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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 22, line 1 delete “Device according to any of the claim 19” and insert therein - - Device according to claim 19 - - for form. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the phrases “preferably” and “more preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination limitation(s) following the phrases are not considered part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrases “preferably” and “more preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination limitation(s) following the phrases are not considered part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the phrases “preferably” and “more preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination limitation(s) following the phrases are not considered part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the phrases “preferably”, “more preferably”, and “most preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination limitation(s) following the phrases are not considered part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination limitation(s) following the phrases are not considered part of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the at least two polymeric components are independently made of one or more selected from the group of cyclic olefin copolymer, polystyrene, poly(methyl methacrylate), polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, poly(oxyethyleneoxyterephthaloyl), poly(ethylene terephthalate glycol), polypropylene, poly(1- methylethylene)”. Claim 15, from which claim 16 depends, recites the limitation “wherein the at least two polymeric components are independently made of one or more selected from the group of cyclic olefin copolymer, polystyrene, polyacrylate, polycarbonate” so that claim 16 includes materials, e.g. polyethylene terephthalate, poly(oxyethyleneoxyterephthaloyl), poly(ethylene terephthalate glycol), polypropylene, poly(1-methylethylene), that are not a cyclic olefin copolymer, polystyrene, polyacrylate, polycarbonate so that the limitation is unclear and confusing. It is suggested to delete “, polyethylene terephthalate, poly(oxyethyleneoxyterephthaloyl), poly(ethylene terephthalate glycol), polypropylene, poly(1-methylethylene)” to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination limitation(s) directly (i.e. prior to “and/or”) following the phrase are not considered part of the claimed invention.
The claim limitation “means to bring the at least two polymeric components into contact” in claim 19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim rather the only disclosure is of manual placement (Specification page 16, lines 18-20 and page 17, lines 5-8). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim limitation “means to bring the at least two polymeric components into contact” in claim 19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above and MPEP 2181).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou ‘987 et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0178987).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Zhou ‘987 (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0016, 0028, 0033, 0036, 0044, and 0047) discloses a method for laminating at least two polymeric components (and regarding claim 24 a microfluidic device obtainable by the method), comprising the steps of: - providing at least two polymeric components of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) (first component 1, second component 5), each component having at least one connecting surface; - providing a solvent of acetonitrile to at least one of the at least one connecting surfaces; - securing by pressing the connecting surface of a first polymeric component to the connecting surface of a second polymeric component, wherein the at least one connecting surface provided with the solvent is the connecting surface of the first polymeric component and/or the second polymeric component; - applying ultrasonic energy; and - bonding the connecting surfaces of the first polymeric component and second polymeric component, wherein the step of securing is performed before the solvent is substantially evaporated (pressure of securing and heat of ultrasonic energy applied to activate the solvent), and wherein the solvent has a Ra-distance with respect to the polymeric component in the range of 4 MPa1/2 to 10 MPa1/2 (10 MPa1/2 wherein Hansen solubility parameters for PMMA are 18.64 dispersion, 10.52 polarity, and 7.51 hydrogen bonding and for acetonitrile are 15.3 dispersion, 18.0 polarity, and 6.1 hydrogen bonding all parameter values used herein from HANSEN SOLUBILITY PARAMTERS A User’s Handbook).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou ‘987 teaches comprising the step of positioning the at least two polymeric components such that one of the at least one connecting surface of the first polymeric component faces one of the at least one connecting surface of the second polymeric component (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou ‘987 teaches the step of providing a solvent comprises the step of applying the solvent by spraying considered drop depositing (Paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou ‘987 teaches the solvent is acetonitrile an organic considered biobased solvent.
Regarding claim 8, Zhou ‘987 teaches the step of manufacturing a microfluidic device (Abstract).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Zhou ‘987 teaches the step of securing comprises providing at least one interstitial space (1 to n microstructures 2) between the secured opposed surfaces wherein the at least one interstitial space is a microfluidic channel (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0028 and 0036).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou ‘987 teaches the step of applying ultrasonic energy comprises the step of applying ultrasonic laminating (Title and Paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou ‘987 teaches wherein the step of securing comprises applying a pressure in the range of 0.05 MPa to 5 MPa (usually up to about 10 psi) (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claims 14-16, Zhou ‘987 teaches at least one of the at least two polymeric components is a non-elastomeric component wherein the at least two polymeric components are independently made of poly(methyl methacrylate) (Paragraphs 0028, 0029, and 0033).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou ‘987 teaches the step of providing a solvent further comprises at least partially intruding, by the solvent, into the at least one connecting surface of the at least two polymeric components, and comprising, by the at least partially intruding, swelling of the at least one connecting surface of the at least two polymeric components (Paragraph 0045).
