Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 23-24, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention.
The instant invention is anticipated by Bandara et al. (US20190091688A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bandara et al. teaches a ridge fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic devices 406,810,908,1000,2900, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [0003]-[0008], [0055]-[0086], in Fig. 1-29), comprising: a substrate (See the bottom layer 1004, in [0085] in Fig. 10 and in claim(s) 1 and 2); and
a fluidic component comprising at least one fluidic channel, wherein the at least one fluidic channel is adapted to conduct a fluid and retain the fluid within the at least one fluidic channel (See the fluidic channel 1010 in [0085] in Fig. 10 and in claim 1);
wherein the at least one fluidic channel comprises at least one porous material having a hydrophilic surface (See how the fluidic channel-containing substrate 1008 is configured to house polymer inclusion membrane-treated substrates 1002, 1004, and 1006 and also to comprise a fluidic channel 1010 that fluidly couples the polymer inclusion membrane-treated substrates in [0085] in Fig. 10 and in claim(s) 1, 2, 6 and 15); and
wherein the at least one fluidic channel is formed on the substrate via a deposition process (See in [0067]-[0078] claim(s) 15-17).
Regarding Claim 23, Bandara et al. teaches a ridge fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic devices 406,810,908,1000,2900, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [0003]-[0008], [0055]-[0086], in Fig. 1-29), comprising: a substrate (See the bottom layer 1004, in [0085] in Fig. 10 and in claim(s) 1 and 2); and
a fluidic component comprising at least one fluidic channel, wherein the at least one fluidic channel is adapted to conduct a fluid and retain the fluid within the at least one fluidic channel (See the fluidic channel 1010 in [0085] in Fig. 10 and in claim 1);
wherein the at least one fluidic channel comprises a binder and at least one porous material having a hydrophilic surface (See in [0059]-[0086], [0106] and in claim(s) 1-4).
Regarding Claim 24, Bandara et al. teaches a method of fabricating a fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic devices 406,810,908,1000,2900, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [0003]-[0008], [0055]-[0086], in Fig. 1-29), the method comprising: depositing on a substrate a material comprising a binder and at least one porous material having a hydrophilic surface to form at least one fluidic channel, wherein the at least one fluidic channel is adapted to conduct a fluid and retain the fluid within the at least one fluidic channel (See claim(s) 1, 15-25).
Regarding Claim 36, Bandara et al. teaches the method limitations of claim 24.
Bandara et al. further teaches a method of fabricating a fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic devices 406,810,908,1000,2900, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [0003]-[0008], [0055]-[0086], in Fig. 1-29), wherein the material is deposited onto the substrate using a printing or a coating process (See in [0076], [0078], [0138] and in claim 17).
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.
Claim(s) 2-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandara et al. (US20190091688A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mellors et al. (US20190108992A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-3, Bandara et al. teaches the fluidic device limitations of claim 1.
Bandara et al. further teaches a ridge fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic devices 406,810,908,1000,2900, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [0003]-[0008], [0055]-[0086], in Fig. 1-29), wherein the fluid flow is conducted by a capillary force (See in claim(s) 6-8, 22, and 25); nanometer distances between each polymer inclusion membrane spot (See in [0075]).
Bandara et al. fails to explicitly teach a ridge fluidic device, wherein the fluid flow is conducted by a capillary force; wherein the at least one fluidic channel comprises at least one of a microfluidic channel and a nanofluidic channel.
However, in the analogous art of fluidic device for chromatographic separation, Mellors et al. teaches a ridge fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic device 10, and the Claim(s) 1-20 in [0007]-[0176], in Fig. 1-11), wherein the fluid flow is conducted by a capillary force (See the microfluidic device 10 for microchip capillary electrophoresis (CE)in [0004]-[0009], [0148] in Fig. 2A-H); wherein the at least one fluidic channel comprises at least one of a microfluidic channel and a nanofluidic channel (See in [0012], [0042], [0099], [0134] in Fig. 1A and in claim 16)
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the fluidic device of Bandara et al. by incorporating a capillary force, a microfluidic channel, and a nanofluidic channel (as taught by Mellors et al.) for the benefit of transporting fluids with a channel of the device without external equipment, and to aid in the detection of nanoscale analytes.
Regarding Claim(s) 4-6, The combination of Bandara et al. and Mellors et al. teaches the fluidic device limitations of claim 3.
Bandara et al. further teaches a ridge fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic devices 406,810,908,1000,2900, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [0003]-[0008], [0055]-[0086], in Fig. 1-29), wherein the at least one fluidic channel is deposited on a surface by at least one of a screen printing, flexo printing, and blade coating (See in [0076], [0078], [0138] in claim 17);
wherein the deposition process comprises multi-layer deposition and the ridge fluidic device is integrated with other components via the multi-layer deposition (See in claim(s) 1-25).
Bandara et al. fails to explicitly teach a ridge fluidic device, wherein the other components comprise at least one of an electronic component and a photonic component.
However, in the analogous art of fluidic device for chromatographic separation, Mellors et al. teaches a ridge fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic device 10, and the Claim(s) 1-20 in [0007]-[0176], in Fig. 1-11), wherein the other components comprise at least one of an electronic component and a photonic component (See the circuit or data processing system 290 in [0210]-[0215] in Fig. 11).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the fluidic device of Bandara et al. by incorporating an electronic component and a photonic component (as taught by Mellors et al.) for the benefit of collecting data and analyzing the flow and analytes of a sample within a fluidic device.
Regarding Claim(s) 7-9, Bandara et al. teaches the fluidic device limitations of claim 1.
Bandara et al. further teaches a ridge fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic devices 406,810,908,1000,2900, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [0003]-[0008], [0055]-[0086], in Fig. 1-29), nanometer distances between each polymer inclusion membrane spot (See in [0075]); wherein the at least one particle is within a range of 5 to 30% by volume and the at least one microparticle is within a range of 55% to 85% by volume of the total solid content of the at least one fluidic channel (See in [0059]-[0080]).
Bandara et al. fails to explicitly teach a ridge fluidic device, wherein the at least one material comprises at least one nanoparticle with a diameter of less than 200 nanometers and at least one microparticle with a diameter within a range of 1 to 30 micrometers; wherein each of the at least one nanoparticle and at least one microparticle comprise at least one of silica, alumina, and another material with high surface energy; wherein the at least one nanoparticle is within a range of 5 to 30% by volume and the at least one microparticle is within a range of 55% to 85% by volume of the total solid content of the at least one fluidic channel.
However, in the analogous art of fluidic device for chromatographic separation, Mellors et al. teaches a ridge fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic device 10, and the Claim(s) 1-20 in [0007]-[0176], in Fig. 1-11), wherein the at least one material comprises at least one nanoparticle with a diameter of less than 200 nanometers and at least one microparticle with a diameter within a range of 1 to 30 micrometers (See in [0099], [0130],[0134] in Fig. 1A and in claim 16);
wherein each of the at least one nanoparticle and at least one microparticle comprise at least one of silica, alumina, and another material with high surface energy (See in 0099], [0111]-[0112]);
wherein the at least one nanoparticle is within a range of 5 to 30% by volume and the at least one microparticle is within a range of 55% to 85% by volume of the total solid content of the at least one fluidic channel (See in [0101]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the fluidic device of Bandara et al. by incorporating a nanometer and a micrometer sized particles that are made of a high surface energy material having a percentage by volume of the total solid content of the at least one fluidic channel (as taught by Mellors et al.) for the benefit of collecting data and analyzing the flow and analytes of a sample within a fluidic device.
Regarding Claim(s) 10-12, The combination of Bandara et al. and Mellors et al. teaches the fluidic device limitations of claim 7.
Bandara et al. further teaches a ridge fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic devices 406,810,908,1000,2900, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [0003]-[0008], [0055]-[0086], in Fig. 1-29), wherein the at least one material comprises a binder; wherein the binder is chosen from the group consisting of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), cellulose, polyvinyl acetate, copolymer like ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), vinyl acetate ethylene (VAE) and other styrene-acrylic copolymers (See in [0062]-[0080] and in claim(s) 1-4); wherein the binder is within a range of 10% to 30% by volume of the total solid content of the at least one fluidic channel (See in [0059]-[0080]).
Regarding Claim(s) 13-16, Bandara et al. teaches the fluidic device limitations of claim 1.
Bandara et al. further teaches a ridge fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic devices 406,810,908,1000,2900, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [0003]-[0008], [0055]-[0086], in Fig. 1-29), wherein the at least one fluidic channel is integrated with an absorptive material that can effectively absorb liquid but not transport liquid over a significant distance; wherein the absorptive material comprises a hydrophilic binder and nanoparticles with a hydrophilic surface (See in [0059], [0086], [0106] and in claim 2); wherein the nanoparticles are within the range of 70% to 90% by volume of the total solid content of the absorptive material (See in [0059]-[0080]); wherein the absorptive material further comprises microparticles, and wherein the particles are within the range of 60% to 80% by volume of the total solid content of the absorptive material and the microparticles are at a concentration of 10% or less by volume of the total solid content of the absorptive material (See in [0059]-[0080] and in claim(s) 1-5).
Bandara et al. fails to explicitly teach a ridge fluidic device, wherein the absorptive material further comprises microparticles, and wherein the nanoparticles are within the range of 60% to 80% by volume of the total solid content of the absorptive material and the microparticles are at a concentration of 10% or less by volume of the total solid content of the absorptive material.
However, in the analogous art of fluidic device for chromatographic separation, Mellors et al. teaches a ridge fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic device 10, and the Claim(s) 1-20 in [0007]-[0176], in Fig. 1-11), wherein the absorptive material further comprises microparticles, and wherein the nanoparticles are within the range of 60% to 80% by volume of the total solid content of the absorptive material and the microparticles are at a concentration of 10% or less by volume of the total solid content of the absorptive material (See in [0099], [0101], [0130],[0134] in Fig. 1A and in claim 16).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the fluidic device of Bandara et al. by incorporating a nanometer and a micrometer sized particles that are a percentage by volume of the total solid content of an absorptive material (as taught by Mellors et al.) for the benefit of absorbing liquid samples that have particles without transporting the liquid sample over significant distances.
Regarding Claim 21, Bandara et al. teaches the fluidic device limitations of claim 1.
Bandara et al. fails to explicitly teach a ridge fluidic device, wherein the at least one fluidic channel is directly integrated with at least one of an electrical circuit, a photonic circuit and a sensing element on the same substrate.
However, in the analogous art of fluidic device for chromatographic separation, Mellors et al. teaches a ridge fluidic device (See the Abstract, the microfluidic device 10, and the Claim(s) 1-20 in [0007]-[0176], in Fig. 1-11), wherein the at least one fluidic channel is directly integrated with at least one of an electrical circuit, a photonic circuit and a sensing element on the same substrate (See the circuit or data processing system 290 in [0210]-[0215] in Fig. 11).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the fluidic device of Bandara et al. by incorporating an electrical circuit, a photonic circuit and a sensing element on the same substrate (as taught by Mellors et al.) for the benefit of collecting data and analyzing the flow and analytes of a sample within a fluidic device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:30pm CT.
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.
/BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights