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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
In IDS submitted on 8/13/2024, reference # US 2022/030549 is not a valid PG Publication. It has been lined through.
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 “angle is no greater than 80 degrees” in claims 10 & 23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because said abstract begins with “A a fluidic device, is provided…”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leblanc et al (US 2012/0244043, cited in IDS), hereinafter Leblanc.
Regarding claim 1 (interpreted as product-by-process claim), Leblanc teaches a fluidic device comprising: a fluid chamber (¶ [99-101]) containing apolar fluid (¶[39]); the fluid chamber comprising an input port (¶[109-111, Fig 1-4) and a channel fluidly connected to the input port (¶[52, 109]); wherein the input port is formed with an opening (Fig 2-4; ¶[99]) to receive a pipette tip (Fig 3-4) and impart a droplet of polar fluid into the channel (¶[70, 109]); and wherein insertion of the pipette tip into the fluid chamber causes displacement of the apolar fluid in the fluid chamber such that when the pipette tip is retracted from the fluid chamber, apolar fluid displaces the polar fluid from the surface of the pipette tip to form a droplet of polar fluid surrounded by apolar fluid in the channel of the fluid chamber (Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.) See MPEP 2113).
Leblanc further teaches in claim 2 wherein the input port comprises a lower surface facing into the fluid chamber (Fig 2-4);
in claim 3 (interpreted as product-by-process claim) wherein the input port comprises a resilient seal (Fig 3) formed across the opening of the input port, wherein the resilient seal is formed to create a mechanical seal via an interference fit around the pipette tip received in the input port (Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.) See MPEP 2113);
in claim 4 wherein the lower surface of the input port is a lower surface of the resilient seal (Fig 4);
in claim 5 wherein the material of the lower surface of the input port has a greater surface wettability with the apolar fluid than with the polar fluid (¶50);
in claim 6 wherein a wall extends from the lower surface of the resilient seal into the fluid chamber (Fig 9A);
in claim 7 (interpreted as product-by-process claim) wherein the wall and lower surface of the resilient seal form a fluidic seal such that apolar fluid is provided around the pipette tip to displace the polar fluid from the surface of the pipette tip as the pipette tip is retracted (¶[109]; Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.) See MPEP 2113); and
in claim 8 (interpreted as product-by-process claim) wherein the input port is shaped to direct the pipette tip to a channel inlet (Fig 2-4; Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.) See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 15 (interpreted as product-by-process claim), Leblanc teaches a fluidic device comprising: a fluid chamber (¶ [99-101]) fillable with apolar fluid (¶[39]); the fluid chamber comprising an input port (¶[109-111, Fig 1-4) for receiving a pipette tip (Fig 3-4) to inject a polar fluid into the channel (¶[70, 109]); wherein the input port comprises a resilient seal formed across an opening of the input port (Fig 3), the resilient seal formed to seal around a pipette tip received in the input port (Fig 4; Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.) See MPEP 2113).
Leblanc further teaches in claim 16 (interpreted as product-by-process claim) wherein the fluid chamber further comprises a channel fluidly connected to the input port (¶[52, 109]), and the input port is shaped to direct a pipette tip into the apolar fluid (Fig 3-4) when the fluid chamber contains the apolar fluid, such that the polar fluid injected from the pipette tip is surrounded by apolar fluid in the channel of the fluid chamber (Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.) See MPEP 2113);
in claim 17 (interpreted as product-by-process claim) wherein the input port comprises a lower surface facing into the fluid chamber (Fig 2-4), and the device is configured such that upon retraction of the pipette tip from the input port, apolar fluid in the fluid chamber is drawn across the lower surface of the input port and the polar fluid is retained in the channel (Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.) See MPEP 2113);
in claim 18 wherein the lower surface is a lower surface of the resilient seal (Fig 4);
in claim 19 wherein the lower surface has a greater wettability with the apolar fluid than with the polar fluid (¶50);
in claim 20 (interpreted as product-by-process claim) wherein the device is shaped such that when a pipette tip is received in the input port, a space is formed between the pipette tip and a wall of the device in the fluid chamber (¶[124-125]; Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.) See MPEP 2113);
in claim 21 (interpreted as product-by-process claim) wherein the wall is formed on the resilient seal and extends into the fluid chamber, wherein the space is formed between the pipette tip and the wall (¶[124-125]; Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.) See MPEP 2113).
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leblanc, in view of Lay et al (US2016/0016170, cited in IDS), hereinafter Lay.
Regarding claims 9-10, 22-23 (treated together because claim limitations are the same; also claims 9 and 22 are interpreted as product-by-process claims), Leblanc is silent wherein the input port is shaped to direct the pipette into the fluid chamber at a non-perpendicular angle with respect to a bottom surface of the fluid chamber facing the input port and wherein the angle is no greater than 80 degrees.
Attention is directed to Lay that teaches wherein the input port (22, Fig 2-3) is shaped to direct the pipette tip (18) into the fluid chamber (13) at a non-perpendicular angle with respect to a bottom surface of the fluid chamber facing the input port (Fig 2-3) and wherein the angle is no greater than 80 degrees (as shown in Fig 2, the insertion degree is 68 and in Fig 3, the insertion degree is 75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create input ports to direct the pipette tip at non-perpendicular angle less than 80 degrees, in view of Lay's teaching. Inserting at non-perpendicular angles allows for flexibility.
Regarding claim 24, in addition to the limitations of claim 22, the already modified product further teaches wherein the input port comprises an extended guide (Lay: upper portion of 24, Fig 1-3) for receiving the pipette tip and directing the pipette tip towards the resilient seal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0353958 to Hinojosa et al is directed to the state of the art as a relevant teaching of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5613. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10 AM- 6 PM EST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/JENNIFER C CHIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754