DETAILED ACTION
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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2024 and 11/18/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and claims 2-7 by dependency): The use throughout this specific claim of “and/or” renders the claim unclear, especially considering the lack of indentation and structuring that could clarify such “and/or” language. Earlier “and/or” instance(s) render(s) later “and/or” instance(s) even more ambiguous or impossible (e.g., an earlier selection of “or” renders impossible later instances of “and”). Does claim 1 require at least one channel to be sealed at the end? How can there be a “secondary” without a “primary” (e.g., primary “and/or” secondary, if the “or” is used and it is interpretable as only reciting a secondary without a primary)? Does the first and/or mean either the primary or secondary channel is sealed? But this interpretation would conflict with the last and/or instances which recite “said primary channel and/or said sealed secondary channel”. It is noted that this renders claims 1-7 so unclear as to preclude full and proper interpretation and potential rejections over prior art. For the clarity of record and compact prosecution, various prior art and associated claim limitations are discussed below. This is further compounded by some dependent claims. E.g., claims 3-4 recite “wherein each sealed secondary microfluidic channel” and “wherein said at least one sealed secondary microfluidic channel”, respectively. Claim 5 recites “further comprises at least one secondary microfluidic channel open at the channel end”.
Regarding claim 6: “said at least one open” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 6 appears it should depend on claim 5; however, the claim would still be indefinite even if dependent upon claim 5 as it would be unclear which channel(s) is/are being referred to (claim 5 vs. claim 1 channel(s)).
Prior Art Discussion for Compact Prosecution
As set forth above, claim 1 (and claims 2-7 at least due to dependency) are so unclear such as to preclude full and proper interpretation and potential rejections over prior art. However, the instant disclosure provides enough general information for the examiner to conduct a search and discuss potentially relevant art in the spirit of compact prosecution.
Fabricius et al. (“A gas sensor based on an integrated optical Mach-Zehnder interferometer”, prior art of record via IDS) discusses the incorporation of Mach-Zehnder sensors into gas chromatography (e.g., abstract, FIG. 2). This is a common theme throughout the NPL that is made of record via IDS. As such, limitations regarding the basic structure of a gas-phase analytical system (injection unit, etc.) are well-known. Also see Harvey (US 4100790 A). It is noted that it is well-known that retention time is the common metric in gas chromatography (e.g., the supplied NPL prior art). See, for example: Liu et al. (“Fabry-Perot Cavity sensors for Multipoint On-Column Micro Gas Chromatography Detection”, prior art of record via IDS) – page 4371; Scholten et al. (“A microfabricated optofluidic ring resonator for sensitive, high-speed detection of volatile organic compounds”, prior art of record via IDS) – page 3878; Biswas et al. (“A Portable Micro-Gas Chromatography with Integrated Photonic Crystal Slab Sensors on Chip”, prior art of record via IDS) - page 10; etc. Using the sensors mentioned below to detect the presence of a particular chemical/compound in such chromatography devices outlined above and generally known in the art yields the sensor being used to determine retention time.
Laplatine et al. (US 20200400883 A1) teaches a Mach-Zehnder interferometric sensor (FIG. 2A) which has a reference section/arm (5) with a coating such that the chemical of interest cannot pass ([0063]) and a sensing section/arm (3) which is coated/functionalized (13) to adsorb the chemical/compound of interest ([0065]). Laplatine also teaches a branching structure with a plurality of such sensors and spiral lengths of optical waveguides (FIGS. 5-6).
Hoorfar et al. (US 20180120278 A1) discloses the use of optical chemical sensors ([0013]), permeable barriers, sealed channels of specific length, and determination of diffusion behaviors (e.g., [0005], [0016], [0045]-[0047], [0083], [0089], etc.). Also see Hossein et al. (CA 2395563 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pauluth et al. (US 6137576 A); and Gauglitz et al. (US 5262842 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights