DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquiss (US 6,902,703) in view of Leproust (US 2004/0152083).
With respect to claims 1-8, Marquiss discloses a method for aligning a location of a dispenser array in relation to a microfluidic array, wherein one of such arrays is movable relative to a housing (see Marquiss, column 11). The location of any of the arrays at any given time may be facilitated by a coordinate system, i.e. x-y or other (see Marquiss, column 46, lines 12-22). Fiducial reference marks are identified in each of the respective arrays for purposes of proper alignment (see Marquiss, column 7, lines 56-67; column 8, lines 1-7; column 31, lines 64-67; and column 32, lines 1-9). Reference fiducials may be placed in rotationally symmetric or asymmetric positions such that information regarding the orientation of an array may be ascertained (see Marquiss, column 7, lines 56-67; and column 8, lines 1-7).
Marquiss does not explicitly disclose wherein the camera is a “first” camera of a two-camera alignment functioning. Marquiss likewise does not explicitly disclose wherein the positioning of one array relative to the other is by way of “vector displacement” quantification.
However, in a related method, Leproust makes use of multiple (e.g., two) cameras (i.e. first and second cameras) to carry out the required alignment function between a substrate unit and a sample dispensing unit (see Leproust, paragraph [0060]). Such alignment would necessarily (i.e. inherently) include some form of “vector displacement” quantification because the entire purpose of using the fiducial reference marks in coordination with the one or more cameras is to bring the two arrays into proper alignment (see Leproust, paragraph [0051]). It is further noted that such alignment may be facilitated by the use of appropriate computer programming, communication, and control (see Marquiss, column 20, lines 23-33) (see Leproust, paragraphs [0028] and [0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights