Appln. No.: 11/388,723
`Office Action Mailed September 5, 2008
`OffiCe Action Reply Filed on December 5, 2008
`
`REMARKS
`
`The following remarks are in response to Examiner’s Office Action mailed on September 5,
`
`2008. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 12-20 have been previously withdrawn. New claims 22-23 are
`
`added. Non—limiting support for new claims can be found, e.g., page 6 para. 0058. No new matter is
`
`introduced by this Response, and thus entry thereof is respectfully requested. Claims 1—11 and 21—23
`
`are currently pending. Reconsideration is respectfully requested in light of the following remarks.
`
`Claims Rejection Under 35 US. C. §103
`
`.
`
`Claims 1-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable
`
`over Childers et- al. (US Pat. Appln. No. 2004/0086872 hereinafter “Childers”) in View of Parce et
`
`al., (US. Patent No. 5,942,443 “Parce” hereinafter). Applicants hereby respectfully traverse for the
`
`following reasons.
`
`Claim 1 of the instant application is drawn to an apparatus for detecting an analyte in a
`
`biological fluid of a subject. The claim as amended requires a sample collection unit for introducing
`
`a biological fluid in fluid communication with a plurality of reaction sites through which optical
`
`signals are detected, as well as at least one channel connecting said plurality of reaction sites
`
`comprising an optical barrier effective in reducing the amount of optical cross-talk between said
`
`plurality of said reaction sites during detection of an analyte.
`
`The combined teachings of Childers and Parce do not teach or suggest all claim elements.
`
`Childers is cited for providing an assay chamber and a cover over the assay chamber. However, as is
`
`acknowledged by the Office Action, Childers does not teach the incorporation of a plurality of assay
`
`chambers. Thus, Childers fails to disclose at least one channel connecting a plurality of reaction
`
`sites. Moreover, Childers does not teach or suggest at least one such channel comprising an optical
`
`barrier effective in reducing the amount of optical cross-talk between the plurality of reaction sites
`
`during detection of an analyte.
`
`Parce is cited for disclosing that opaque materials may be used in microfluidic device
`
`fabrication. Parce discloses a planar substrate with a plurality of reservoirs 208, 210, 212, 216, 220,
`
`226, 228 along with a detection window 230 for detecting the transit of fluorescent or other dyes, as
`
`shown in Figure 2 below. See co]. 12, lines 21-39. Parce’s design has one detection window.
`
`350825 8_1.DOC
`
`Atty. Docket No. 30696-712201
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Appln. No.: 11/388,723
`Office Action Mailed September 5, 2008
`Office Action Reply Filed on December 5, 2008
`
`Parce’s design also appears to have chambers feeding into one common channel where, presumably,
`
`a reaction takes place. Parce does not recognize the need to minimize optical cross—talk between a
`
`plurality of reaction sites.
`
`
`
`Independent claim 1 requires a sample collection unit for introducing a biological fluid in
`
`fluid communication with a plurality of reaction sites through which optical signals are detected.
`
`The cited disclosure of Parce does not teach a plurality of reaction sites through which optical
`
`signals are detected. By contrast, Parce discloses a single optical detection window for detecting the
`
`transit of fluorescent or other dyes.
`
`Claim 1 also requires a system of fluidic channels wherein at least one channel connecting a
`
`plurality of reaction sites comprises an optical barrier effective in reducing the amount of optical
`
`cross-talk between the plurality of reaction sites during detection of an analyte. The cited disclosure
`
`of Parce does not teach or suggest a channel connecting a plurality of reaction sites, let alone such a
`
`channel comprising an optical barrier effective in reducing the amount of optical cross-talk between
`
`the plurality of reaction sites during detection of an analyte. Parce teaches away from such a channel
`
`by highlighting the use of a single detection window over a channel. Nothing in the cited disclosure
`
`of Parce would motivate one skilled in the art to design a fluidic system in which an optical barrier is
`
`used to reduce optical cross—talk between a plurality of reaction sites during detection of an analyte.
`
`3508258_1.DOC
`
`Atty. Docket No. 30696-712201
`
`

`

`Appln. No.: 11/388,723
`Office Action Mailed September 5, 2008
`Office Action Reply Filed on December 5, 2008
`
`Because the combined teachings of Childers and Parce do not suggest all elements of
`
`independent claim 1, related dependent claims 2—11 and 21 can not be rendered obvious in View of
`
`such combinations. Applicants respectfully request withdrawal of this rejection.
`
`3508258_1.DOC
`
`Atty. Docket No. 30696-712201
`
`

`

`Appln. No.: 11/388,723
`Office Action Mailed September 5, 2008
`Office Action Reply Filed on December 5, 2008
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Applicants submit that this paper fully addresses the issues raised in the Office Action mailed
`
`on September 5, 2008. Applicants believe that the pending claims are under condition for
`
`allowance. Should the Examiner have any questions, the Examiner is encouraged to contact the
`
`undersigned attorney at (650) 565—3 808. The Commissioner is authorized to charge any additional
`
`fees which may be required, including petition fees and extension of time fees, to Deposit Account
`
`No. 23-2415 (Docket No. 30696-712201).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`By: % ?
`
`Elaine A. Kim
`
`Reg. No. 57,613
`
`Dated: DecemberS 2008
`
`
`
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304—1050
`
`(650) 493-9300
`Customer No. 021971
`
`350825 8_1.DOC
`
`Atty. Docket No. 30696-712201
`
`