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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reed et al. US 2019/0086437.
Regarding claim 1, Reed discloses as seen in fig. 1 for example, a viscosity sensor module 100 comprising a first viscosity sensor 125 with a first liquid flow channel (capillary, paragraph 0038) for measuring a viscosity of a liquid flowing through the liquid flow channel (liquid polymer), and a second viscosity sensor with a second liquid flow channel for measuring a viscosity of a liquid flowing through the second liquid flow channel (the second viscosity sensor functions in the same manner as the first).
Regarding claim 2, the first and second viscosity sensors each include at least two pressure sensors positioned along the flow channel for measuring a pressure drop of the liquid flowing through the first and second flow channels (paragraph 0031 using a differential pressure transducer to determine a pressure drop which would require two separate pressure sensors to determine the pressure differential across the flow).
Regarding claim 3, the pressure sensors of the first viscosity sensor can be a Validyne P55-46, while the pressure sensors of the second viscosity sensor can be a Validyne P55-28, which have different full-scale pressures from one another (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 4, the first full-scale pressure (P55-46) is at least five times greater than the second full-scale pressure (P55-28) as shown in the data sheet for the Validyne P55 pressure transducer which is provided.
Regarding claim 5, the viscosity sensors of Reed are provided in series in the claimed arrangement such that the inlet and outlets align in the claimed manner (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the first flow channel of Reed has a first cross-sectional area and the second flow channel has a second cross sectional area which is distinct from the first (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 7, the second cross-sectional area can be greater than the first as disclosed in paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 8, the flow channels of Reed have a different diameters which can be defined as a depth and therefore are a different depth from one another as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, since the second diameter can be the larger of the diameters, the second depth is greater than the first depth as claimed.
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) 2, 3, 4, 10-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed and Baek US 2017/0030818.
Regarding claim 2, the first and second viscosity sensors each include pressure sensors positioned along the flow channel for measuring a pressure drop of the liquid flowing through the first and second flow channels (paragraph 0031 using a differential pressure transducer to determine a pressure drop to determine the pressure differential across the flow). Although the pressure sensors of Reed would likely include two different pressure sensors to determine the differential pressure, it is not explicitly disclosed as so. Baek teaches a viscosity sensing module in which a channel for detecting a viscosity is provided with at least two pressure sensors (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Baek with those of Reed to provide pressure sensors for determining a pressure drop across the channel when measuring the viscosity as the drop would be needed in the calculation thereof.
Regarding claim 3, the pressure sensors of the first viscosity sensor can be a Validyne P55-46, while the pressure sensors of the second viscosity sensor can be a Validyne P55-28, which have different full-scale pressures from one another (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 4, the first full-scale pressure (P55-46) is at least five times greater than the second full-scale pressure (P55-28) as shown in the data sheet for the Validyne P55 pressure transducer which is provided.
Regarding claim 10, Reed discloses the claimed invention with the exception of the specific depths claimed. Baek teaches a viscosity sensor system which comprise flow channels in the size of ten micrometers wide and one micrometer deep (paragraph 0067). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used flow channels in a similar size for both depth and length for studying the viscosity of small doses of fluid in the system, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Reed teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the viscosity sensor as being a sensor chip membrane including silicon. Baek teaches a viscosity sensor which includes a viscosity sensor chip (fig. 2B) which may include silicon (paragraph 0067) on a substrate 30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Baek with those of Reed in order to provide a similar viscosity sensor to that of Baek in order to provide a viscosity sensor which is capable of operating with a smaller amount of a specimen during testing.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Reed teaches a similar device but does not explicitly teach the method claimed. Baek discloses a method for using a viscometer which measures viscosity values of a liquid containing protein molecules at a plurality of shear rates (paragraph 0135) and determines a size of aggregates from the measured viscosity values for analyzing an interaction of the protein molecules in the liquid (paragraph 0117). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Baek with those of Reed in order to monitor fluids including for aggregates of macromolecules which may influence viscosity. The claims are further directed to the process of using the product of claim 1 and therefore since all limitations of the structure of the claims have been met, the method of using it is considered obvious as 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)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed and Baek and further in view of Choi et al. US 2013/0019662.
Regarding claim 13, Reed and Baek teach a viscometer similar to that claimed with the exception of the substrate bonded to a silicon membrane by anodic bonding or laser bonding. Choi teaches a micro viscometer which comprises a sensing channel on a substrate 113 which is bonded via anodic bonding to a silicon membrane (film 150, paragraph 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Choi with those of Reed and Baek in order to form a sensor which is securely bonded during operation to prevent leakage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights