Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/162,450

Biological Fluid Filtration System

Final Rejection §112§DP
Filed
Jan 29, 2021
Examiner
LYLE, SOPHIA YUAN
Art Unit
1796
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Astrin Biosciences, Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
78 granted / 137 resolved
-8.1% vs TC avg
Strong +57% interview lift
Without
With
+57.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
183
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
42.5%
+2.5% vs TC avg
§102
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
§112
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 137 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . Response to Amendment Applicant amendments filed 12/09/2025 have been entered. Applicant amendments overcomes the previous claim objection and 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 07/10/2025, the previous claim objection and 112(b) rejection are withdrawn. Applicant amendments overcomes the previous provisional double patenting rejections set forth in the Office Action mailed 07/10/2025, the previous provisional double patenting rejections are withdrawn. Status of Claims Claims 1-3, 8-16, 19-23, 26-27, 37-44, 46-53 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-3, 8-16, 19-20, 22-23, 26-27, 37-44, and 46-53 being examined and claim 21 being withdrawn pursuant to the election filed 01/05/2024. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1-3, 8-16, 19-20, 22-23, 26-27, 37-44, and 46-53 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. Claim 1 recites “wherein the control unit is configured to control the valve to: (a) identify the presence of a tumor cell in the biological fluid when the one or more characteristics of the healthy cell are not recognized in the scanned data” on lines 16-18, where it is not seen in the instant specification where there is support for this limitation. On page 21 lines 13-22 does describe that the control unit is in communication with the scanner and valve, where the control unit is configured to receive scanned data from the scanner and to control the valve based on the scanned data and thus direct the biological fluid depending on if the undesirable constituent is present or not. However, it is not seen in the instant specification where there is support for the valve identifying the presence of a tumor cell in the biological fluid. Claims 2-3, 8-16, 19-20, 22-23, 37-42, 48-50, 52-53 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim. Claim 26 recites “wherein the control unit is configured to control the valve to: (a) indicate the presence of a circulating tumor cell (CTC) in the biological fluid when the one or more characteristics of the healthy cell are not recognized” on lines 17-20 where it is not seen in the instant specification where there is support for this limitation for similar reasons described above. It is not seen in the instant specification where there is support for the valve indicating the presence of a circulating tumor cell in the biological fluid. Claims 27, 43-44, 46-47, and 51 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim. 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 1-3, 8-16, 19-20, 22-23, 26-27, 37-44, and 46-53 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. Claim 1 recites “wherein the control unit is configured to control the valve to: (a) identify the presence of a tumor cell in the biological fluid when the one or more characteristics of the healthy cell are not recognized in the scanned data” on lines 16-18, where it is unclear how a valve would be identifying the presence of a tumor cell. Claim 1 has a scanner that is configured to scan the biological fluid that produces scanned data, where the scanner and valve are connected to a control unit. However, the valve is only described to have an inlet, first and second outlet, and is configured to direct the biological fluid. It is unclear how the valve will identify the presence of a tumor cell. Please see 112(a) rejection above where it is not seen in the instant specification where there is support for this limitation. Claims 2-3, 8-16, 19-20, 22-23, 37-42, 48-50, 52-53 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim. Claim 26 recites “wherein the control unit is configured to control the valve to: (a) indicate the presence of a circulating tumor cell (CTC) in the biological fluid when the one or more characteristics of the healthy cell are not recognized” on lines 17-20, where it is unclear how a valve would be indicating the presence of a circulating tumor cell. Claim 26 does have a scanner that is configured to scan the biological fluid and produce scanned data, where the scanner and valve are connected to a control unit. However, the valve is only described to have an inlet, first and second outlet, and is configured to direct the biological fluid. It is unclear how the valve will indicate the presence of CTCs. Please see 112(a) rejection above where it is not seen in the instant specification where there is support for this limitation. Claims 27, 43-44, 46-47, and 51 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim. Claim 46 recites “a tumor cell.” on line 2, where it is unclear if this tumor cell is the same or different from the circulating tumor cell described on line 18 of claim 26. For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same. It is suggested to amend claim 46 to recite “[[a]] the circulating tumor cell.” Claim 48 recites “a tumor cell.” on line 2, where it is unclear if this tumor cell is the same or different from the tumor cell described on line 17 of claim 1. For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same. It is suggested to amend claim 48 to recite “[[a]] the tumor cell.” Claim 52 recites “wherein the reference data comprise one or more characteristics of two or more healthy cell types.” where it is unclear if the two or more healthy cell types includes the healthy cell described in claim 1. Claim 53 recites “wherein the reference data comprise one or more characteristics of only healthy cell types.” where it is unclear if the healthy cell types are the same or different from the healthy cell described in claim 1. Response to Arguments Applicant arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered. Due to amendments filed 12/09/2025, the rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 07/10/2025 are withdrawn. However, new rejections under 112(a) and 112(b) are set forth above. 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 SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th. 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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571) 272-7129. 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. /S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796 /ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 29, 2021
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Jul 31, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2024
Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Oct 22, 2024
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 07, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Dec 09, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596132
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR ASCERTAINING SPECIMEN AND/OR SPECIMEN CONTAINER CHARACTERISTICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576562
LONG-TERM STORAGE AND PROPORTIONAL DISPENSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12498388
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR IMAGING SPECIMENS AND/OR SAMPLE CONTAINERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12496584
ASSAY DEVICE AND RECEIVING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12478960
SOLID STATE ION SELECTIVE ELECTRODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+57.1%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 137 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month