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 filed 5/20/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Applicant has submitted a blank information disclosure statement. Therefore, the information disclosure statement has not been considered. Applicant separately submitted a list of applications including 18/123,456 which appears to be an incorrect number.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ambrosina US 20150139821.
Ambrosina discloses:
1. A microfluidic manifold for processing an agricultural sample fluid comprising: a micropump 310 codefined between a liquid layer 107-2 and an air layer 107-1 of the manifold, the micropump comprising a pump chamber (130-2, 130-1) collectively formed by an air-side recess in the air layer and a liquid-side recess in the liquid layer, and a resiliently deformable diaphragm 127 separating the air-side and liquid-side recesses; wherein the liquid-side recess comprises a plurality of anti-stall grooves 146 recessed into the liquid layer (see e.g. Fig 5).
2. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 1, wherein the anti-stall grooves are arranged in an orthogonally intersecting grid array (see the radial grooves which intersect the circumferential grooves at 90 degrees in e.g. Fig 5).
3. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 2, wherein the air-side recess comprises a plurality of intersecting anti-stall grooves 246 recessed into the air layer (see e.g. Fig 2).
4. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 3, wherein the anti-stall grooves in the air layer are arranged in an orthogonally intersecting grid array (see the radial grooves 246 which intersect the circumferential grooves at 90 degrees in e.g. Fig 2).
5. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 2, wherein the air-side recess comprises a dome shaped wall (see e.g. annotated Fig 2 herein wherein the central wall area from the radially inner portion of the radially outer flat rim area to the opening 203, taken as a whole, has a dome shape) and the liquid-side recess comprises a flat shaped base wall (see e.g. annotated Fig 6 herein).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
6. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 5, wherein the anti-stall grooves are recessed into the base wall (see e.g. annotated Fig 6 herein).
PNG
media_image2.png
591
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
7. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 1, wherein the air-side recess comprises a plurality of intersecting anti-stall grooves 246 recessed into the air layer (see e.g. Fig 2).
8. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 7, wherein the air-side recess has a dome shaped wall (see e.g. Fig 2 wherein the central area from the radially inner portion of the radially outer flat rim area to the opening 203, taken as a whole, has a dome shape) and the liquid-side recess has a flat shaped wall (see e.g. annotated Fig 1 herein).
PNG
media_image3.png
493
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
9. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 1, wherein the liquid-side recess comprises a fluid input port (103-1, or 1620-1) and a fluid outlet port (103-2, 1620-2) configured to flow the sample fluid through the pump chamber (see e.g. Fig 1, or Fig 16).
10. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 9, wherein the air-side recess comprises an air pressure signal port 144-2 configured to admit air to actuate the diaphragm.
11. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 1 further comprising a perimeter flow groove extending circumferentially around peripheral portions of the pump chamber (see e.g. any circumferential groove 146 at the outermost radial area in e.g. Figs 1 and 5 including the circumferential groove which intersects 103-1 and 103-2 in Fig 1).
12. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 11, wherein the anti-stall grooves intersect the perimeter flow groove (see e.g. Figs 1 and 5).
13. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 12, wherein the perimeter flow groove extends circumferentially around the liquid-side recess and is recessed into a top surface of the liquid layer (see e.g. Figs 1 and 5).
14. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 13, wherein the perimeter flow groove intersects and is fluidly coupled to a fluid inlet port 103-1 and fluid outlet port 103-2 of the micropump (see e.g. Fig 1).
15. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 12, wherein the perimeter flow groove is spaced inwards from a circumferentially-extending peripheral sidewall of the liquid-side recess (radially outermost portion of 195-1 in Figs 1 and 5 as indicated in annotated Fig 5 herein).
16. The microfluidic manifold according claim 15 further comprising a protruding diaphragm seal ring disposed adjacent to the perimeter flow groove (see e.g. annotated Fig 1 herein), the seal ring extending circumferentially around and outboard of the flow groove (see e.g. annotated Fig 1 herein).
17. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 16, wherein the seal ring is configured to prevent ingress of the diaphragm into the perimeter flow groove when the liquid layer is bonded to the air layer (see e.g. Figs 1 and 3).
19. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 17, wherein the seal ring is disposed between a peripheral sidewall of the liquid-side recess and the perimeter flow groove (see annotated Fig 1 herein).
20. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 19 further comprising a diaphragm seating pocket formed between the seal ring and the peripheral sidewall of the liquid-side pump chamber (see annotated Fig 1 herein).
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambrosina US 20150139821 in view of Neuberger DE202005002471U1 published 2005.
It is unclear is the seal ring of Ambrosina meets the limitations of claim 18 as Fig 1 is too blurry.
However, Neuberger discloses wherein the seal ring has a wider base than a terminal top end portion (see e.g. 5 in Fig 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a tapered seal ring as taught by Neuberger in the system of Ambrosina to gain the benefit of a significantly improved leakage rate and tightness in the clamping area of the diaphragm as taught by Neuberger in 0018 of the translation.
Conclusion
See form PTO-892 for additional prior art made of record but not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571) 270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights