according to claim 8. Kanai further discloses at least two such fluid chamber configurations having fluid chamber inlet channels coupled to the main fluid channel at different positions along the main fluid channel (see Fig. 1, which shows multiple fluid chambers, each with a fluid chamber inlet channel and outlet channel with a flow restrictor, i.e. walls of fluid chamber outlet channel 9).
Kanai fails to explicitly disclose a single shared pressure stop valve in the main fluid channel for said at least two fluid chamber configurations downstream of the inlet channels of the at least two fluid chamber configurations.
Wu is in the analogous field of microfluidic apparatuses (Wu [0001]). Wu teaches a single shared pressure stop valve in a main fluid channel for at least two fluid chamber configurations downstream of the inlet channels of the at least two fluid chamber configurations (Wu; [0073], see Figs. 7a-7b at recess 25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microfluidic device of Kanai with the teachings of Wu to provide a single shared pressure stop valve in the main fluid channel for said at least two fluid chamber configurations downstream of the inlet channels of the at least two fluid chamber configurations, in order to allow for a simultaneous filling of the at least two fluid chambers.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 12, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Begolo et al., “The pumping lid: investigating multi-material 3D printing for equipment-free, programmable generation of positive and negative pressures for microfluidic applications”, 2014, Lab on a Chip, Vol. 14, Pgs. 4616-4628 (hereinafter Begolo; already of record on the IDS received 3/21/2024).
Regarding claim 17, Kanai discloses the microfluidic device according to claim 1.
Kanai fails to explicitly disclose an assembly of the microfluidic device and a cap to seal the inlet, wherein the assembly comprises a pumping mechanism, which optionally comprises the cap, wherein the pumping mechanism is arranged to introduce fluid through the inlet into the microfluidic circuit.
Begolo is in the analogous field of microfluidic devices (Begolo Abstract). Begolo teaches an assembly of a microfluidic device and a cap to seal an inlet, where the assembly comprises a pumping mechanism comprising the cap, where the pumping mechanism is arranged to introduce fluid through the inlet into a microfluidic circuit (Begolo; Abstract, see Pg. 4618 at Fig. 1). The pumping mechanism is configured to fill at least one fluid chamber of the microfluidic device (Begolo; Abstract, see Pg. 4618 at Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microfluidic device of Kanai with the teachings of Begolo to provide an assembly of the microfluidic device and a cap to seal the inlet, wherein the assembly comprises a pumping mechanism, which optionally comprises the cap, wherein the pumping mechanism is arranged to introduce fluid through the inlet into the microfluidic circuit, and where the pumping mechanism is configured to fill at least one fluid chamber of the microfluidic device, in order to achieve equipment-free pumping by controlled generation of pressure (Begolo; Abstract, see Pg. 4618 at Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kanai discloses the assembly according to claim 17. Modified Kanai further discloses that the pumping mechanism is configured to fill at least one, optionally multiple, optionally all, fluid chambers of the microfluidic device, and wherein optionally the pumping mechanism is configured to provide a pressure sufficient to burst the pressure stop valve (see Claim 17 above at Begolo teaching a pumping mechanism configured to fill at least one fluid chamber in Abstract, see Pg. 4618 at Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 14, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 would be allowable for reciting that the fluid chamber outlet channel couples the outlet of the respective fluid chamber to the main fluid channel at a location downstream of the pressure stop valve.
Claim 14 would be allowable for reciting that the first and second fluid chamber outlet channels are coupled to the main fluid channel at substantially the same longitudinal location of the main fluid channel.
Claim 20 would be allowable for reciting that the fluid chamber outlet channel couples the outlet of the fluid chamber to the main fluid channel at a location downstream of the pressure stop valve.
Kanai, Lenk, Wu, and Begolo teach a microfluidic device similar to that claimed. However, Kanai, Lenk, Wu, and Begolo do not teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with the art, that the fluid chamber outlet channel couples the outlet of the respective fluid chamber to the main fluid channel at a location downstream of the pressure stop valve. Specifically, Kanai, which is considered to be the closest prior art, teaches that the fluid chamber outlet channel is an air vent channel (Kanai; [0210], [0221], [0223], see Fig. 1 at air vent channels 9). As the fluid chamber outlet channel is an air vent channel, the air vent channel would not connect with the main fluid channel downstream of the pressure stop valve, as this would prevent the air vent channel from functioning to vent air from the microfluidic device, and would render the air vent channel unsuitable for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2143.01(V).
Claims 6 and 11 would be allowable for depending on an allowable claim.
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