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 7/17/2026 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 where COPIES of references (e.g. foreign, NPL) can be found (see COPIES below). However, there are no references listed on the information disclosure statement and therefore the information disclosure statement is not being considered.
PNG
media_image1.png
135
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1, 3-4, 7, 9-17, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambrosina US 20150139821 in view of Wyss US 20100228196.
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).
Ambrosina does not disclose a plurality of linear anti-stall grooves recessed into the liquid layer, the plurality of linear anti-stall grooves being arranged in a rectilinear, orthogonally intersecting grid array.
However, Wyss discloses the use of a plurality of linear anti-stall grooves 221 recessed into the liquid layer, the plurality of linear anti-stall grooves being arranged in a rectilinear, orthogonally intersecting grid array 223 (see Fig 3D). It is noted that Wyss discloses not only the claimed rectilinear, orthogonally intersecting grid array (see Fig 3D) but also an array that corresponds to the array taught by Ambrosina (see Fig 3C) which provides evidence that these anti-stall groove are known substitutes in the art.
A simple substitution of one known array of anti-stall grooves (as shown in Fig 3C of Wyss) for another (the anti-stall groove array taught by Ambrosina and Wyss in Fig 3C) with the predictable result of preventing stall of the membrane via drain channels has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (C).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an anti-stall groove array as taught by Wyss in Fig 3D as a known substitute in the art for the anti-stall groove arrays of Ambrosina in the air side and the liquid side to gain the benefit of using an anti-stall groove array substitute known to be used in membrane pumps.
Ambrosina as modified above discloses (all references to Ambrosina unless noted otherwise):
3. The microfluidic manifold according to claim 1, wherein the air-side recess comprises a plurality of intersecting anti-stall grooves recessed into the air layer (see e.g. Fig 3D of Wyss and 246 in Fig 2 of Ambrosina).
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 e.g. Fig 3D of Wyss).
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 recessed into the air layer (see e.g. Fig 3D of Wyss and 246 in Fig 2 of Ambrosina).
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(s) 5-6, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambrosina US 20150139821 in view of Wyss US 20100228196 as evidenced by or in view of Cabuz US 20030068231.
Regarding claim 5, Ambrosina as modified above discloses 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). Regarding the limitations the liquid-side recess comprises a flat shaped base wall, as shown in annotated Fig 6 herein Ambrosia appears to disclose flat shaped base wall segments. Additionally, Wyss discloses the use of a flat wall (see e.g. Figs 3A and 3D).
A simple substitution of one known pump wall shape (flat) for another (dome) with the predictable result of enclosing a pump chamber has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (C).
Additionally, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV B, changes in shape are simply a design choice.
Cabaz provides evidence or discloses that it is known in the art to have a flat shaped liquid side pump chamber wall and a dome shaped opposite pump chamber wall (see e.g. Fig 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a fat wall shape as taught by Wyss and as evidenced by or taught by Cabuz in the system of Ambrosina as modified above as a known substitute in the art for a dome shape to gain the benefit of setting the desired pump chamber volume and/or membrane stroke length as desired.
PNG
media_image4.png
586
822
media_image4.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 and see Fig 3D of Wyss).
Ambrosina discloses:
21. (New) 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, the air-side recess having a dome-shaped wall (see e.g. Fig ) 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).
Ambrosina does not disclose the liquid-side recess having a flat shaped wall defining a flat top surface, the flat top surface configured to form a flat-to-flat interface with the resiliently deformable diaphragm during a pumping stroke of the micropump.
However, Wyss discloses a flat shaped wall defining a flat top surface, the flat top surface configured to form a flat-to-flat interface with the resiliently deformable diaphragm during a pumping stroke of the micropump (see e.g. Figs 3A and 3D and 4A).
A simple substitution of one known pump wall shape (flat) for another (dome) with the predictable result of defining a wall of a pump chamber has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (C).
Additionally, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV B, changes in shape are simply a design choice.
Cabaz provides evidence or discloses that it is known in the art to have a flat shaped liquid side pump chamber wall and a dome shaped opposite pump chamber wall with the liquid-side recess having a flat shaped wall defining a flat top surface, the flat top surface configured to form a flat-to-flat interface with the resiliently deformable diaphragm during a pumping stroke of the micropump (see e.g. Fig 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a fat wall shape as taught by Wyss and as evidenced by or in view of Cabuz in the system of Ambrosina as modified above known substitute in the art for a dome shape to gain the benefit of setting the desired pump chamber volume and/or membrane stroke length as desired.
Regarding claim 22, Ambrosia as modified above discloses wherein the air-side recess comprises a plurality of intersecting anti-stall grooves 246 recessed into the air layer (see e.g. Fig 2 of Ambrosina).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambrosina US 20150139821 in view of Cabuz US 20030068231.
Ambrosina discloses:
21. (New) 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, the air-side recess having a dome-shaped wall (see e.g. Fig ) 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).
Ambrosina does not disclose the liquid-side recess having a flat shaped wall defining a flat top surface, the flat top surface configured to form a flat-to-flat interface with the resiliently deformable diaphragm during a pumping stroke of the micropump.
However, Cabaz provides evidence or discloses that it is known in the art to have a flat shaped liquid side pump chamber wall and a dome shaped opposite pump chamber wall wherein the liquid-side recess having a flat shaped wall defining a flat top surface, the flat top surface configured to form a flat-to-flat interface with the resiliently deformable diaphragm during a pumping stroke of the micropump (see e.g. Fig 1).
A simple substitution of one known pump wall shape (flat) for another (dome) with the predictable result of defining a wall of a pump chamber has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (C).
Additionally, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV B, changes in shape are simply a design choice.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a fat wall shape as taught by Cabuz in the system of Ambrosina as modified above as a known substitute in the art for a dome shape to gain the benefit of setting the desired pump chamber volume and/or membrane stroke length as desired.
Regarding claim 22, Ambrosia as modified above discloses wherein the air-side recess comprises a plurality of intersecting anti-stall grooves 246 recessed into the air layer (see e.g. Fig 2 of Ambrosina).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambrosina US 20150139821 in view of Wyss US 20100228196 in further 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New references, Wyss and Cabuz, are being used to teach the limitations which applicant argues.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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