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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 12-20 in the reply filed on 7/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/10/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0319220 (cited by applicant) to de Ruyter et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,944,351 to Kaidu et al. (cited by applicant) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2019/0285581 to Gordon et al.
Regarding applicant’s claim 12, Ruyter et al. teaches a system that includes a stage 56 that accommodates two cartridges 62 and 64 that hold respective flow cells 66 and 68. [0033].
Valves are provided to introduce fluids into the flow cells and correspond to the first and second reagent selector valves. [0024]
The stage moves the flow cells to an imaging system. [0022]
de Ruyter et al. teaches concerns regarding vibrations ([0058]), but does not teach using shaped input signals to reduce vibration imposed on the stage assembly based on movement of the reagent selector valve.
de Ruyter et al. teaches that control signals may be issued, for example, for control of various motors and valves, but does not teach shaped input signals to reduce vibration imposed on the stage assembly based on movement of a selector valve.
Kaidu et al. is directed at controlling motor drives so as to reduce vibration. The reduction in vibration can be accomplished by inputting a drive control signal which is a pulse width modified signal (Abstract; Column 1, lines 63-66; column 4, lines 15-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify de Ruyter et al. use pulse width modified control signals as taught by Kaidu et al. to actuate the valves that introduce fluids into the flow cells to reduce vibration.
de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. does not teach obtaining image data associated with a second flow cell assembly using the imaging system while the reagent selector valve assembly is actuated to flow the reagent into a first flow cell assembly.
Gordon et al. teaches a method for carrying out steps of a nucleic acid sequencing protocol that involves sequencing the order in which reagents are added to flow cells and images of the flow cells are obtained.
In paragraph [0007] Gordon et al. teaches moving first and second flow cells separately to stations where reagents can be delivered into the first and second flow cells separately and an imaging station where the first and second flow cells can be separately imaged.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to operate each flow cell in de Ruyter et al in view of Kaidu et al. independently, including imaging one of the flow cells while actuating the valves to introduce fluid into the other flow cell. In view of Gordon et al. teaching sequencing introducing reagents into first and second flow cells separately and an imaging first and second flow cells can be separately.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. and Gordon et al. renders all the limitations of claim 12 obvious.
Therefore, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 12 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that driving the first reagent selector valve using a first valve drive assembly, wherein a reagent selector valve assembly comprises the first reagent selector valve and the first valve drive assembly.
de Ruyter et al teaches that control signals may be issued, for example, for control of various motors and valves. [0032].
The use of such control signals renders obvious valve drive assemblies to operate the valves.
Therefore, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the controller associated with the stage assembly does not receive positional information from the first valve drive assembly.
de Ruyter et al. does not teach that the controller associated with the stage assembly receives positional information from the first valve drive assembly.
Therefore, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that feed-forward control is not provided between the first valve drive assembly and the controller associated with the stage assembly.
de Ruyter et al. does not teach that feed-forward control is provided between the first valve drive assembly and the controller associated with the stage assembly.
Therefore, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 15 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the first valve drive assembly does not receive positional information from the controller associated with the stage assembly.
de Ruyter et al. does not teach that first valve drive assembly receives positional information from the controller associated with the stage assembly.
Therefore, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 16 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites that feedback control is not provided between the controller associated with the stage assembly and the first valve drive assembly.
de Ruyter et al. does not teach that feedback control is provided between the controller associated with the stage assembly and the first valve drive assembly.
Therefore, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 17 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites actuating a second reagent selector valve of the system using shaped input signals to flow reagent into the second flow cell assembly without substantially imparting vibration into the system; and obtaining image data associated with the first flow cell assembly using the imaging system while the second reagent selector valve assembly is actuated to flow the reagent into the second flow cell assembly.
As noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to operate each flow cell in de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. independently from one another to preform multiple processes at the same time, including imaging one of the flow cells while actuating the valves to introduce fluid into the other flow cell. Reversing this process for each of the flow cells would have been obvious
Therefore, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 18 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 19, as noted above, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 12 obvious from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 19 recites the shaped input signals comprise a first shaped input signal and a second shaped input signal that are separated by time to allow the second shaped input signal to substantially cancel the first shaped input signal.
de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. does not teach that the shaped input signals comprise a first shaped input signal and a second shaped input signal that are separated by time to allow the second shaped input signal to substantially cancel the first shaped input signal.
In de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide a first shaped input signal to cause fluid to be introduced into the first flow cell and, after a time period, provide a second shaped input signal to substantially cancel the first shaped input signal and stop introducing fluid into the first flow cell as a manner of controlling the amount of fluid introduced.
Therefore, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 19 obvious.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 20, as noted above, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 19 obvious from which claim 20 depends.
Claim 20 recites driving the second reagent selector valve using a second valve drive assembly, wherein a second reagent selector valve assembly comprises the second reagent selector valve and the second valve drive assembly.
As noted above, de Ruyter et al teaches that control signals may be issued, for example, for control of various motors and valves. [0032].
The use of such control signals renders obvious first and second valve drive assemblies to operate the valves for each of the flow cells.
Therefore, de Ruyter et al. in view of Kaidu et al. and Gordon et al. renders claim 20 obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights