Ask Patents is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the patent system. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

CALL FOR PRIOR ART. Can you find better art doe this patent that claims novelty based on a comparison of device output with a known constant?

U.S. Patent No. 7,888,125 (Theranos) Filed March 24, 2006 Priority May 9, 2005.

Claim 1 recites -

  1. A method of improving the accuracy of calibrating a fluidic system, comprising:

a) providing a system for detecting an analyte in a bodily fluid from a subject comprising a fluidic device for providing said bodily fluid, said fluidic device having a calibration assembly and a reader assembly for detecting the presence of said analyte;

b) measuring one or more parameters that are fitted to a calibration curve associated with said fluidic device;

c) comparing said one or more parameters with predetermined parameters associated with said fluidic device;

d) adjusting a signal output from the fluidic device by multiplying a ratio of said predetermined parameters to said one or more parameters, wherein the ratio is selected from the group consisting of: a ratio of maximum signal level during factory calibration to maximum signal level measured within the assay, and a ratio of minimun signal level during factory calibration to minimum signal level measured within an assay.

FOR this University battle I’ll pit Duke and one of their then PHD student’s thesis (which results in a company Advanced Liquid Logics bought by Illumina) against Stanford and one of their drop outs (who has a company Theranos).

CAN you find better prior art than Duke’s–

Srinivasan, et al., Droplet-based microfluidic lab-on-a-chip for glucose detection, Analytica Clinica Acta 507 (2004), 145-50.

“Amicrofluidic lab-on-a-chip (LoC) platform for in vitro measurement of glucose for clinical diagnostic applications is presented in this paper. The LoC uses a discrete droplet format in contrast to conventional continuous flow microfluidic systems. The droplets act as solution-phase reaction chambers and are manipulated using the electrowetting effect. Glucose is measured using a colorimetric enzyme-kinetic method based on Trinder’s reaction. The color change is detected using an absorbance measurement system consisting of a light emitting diode and a photodiode. The linear range of the assay is 9–100 mg/dl using a sample dilution factor of 2 and 15–300 mg/dl using a sample dilution factor of 3.”

“The voltage V(t) is directly proportional to the light intensity incident on the photodiode and is related to the absorbance by the following equation: A(t) = ln {(V0 – Vdark) / (V(t) – Vdark)} (5) V0 corresponds to zero absorbance (or 100% transmittance), and Vdark corresponds to the voltage output of the photodiode under dark conditions. The rate of the change of absorbance dA(t)/dt is equivalent to the reaction rate, and is related to the glucose concentration by Eq. (3).” (equation edited to conform).

share|improve this question

There are about 100 references listed on the patent in question. It seems unlikely that this, or anything, is closer to the patent in question than one of them.

System and method for calibration of a flow device

WO 2006020870 A1

Priority date Aug 13, 2004

ABSTRACT Embodiments of the present invention provide a system (200) and method for rapid calibration of a flow device (30). A flow device can be provided with a calibration flow curve (e.g., represented by an nth degree polynomial) by the manufacturer or a third party. The calibration curve can be adjusted for a process fluid and the system for which the flow device is actually installed using one or more correction factors. The correction factors can be determined for the flow curve based on a simple empirical test or fluid properties of the process fluid. The corrected flow curve is then saved at the flow device so that it can be used for future flow control.

share|improve this answer
I'm not sure the reference you cited though would be considered as prior art. There is a corresponding US application, but ..Publication number WO2006020870 A1 Publication type Application Application number PCT/US2005/028741 Publication date Feb 23, 2006 Filing date Aug 12, 2005 Priority date Aug 13, 2004 – user3359 Jan 14 '14 at 19:47
Under 102(e) pre-AIA and under 102(a)2 post-AIA, the priority date from a U.S. provisional can be used to meet a prior art cut off date so the Aug. 13 2004 makes it fair game. – George White Jan 14 '14 at 20:23
As long as the provisional was later cited in a published application or granted patent. It is sometimes called "hidden" prior art because it may not be visible at the time of filing. – George White Jan 14 '14 at 21:11

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.