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teruji et al. (JP 2000-48785 and see also the machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Teruji (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0015, 0020, and 0021 of the machine translation) discloses a method for laminating at least two polymeric components, comprising the steps of: - providing at least two polymeric components of polycarbonate (PC) (case 1, case 2), each component having at least one connecting surface; - providing a solvent of methyl isobutyl ketone or methyl ethyl ketone to at least one of the at least one connecting surfaces; - securing from pressing horn (5) the connecting surface of a first polymeric component to the connecting surface of a second polymeric component, wherein the at least one connecting surface provided with the solvent is the connecting surface of the first polymeric component and/or the second polymeric component; - applying ultrasonic energy; and - bonding the connecting surfaces of the first polymeric component and second polymeric component, wherein the step of securing is performed before the solvent is substantially evaporated (remains as liquid), and wherein the solvent has a Ra-distance with respect to the polymeric component in the range of 4 MPa1/2to 10 MPa1/2 (and regarding claim 2, 9 MPa1/2 or 6.5 MPa1/2 wherein Hansen solubility parameters for PC are 19.10 dispersion, 10.90 polarity, and 5.10 hydrogen bonding and for methyl isobutyl ketone are 15.3 dispersion, 6.1 polarity, and 4.1 hydrogen bonding or for methyl ethyl ketone are 16.0 dispersion, 9.0 polarity, and 5.1 hydrogen bonding).
Regarding claim 3, Teruji teaches comprising the step of positioning the at least two polymeric components such that one of the at least one connecting surface of the first polymeric component faces one of the at least one connecting surface of the second polymeric component (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Teruji teaches the solvent is ketones.
Regarding claim 6, Teruji teaches the solvent is methyl isobutyl ketone (methyl isobutyl ketone solvent is organic/biobased solvent and/or has a boiling point of at least 100 oC, i.e. about 116 oC).
Regarding claim 9, Teruji teaches the step of securing comprises providing at least one interstitial space (groove with the solvent) between the secured opposed surfaces (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Teruji teaches the step of applying ultrasonic energy comprises the step of applying ultrasonic welding (Paragraphs 0021-0022).
Regarding claims 14-16, Teruji teaches at least one of the at least two polymeric components is a non-elastomeric component wherein the at least two polymeric components are independently made of polycarbonate (Paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 17, Teruji teaches the step of providing a solvent further comprises at least partially intruding, by the solvent, into the at least one connecting surface of the at least two polymeric components, and comprising, by the at least partially intruding, swelling of the at least one connecting surface of the at least two polymeric components (Paragraph 007).
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.
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.
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou ‘987 in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0354858).
Regarding claim 19, Zhou ‘987 discloses a device for laminating at least two polymeric components, comprising: - means to provide a solvent to at least one of opposed surfaces of at least two polymeric components (Paragraph 0036 of a solvent container for dipping or nozzle for spraying and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of rolling or drop depositing, see specification page 8, line 13 to page 9, line 7).
As to the limitation in claim 19 of “- means to bring the at least two polymeric components into contact”, Zhou ‘987 discloses to bring the at least two polymeric components into contact (Paragraph 0036) without expressly disclosing structure to perform the function and considered at least then to provide manual placement as is consistent with the only “- means to bring the at least two polymeric components into contact” disclosed in the instant specification (see the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above). Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the device taught by Zhou ‘987 comprise - means to bring the at least two polymeric components into contact as broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 and “III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY”).
As to the limitation in claim 19 of “- securing means, configured to secure the opposed and contacted surfaces; and - means to provide ultrasonic energy to the contacted polymeric components” and claim 22, Zhou ‘987 does not expressly disclose the structure to secure by pressing the opposed and contacted surfaces and to apply the ultrasonic energy. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic laminating/welding the means comprises an actuator (44), an ultrasonic stack comprising a piezoelectric transducer (20) and a sonotrode/horn (22), and anvil (42) for pressing and application of ultrasonic energy as evidenced by Wang (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0034 and 0035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the device taught by Zhou ‘987 comprise - securing means of an actuator, configured to secure the opposed and contacted surfaces (actuator considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a clamp and/or actuator, see specification page 10, lines 21-27 and page 15, lines 8-10); and - means of an ultrasonic stack, wherein the ultrasonic stack comprises a piezoelectric transducer and a sonotrode/horn to provide ultrasonic energy to the contacted polymeric components (a piezoelectric transducer and a sonotrode/horn considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a piezoelectric transducer and a sonotrode/horn, see specification page 12, lines 25-27) as is the conventional means well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to predictably press and apply ultrasonic energy as evidenced by Wang.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou ‘987 and Wang as applied to claims 19 and 22 above, and further in view of Zhou ‘785 et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0162785).
Regarding claim 20, Zhou ‘987 as modified by Wang above teach all of the limitations in claim 20 except for a specific teaching the means to provide a solvent is a rolling device. Zhou ‘987 is not limited to any particular means to provide the solvent. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art means to provide the solvent is by rolling on, i.e. a rolling device, as evidenced by Zhou ‘785 (Paragraph 0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the means to provide the solvent taught by Zhou ‘987 as modified by Wang is a rolling device wherein the rolling device is a simple substitution of one device for another to yield predictable results as evidenced by Zhou ‘785.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou ‘987, Wang, and Zhou ‘785 as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Heurich et al. (U.S. Patent 4,301,730).
Regarding claim 21, Zhou ‘987 as modified by Wang and Zhou ‘785 above teach all of the limitations in claim 21 except for a specific teaching wherein the rolling device is a micropatterned roller. Zhou ‘785 does not expressly teach a particular roller. Anilox roller (i.e. micropatterned roller) is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as rolling device to apply discrete increments comprising predictable quantities of fluids to a surface contacted with the roller as evidenced by Heurich (Figure 4 and Column 1, lines 5-18 and Column 6, lines 65-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the rolling device taught by Zhou ‘987 as modified by Wang and Zhou ‘785 is a micropatterned roller not only as a simple substitution of one type roller to yield predictable results but to apply discrete increments comprising predictable quantities of solvent to the surface contacted with the roller as evidenced by Heurich.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou ‘785 in view of Zhou ‘987.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 24, Zhou ‘785 (Figures 1A and 1B and Paragraphs 0026, 0033-0035, 0044-0047, and 0052) discloses a method for laminating at least two polymeric components (and regarding claim 24 a microfluidic device obtainable by the method), comprising the steps of: - providing at least two polymeric components of cyclic olefin copolymer (COC) (film layer 101, substrate 102), each component having at least one connecting surface; - providing a solvent such as 1,2-dichloroethane to at least one of the at least one connecting surfaces; - applying the connecting surface of a first polymeric component to the connecting surface of a second polymeric component, wherein the at least one connecting surface provided with the solvent is the connecting surface of the first polymeric component and/or the second polymeric component; - applying ultrasonic energy; and - bonding the connecting surfaces of the first polymeric component and second polymeric component, wherein the step of applying is performed before the solvent is substantially evaporated (the heat of ultrasonic energy applied to activate the solvent), and wherein the solvent has a Ra-distance with respect to the polymeric component in the range of 4 MPa1/2to 10 MPa1/2 (and regarding claim 2, 5.2 MPa1/2 wherein Hansen solubility parameters for COC are 18 dispersion, 3 polarity, and 2 hydrogen bonding and for 1,2-dichloroethane are 19 dispersion, 7.4 polarity, and 4.1 hydrogen bonding).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “securing” the connecting surface of the first polymeric component to the connecting surface of the second polymeric component and claim 13, it isn’t clear that Zhou ‘785 expressly discloses applying the connecting surface of the first polymeric component to the connecting surface of the second polymeric component includes pressing and thereby securing the connecting surface of the first polymeric component to the connecting surface of the second polymeric component. Zhou ‘785 teaches at least in the priority documents, which include Zhou ‘987, pressure was applied to the adjacently contacting components to assist the laminating process (Paragraph 0035) wherein Zhou ‘987 expressly discloses the assisting pressure is up to about 10 psi (Paragraph 0016). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Zhou ‘785 includes securing by pressing (and regarding claim 13 wherein the step of securing comprises applying a pressure in the range of 0.05 MPa to 5 MPa) the connecting surface of the first polymeric component to the connecting surface of the second polymeric component to assist in the laminating process as recognized by both Zhou ‘785 and Zhou ‘987.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou ‘785 teaches comprising the step of positioning the at least two polymeric components such that one of the at least one connecting surface of the first polymeric component faces one of the at least one connecting surface of the second polymeric component (Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou ‘785 is not limited to a particular solvent teaching various combinations of solvent/polymeric materials can be selected by screening Hansen solubility parameters (Paragraph 0026) and including other solvents disclosed as alternative to 1,2-dichloroethane including ketones such as acetone (Hansen solubility parameters are 15.5 dispersion, 10.4 polarity, and 7.0 hydrogen bonding), aromatic molecules such as xylene (Hansen solubility parameters are 17.6 dispersion, 1.0 polarity, and 3.1 hydrogen bonding), etc. (Paragraph 0010) each having similar Ra-distance (i.e. 10 MPa1/2 or less with COC polymeric material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the solvent taught by Zhou ‘785 as modified by Zhou ‘987 is solvent selected by screening Hansen solubility parameters such as acetone, xylene, etc. having similar Hansen solubility parameters to 1,2-dichloroethane and as alternative to 1,2-dichorloethane as taught by Zhou ‘785.
Regarding claim 5, Zhou ‘785 teaches the step of providing a solvent comprises the step of applying the solvent by rolling (Paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou ‘785 teaches the solvent is 1,2-dicholoethane, acetone, or xylene each an organic considered biobased solvent and/or wherein the solvent is xylene having a boiling point of at least 100 oC.
Regarding claim 8, Zhou ‘785 teaches the step of manufacturing a microfluidic device (Abstract).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Zhou ‘785 as modified by Zhou ‘987 teaches the step of securing comprises providing at least one interstitial space between the secured opposed surfaces wherein the at least one interstitial space is a microfluidic channel (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou ‘785 teaches the step of applying ultrasonic energy comprises the step of applying ultrasonic laminating (Abstract and Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claims 14-16, Zhou ‘785 teaches at least one of the at least two polymeric components is a non-elastomeric component wherein the at least two polymeric components are independently made of COC (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou ‘785 teaches the step of providing a solvent further comprises at least partially intruding, by the solvent, into the at least one connecting surface of the at least two polymeric components, and comprising, by the at least partially intruding, swelling of the at least one connecting surface of the at least two polymeric components (Paragraph 0052).
Claims 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou ‘785 and Zhou ‘987 as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-17, and 24 above, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Zhou ‘785 as modified by Zhou ‘987 above discloses a device for laminating at least two polymeric components, comprising: - means to provide a solvent to at least one of opposed surfaces of at least two polymeric components (Paragraph 0045 of rolling on and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of rolling or drop depositing, see specification page 8, line 13 to page 9, line 7 and regarding claim 20 wherein the means to provide a solvent is a rolling device).
As to the limitation in claim 19 of “- means to bring the at least two polymeric components into contact”, Zhou ‘785 discloses to bring the at least two polymeric components into contact (Paragraphs 0044-0045) without expressly disclosing structure to perform the function and considered at least then to provide manual placement as is consistent with the only “- means to bring the at least two polymeric components into contact” disclosed in the instant specification (see the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above). Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the device taught by Zhou ‘785 as modified by Zhou ‘987 comprise - means to bring the at least two polymeric components into contact as broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 and “III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY”).
As to the limitation in claim 19 of “- securing means, configured to secure the opposed and contacted surfaces; and - means to provide ultrasonic energy to the contacted polymeric components” and claim 22, Zhou ‘785 as modified by Zhou ‘987 does not expressly disclose the structure to secure by pressing the opposed and contacted surfaces and to apply the ultrasonic energy. Wang is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the device taught by Zhou ‘785 as modified by Zhou ‘987 comprise - securing means of an actuator, configured to secure the opposed and contacted surfaces (actuator considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a clamp and/or actuator, see specification page 10, lines 21-27 and page 15, lines 8-10); and - means of an ultrasonic stack, wherein the ultrasonic stack comprises a piezoelectric transducer and a sonotrode/horn to provide ultrasonic energy to the contacted polymeric components (a piezoelectric transducer and a sonotrode/horn considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a piezoelectric transducer and a sonotrode/horn, see specification page 12, lines 25-27) as is the conventional means well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to predictably press and apply ultrasonic energy as evidenced by Wang.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou ‘785, Zhou ‘987, and Wang, as applied to claims 19, 20, and 22 above, and further in view of Heurich.
Regarding claim 21, Zhou ‘785 as modified by Zhou ‘987 and Wang above teach all of the limitations in claim 21 except for a specific teaching wherein the rolling device is a micropatterned roller. Zhou ‘785 does not expressly teach a particular roller. Heurich is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the rolling device taught by Zhou ‘785 as modified by Zhou ‘987 and Wang is a micropatterned roller not only as a simple substitution of one type roller to yield predictable results but to apply discrete increments comprising predictable quantities of solvent to the surface contacted with the roller as evidenced by Heurich.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights