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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended 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)(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) 60-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koppel et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0255231).
Regarding claim 60, Koppel et al. disclose a fluid handling cassette (Figs. 1-11) comprising: a midplate (43) positioned between a rigid first plate (41) and a rigid second plate (42), the midplate (43) comprising a fluid port (Figs. 3a-d) and channel walls (Figs. 3a-d), an axis of the fluid port being parallel (Figs. 3a-d) to a face of the cassette (1), the channel walls (paragraphs 84-87) projecting from a first side (Figs. 3a-d), and a second side with a plurality of channel walls (paragraphs 84-87) projecting from the second side (Figs. 3a-d), wherein the rigid first plate (41) contacts the channel walls (paragraphs 84-87) on the first side of the midplate (43) and the rigid second plate (42) contacts the channel walls (paragraphs 84-87) on the second side of the midplate (43); and a plurality of edges (Figs. 3a-d), each of which is perpendicular and coinciding with an outer edge of the midplate (43); wherein the fluid port is located at a first edge (Figs. 3a-d) of the cassette (1) and is fluidically connected to a fluid channel defined by at least two channel walls (paragraphs 84-87).
Regarding claim 61, Koppel et al. disclose the fluid handling cassette (Figs. 1-11), wherein the midplate (43) is formed of an opaque material (paragraph 86) and the rigid first plate (41) and rigid second plate (42) are transparent or translucent (paragraph 82).
Regarding claim 62, Koppel et al. disclose the fluid handling cassette (Figs. 1-11), wherein the rigid first plate (41) and rigid second plate (42) permit transmission of laser wavelengths (the disclosed transparent material of paragraph 82 is capable of permitting laser wavelengths) and the midplate is opaque.
Regarding claim 63, Koppel et al. disclose the fluid handling cassette (Figs. 1-11), wherein the rigid first plate (41) and rigid second plate (42) are laser welded (product by process) to the midplate (43).
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 in the prior art, the claim in unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 64, Koppel et al. disclose the fluid handling cassette (Figs. 1-11), wherein the rigid first plate (41) and rigid second plate (42) are laser welded (product by process) to the channel walls.
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 in the prior art, the claim in unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 65, Koppel et al. disclose a liquid handling cassette (Figs. 1-11) comprising: a rigid first plate (41); a midplate (43) positioned next to the rigid first plate (41), the mid-plate (43) comprising: a perimeter wall (Figs. 3a-d) around a pump or valve (paragraph 88) projecting from a first side of the midplate (43), the perimeter wall including a wall port (Figs. 3a-d); and an actuation channel (Figs. 3a-d) formed from two channel walls (paragraphs 84-87) projecting from the first side of the midplate (43), the actuation channel extending from the wall port in the perimeter wall (Figs 3a-d); wherein the first plate (41) contacts (paragraphs 84-87) the perimeter wall on the first side of the midplate (43), and wherein the midplate (43) is opaque (paragraph 86), the rigid first plate (41) permits transmission of laser wavelengths (the disclosed transparent material of paragraph 82 is capable of permitting laser wavelengths), and the perimeter wall is laser welded (product by process) to the rigid first plate (41).
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 in the prior art, the claim in unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 66-79 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Reinaldo Sanchez-Medina, telephone number 571-270-5168, fax number 571-270-6168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-4:00PM 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights