DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2024 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 8-12 and 15-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 8-12 use the term “microfluidic channel”; however, claim 6, from which each of these claims ultimately depends, uses the term “microfluidics channel”. It is recommended to select one term to use consistently throughout the claims.
Claim 15 appears to use the terms “mn” and “min” interchangeably. It is recommended to select one term to use consistently throughout the claims.
In claim 16, only the first word of the sentence should be capitalized.
In claim 17, only the first word of the sentence should be capitalized.
In claim 17, please change the period at the end of line 2 to a semicolon.
In claim 18, only the first word of the sentence should be capitalized.
In claim 19, only the first word of the sentence should be capitalized.
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 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:
“a computer vision image processing system…adapted to…detect…an image feature” in claim 16; and
“an electrophysiology signal processing system, adapted to:
- Detect, with the electrophysiology signal processing system, a signal feature of the cell culture electrophysiological signal” in claim 19.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is directed to wherein the system is configured to program a flow direction, flow rate, and flow duration “according to a configuration learnt by the trained machine system” (the “trained machine system” is being interpreted as being the trained machine learning model as will be discussed below). The claim contains a computer-implemented functional limitation, and for such claims, it has been held that the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described in the specification with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed (MPEP 2161.01). In this case, the specification as-filed appears to merely restate the claim language and does not provide any algorithm or steps taken to perform the function (see p. 12 lines 13-16 of the specification as-filed). The specification describes a trained machine learning model that takes images as an input for the purpose of bubble or overflow detection (p. 26 lines 1-18) and it is unclear how the trained machine learning model could learn a flow direction, flow rate, or flow duration based on the images, as the specification only describes training the model to recognize a bubble or an overflow. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Claim 19 recites a limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and the Examiner asserts that the specification does not disclose adequate structure for preforming the recited function, as will be discussed below. Accordingly, the claim lacks sufficient written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 5-20 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the porous membranes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, recites “one or more porous membranes” rather than a plurality of porous membranes.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the porous membranes" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The prior lines of the claim recite “one or more porous membranes” rather than a plurality of porous membranes.
Each of claims 7-9, which ultimately depend on claim 6, also contain the limitation “the porous membranes” and are rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, the language “wherein the at least one pumping device is programmed to push the liquid at an intermittent flow rate of around 1µl/mn or 10µ/mn between 30s to around 5 min every around 10mn to 60mn” is confusing and the claim meaning cannot be clearly discerned. For the purpose of examination on the merits, the claim will be interpreted as meaning that the at least one pumping device is programmed to push the liquid at an intermittent flow rate of around 1 µl per minute or 10 µl per minute, for a time period of 30 seconds to 5 minutes, every 10 minutes to 60 minutes.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the pumping device flow direction, flow rate and flow duration" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination on the merits, this limitation will be interpreted as meaning a flow direction, flow rate, and flow duration of the at least one pumping device.
Each of claims 17-19 also recite the noted limitation and are rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 16.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the trained machine system" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination on the merits, this limitation will be interpreted as referring to the trained machine learning model of claim 17.
Claim 18 recites “the detected air bubble or liquid overflow” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 is directed to a computer-implemented function; however, written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is lacking as the specification does not describe an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function in sufficient detail, as discussed above. Therefore, the claim is also indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see MPEP 2161.01).
Regarding claim 19, claim limitation “an electrophysiology signal processing system, adapted to: - Detect, with the electrophysiology signal processing system, a signal feature of the cell culture electrophysiological signal” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification describes an electrophysiological signal system purely in terms of function (see pp. 24-25 of the specification as-filed) and does not describe any corresponding structure for performing the function; furthermore, it is unclear if the electrophysiology signal processing system is a physical structure or software per se. It is further noted that the corresponding structure, material, or acts cannot include any structure, material, or acts disclosed only in the material incorporated by reference or a prior art reference (MPEP 2181).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the cell culture electrophysiological signal" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “an electrophysiology signal processing system, adapted to…Program the pumping device…”; however, this limitation is inconsistent with what is described in the specification. The specification indicates that the central processing system, rather than the electrophysiology signal processing system, programs pumping operation based on the detected signal feature (see p. 12, lines 17-21). According to MPEP 2173, issues of indefiniteness arise when the claim terms are inconsistent with the specification.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the porous membranes" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 20 depends, recites “one or more porous membranes” rather than a plurality of porous membranes.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason(s) as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bovard et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0339938).
Regarding claim 1, Bovard et al. discloses a microfluidic system (Abstract, para. 138-140) for maintaining of at least one cell culture alive over an air-liquid interface (para. 49), comprising:
a microfluidics channel arranged to provide a perfusion of liquid to the cell culture through one or more porous membranes of the air-liquid interface (para. 49-52, 154-157, 201, 205),
at least one pumping device arranged to circulate a liquid through the microfluidics channel (para. 278),
characterized in that:
the at least one pumping device is adapted to push a liquid through an inlet of the microfluidics channel (para. 278), then through an area of the microfluidics channel that is under the air-liquid interface (para. 49-52, 154-157, 201) (Figs. 4-8, sheets 4-8 of 23), then through an outlet of the microfluidics channel (para. 274, 278) (Fig. 8), wherein the at least one pumping device is programmed to push the liquid at an intermittent flow rate (the flow rate can be modulated, see para. 108).
Regarding claim 2, Bovard et al. discloses a second pumping device (called second pump) that is adapted to pull a liquid through an inlet of the microfluidics channel (para. 278), then through an area of the microfluidics channel that is under the air-liquid interface (para. 49-52, 154-157, 201) (Figs. 4-8, sheets 4-8 of 23), then through an outlet of the microfluidics channel (para. 278), wherein the second pumping device is programmed to pull the liquid at an intermittent flow rate (the flow rate can be modulated, see para. 108).
Regarding claim 3, Bovard et al. discloses wherein the at least one pumping device is programmed to switch from a push mode to a temporary pull mode (para. 278).
Regarding claim 4, Bovard et al. discloses a microfluidic system (Abstract, para. 138-140) for maintaining of at least one cell culture alive over an air-liquid interface (para. 49), comprising:
a microfluidics channel arranged to provide a perfusion of liquid to the cell culture through one or more porous membranes of the air-liquid interface (para. 49-52, 154-157, 201, 205),
at least one pumping device arranged to circulate a liquid through the microfluidics channel (para. 278),
characterized in that:
the at least one pumping device is adapted to push a liquid through an inlet of the microfluidics channel (para. 278), then through an area of the microfluidics channel that is under the air-liquid interface (para. 49-52, 154-157, 201) (Figs. 4-8, sheets 4-8 of 23), then through an outlet of the microfluidics channel (para. 274, 278) (Fig. 8), and further comprising:
a second pumping device (called second pump) that is adapted to pull a liquid through an inlet of the microfluidics channel (para. 278), then through an area of the microfluidics channel that is under the air-liquid interface (para. 49-52, 154-157, 201) (Figs. 4-8, sheets 4-8 of 23), then through an outlet of the microfluidics channel (para. 278).
Regarding claim 5, Bovard et al. discloses wherein the outlet of the microfluidics channel is placed lower than the porous membrane of the air-liquid interface in the microfluidics system (see Figs. 1 and 4, sheets 1 and 4 of 23; the membrane 12 is placed above all portions of the microfluidics channel including the outlet).
Regarding claim 6, Bovard et al. discloses a microfluidic system (Abstract, para. 138-140) for maintaining of at least one cell culture alive over an air-liquid interface (para. 49), comprising:
a microfluidics channel arranged to provide a perfusion of liquid to the cell culture through one or more porous membranes of the air-liquid interface (para. 49-52, 154-157, 201, 205),
at least one pumping device arranged to circulate a liquid through the microfluidics channel (para. 278),
characterized in that:
the at least one pumping device is adapted to push a liquid through an inlet of the microfluidics channel (para. 278), then through an area of the microfluidics channel that is under the air-liquid interface (para. 49-52, 154-157, 201) (Figs. 4-8, sheets 4-8 of 23), then through an outlet of the microfluidics channel (para. 274, 278) (Fig. 8),
wherein the outlet of the microfluidics channel is placed lower than the porous membrane of the air-liquid interface in the microfluidics system (see Figs. 1 and 4, sheets 1 and 4 of 23; the membrane 12 is placed above all portions of the microfluidics channel including the outlet).
Regarding claim 8, Bovard et al. discloses wherein the microfluidics channel outlet is placed lower than the porous membrane of the air-liquid interface, as set forth above; Bovard et al. further discloses wherein the microfluidics channel and the air-liquid interface including the porous membrane are formed within a unitary plate (Abstract, Figs. 1-8, sheets 1-8 of 23). As to the limitation of “the microfluidic channel and the air-liquid interface are tilted such that the microfluidics channel outlet is placed at the same height or lower than the porous membranes of the air-liquid interface”, this is a recitation of intended use of the claimed structure and has therefore been given appropriate patentable weight. It has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114). In this case, the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, and the prior art system is fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use as a user could tilt the entire plate such that the microfluidics channel and the air-liquid interface are tilted while the outlet is lower than the porous membrane (see Figs. 1-8, sheets 1-8 of 23). Therefore, the limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Bovard discloses wherein the microfluidics channel and the air-liquid interface are arranged on a plate (reads on a rigid planar support) in the microfluidic system, wherein the rigid plate can be tilted such that the microchannel outlet is placed lower than the porous membrane of the air-liquid interface, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, above.
Regarding claim 10, Bovard et al. discloses wherein the microfluidics channel and the air-liquid interface including the porous membrane are formed within a unitary plate (Abstract, Figs. 1-8, sheets 1-8 of 23). The limitation of “the inlet of the microfluidic channel is placed lower than the outlet of the microfluidic channel” is a recitation of intended use of the claimed structure and has therefore been given appropriate patentable weight. It has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114). In this case, the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, and the prior art system is fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use as a user could tilt the entire plate such that the inlet is lower than the outlet. Therefore, the limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Bovard et al. discloses wherein the microfluidic channel can be tilted such that the inlet is placed lower than the outlet, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10, above.
Regarding claim 12, Bovard discloses wherein the microfluidics channel and the air-liquid interface are arranged on a plate (reads on a rigid planar support) in the microfluidic system, wherein the rigid plate can be tilted such that the inlet is placed lower than the outlet, as set forth in the rejection of 11, above.
Regarding claim 13, Bovard et al. discloses wherein the pumping device comprises a programmable peristaltic pump (para. 7-9, 184, 191)
Regarding claim 15, Bovard et al. discloses wherein the at least one pumping device is programmed to push the liquid at a flow rate of 10 µL per minute (para. 35), and wherein the at least one pumping device is controlled by a controller to set the flow rate (para. 7-9); therefore, the prior art at least one pumping device is fully capable of pushing the liquid at the noted flow rate intermittently for a desired time period at a desired interval.
Regarding claim 20, Bovard et al. discloses wherein the outlet of the microfluidics channel is placed lower than the porous membrane of the air-liquid interface in the microfluidics system (see Figs. 1 and 4, sheets 1 and 4 of 23; the membrane 12 is placed above all portions of the microfluidics channel including the outlet).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bovard et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0339938).
Regarding claim 7, Bovard et al. discloses a waste collector to collect the liquid pushed from the outlet of the microfluidics channel (para. 278).
Bovard et al. is silent as to wherein the waste collector and any microfluidics elements connecting the outlet to the waste collector are placed at the same height or lower than the porous membranes of the air-liquid interface in the microfluidic system.
However, Bovard et al. discloses wherein the entirety of the microfluidics channel is lower than the porous membrane of the air-liquid interface, as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that the rearrangement of parts of a prior art device, wherein the rearrangement does modify the operation of the device, is an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP §2144.04). In this case, arranging the waste collector and any intervening microfluidics components so as to be lower than the porous membrane would not modify operation of the device, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent fluid flowing against gravity as it travels to waste collection.
Regarding claim 14, Bovard et al. discloses wherein the at least one pumping device is programmed to push the liquid at a mean flow rate of about 10 μl per minute to about 1000 μl per minute rather than between around 1 μl/hr and around 100 μl/hr as claimed.
Nonetheless, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05). Bovard et al. discloses general conditions, as set forth above, and based on the teachings of Bovard et al. the skilled artisan would recognize the parameter as a result-effective variable (increasing flow rate enhances mixing but also increases the chance of cell disturbance, see para. 108, 187). Therefore, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to discover an optimum or workable range for the flow rate by routine experimentation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bovard et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0339938) in view of Sakamoto et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0348840).
Regarding claim 16, Bovard et al. discloses a central processing computing system adapted to program a flow direction, flow rate, and flow duration of the at least one pumping device (para. 9, 35, 340-343). Bovard et al. discloses wherein the at least one pumping device is adapted to push a liquid through the microfluidics channel, as set forth above, and further discloses that it is desirable to reduce air bubble formation within the microfluidics channel (para. 140).
Bovard et al. is silent as to the system further comprising a computer vision image processing system adapted to detect an image feature, wherein the central processing computing system is configured to program the flow direction, flow rate, and flow duration according to the detected image feature. (Note: the claimed a computer vision image processing system has been interpreted as meaning a camera, a lens, and a lighting system, configured to obtain an image, consistent with Applicant’s specification as-filed).
Sakamoto et al. discloses a microfluidic system (Abstract) comprising a microfluidic channel through which a liquid flows for a biological application (Abstract, para. 80-84), the system further comprising a camera, a lens, and a light system configured to obtain an image of the microfluidic channel during operation such that the image can be transferred to a computer for analysis (para. 97, 105-108, 114) (thus, Sakamoto et al. discloses a computer vision image processing system). The computer evaluates the image to determine if bubbles are present and programs a flow direction, flow rate, and flow duration of a pump according to a predetermined configuration based on the presence of bubbles, e.g., to increase the flow rate to remove bubbles (para. 205-211).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Bovard et al. to comprise a computer vision image processing system adapted to detect an image feature, wherein the central processing computing system is configured to program the flow direction, flow rate, and flow duration according to a predetermined configuration based on the detected image feature, e.g., by incorporating the computer vision image processing system disclosed by Sakamoto et al. to detect the image feature of bubble presence, such that pump operation can be controlled to remove bubbles, in order to use a known technique to remove air bubbles as envisioned by Bovard et al.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bovard et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0339938) in view of Sakamoto et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0348840) as applied to claim 16, above, and in further view of Chavali et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0398715).
Regarding claim 17, Bovard et al. in view of Sakamoto et al. teaches wherein the system is configured to evaluate an image to detect presence an air bubble and to program the pumping device flow direction, flow rate, and flow duration with a predetermined configuration according to the detected air bubble, as set forth in the rejection of claim 16, above.
The prior art combination is silent as to the bubble detection being done with a trained machine learning model.
Chavali et al. discloses that traditional automated techniques of bubble detection struggle with accuracy (para. 2-3) and to this end, Chavali et al. discloses detecting a bubble within a liquid sample with a trained machine learning model that takes in an image of the sample and outputs data indicative of the presence of a bubble (Abstract, para. 7, 40), wherein the trained machine learning model is executed by a processor (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Bovard et al. in view of Sakamoto et al. to be configured to perform the air bubble detection with a trained machine learning model, as Chavali et al. discloses that it was known in the art to detect bubbles with a trained machine learning model in order to gain accuracy over traditional techniques, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a detection technique recognized in the art for high accuracy.
Regarding claim 18, Bovard et al. in view of Sakamoto et al. and in further view of Chavali et al. teaches wherein the central processing computing system is configured to program a flow direction, flow rate, and flow duration of the at least one pumping device in response to a detected air bubble, wherein the air bubble is detected by a trained machine learning model, as set forth above, and therefore the prior art combination reads on the claim as it is best understood by the Examiner.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vukasinovic et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0151571) is directed to a microfluidic system comprising at least one pump configured to perform push-pull pumping to achieve smooth, continuous fluid circulation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights