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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 15, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that applicant has amended the claims. However, applicant has not addressed all of the prior 112 rejections. The amendments are insufficient to overcome all 112 issues. The formatting and language employed in the claims is awkward, ambiguous, vague and confusing. See rejections herein.
Applicant has not addressed each of the prior rejections. For example, applicant has not indicated any structural distinction between the entire processing chamber and at least one elongated segment.
As to claim 21 applicant asserts:
“The elongated segment is now structurally delimited. The "top surface" and "bottom surface" find support for example at page 10, last line and page 13, line 9 . Besides, these terms are equivalent to the "upper wall 10" and "lower wall 12" recited at page 13, lines 23-24 and page 24, lines 3-9, in relationship with Figure 2 of the specification as filed.
The structure of the "input seeding tree" is further clarified. Actually, this tree is defined by the substructures - i.e., channels - and their junctions that constitute the tree. A definition of the tree based on a strict hierarchically ordered succession of branches and levels would lead to a narrow definition. Indeed, the tree connectivity in the claims is not particularly limited, except for the fact that an originating root is divided progressively in branches then leaves opening into the elongated segment, which is a well-accepted definition for a tree in fluidic structures. Figures 1, 3-5 give further evidence of the "input seeding tree" construction.
The structure of the "output seeding tree" is clarified similarly.
In addition, the "seeding tree" is defined functionally. It is agreed that the term "seeding" is not intrinsically meaningful. But the term "seeding" defines the function expected by the seeding tree, i.e., allowing a flow from the input seeding tree root to the output seeding tree root through the input seeding channels, then the elongated segment, then the output seeding tree... The functional definition includes structural features implicitly - for instance to define a continuous flow path from the input seeding tree root to the output seeding tree root - and Applicant believes that the combination of structural elements and functional feature give an appropriate and clear definition of the seeding tree.”
The examiner disagrees. It is unclear what the phrase “delimited by” is meant to modify…the elongated processing chamber or the at least one elongated segment because the claim does not clearly indicate such.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required by phrase “delimited by” because the phrase does not mean comprising. Therefore, it is unclear if such structures listed after “delimited by” are elements of the claimed invention or any element of the claimed invention (processing chamber or at least one elongated segment). As presently drafted, such structures (top surface, bottom surface, at least one output harvest channel, at least one input harvest channel, first side, and second side, input seeding tree, and output seeding tree) are not positively claimed as being elements of the processing chamber nor at least one elongated segment. If applicant intends for the chamber and elongated segment to comprise specific structures, then the claim should clearly recite such.
It is noted that reciting that a positively claimed element is connected to a structure not previously claimed (an input/output seeding tree) does not require the latter to be structural elements of the invention. Applicant should either previously list such seeding trees as elements or as being elements of a specific claimed then and then recite what elements are connected to such seeding trees or list the seeding trees as elements by reciting such as “an input seeding connected to the first side; the input seeding tree comprises…” to clearly indicate that the seeding trees are elements of the invention.
As to applicant statement that “a definition of the tree based on a strict hierarchically ordered succession of branches and levels would lead to a narrow definition. Indeed, the tree connectivity in the claims is not particularly limited, except for the fact that an originating root is divided progressively in branches then leaves opening into the elongated segment, which is a well-accepted definition for a tree in fluidic structures.” It is noted that such definition will not be read into the claims. The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed structures listed in the claim. There is no such definition provided for in the claims for literal parts of a literal tree/plant that indicate what structures (channels, junctions, or anything else) define a “root”, “trunk”, “branch”, “leaves”, etc. of any “tree”. There is no hierarchical progressive order of connectivity of any channels and junctions provided for in the claim. The claim states broadly and generally states: “the plurality of junctions forming the input seeding tree having a single input seeding tree root”.
Prior to such, the claim recites:
“a plurality of input seeding channels and a plurality of junctions, each input seeding channel having
a junction with another input seeding channel or
a junction with the at least one elongated segment, said junctions with the at least one elongated segment being distributed along the first side of the at least one elongated segment”.
It is noted that a plurality only requires 2. Therefore, there would be 2 channels and 2 junctions. As previously stated in the prior Office Action, hereby incorporated by reference, It is noted the term “or” is directed to alternative options. Therefore, only one of the options, alternatives has to be present. The first alternative would only require the 2 channels to be connected to each other and the second alternative would only require each of the 2 channels to be connected at junctions to the first side (but the 2 channels are not required to be connected to each other). Neither alternative provides for a “tree”; a sufficient number channels and junctions connected in a specified manner to that would define a “tree”. This is not consistent with the specification nor Figure 1.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by having a single input seeding root because such root is not defined as being any specific structure (channels and junctions) in the claim.
If applicant intends for the invention, device to comprise a tree defined by progressive hierarchical order of succession of channels and junctions, then the claims should clearly recite such. For example, such as
“a seeding input tree comprising:
a plurality of first pairs of first channels, wherein each channel of the plurality of first pairs are connected to each other at respective first junctions to the first side of the….
a plurality of second pairs of second channels, wherein each channel of the plurality of second pairs of channels is connected at respective second junctions to a pair of the plurality of first pairs of first channels; wherein the two second channels of each plurality of second pairs of second channels are connected to each other at respective third junctions….
or similar language that would clearly provide for a “tree” structure defined by a progressive order of connected channels and junctions that is consistent with Figure 1 and what it appears that applicant considers as a “tree”. The same is applicable to the output seeding tree.
As to applicant assertion that the term “seeding tree” defines functionality. The examiner disagrees. As noted above, no such tree is clearly structurally defined. Furthermore, the term is a “name” that applicant has chosen. There is no requirement for the tree to be seeded with anything nor for anything to flow into nor out of any tree. The terms “input” and “output” are directed to intended use. Just because a structure is labeled as an “input” does not preclude such from being used an output and vice versa. The claims are directed to a device defined by the positively claimed elements listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase “comprising”, not by any possible intended use of he device. There is no requirement for an owner, operator, possessor, etc. of the device to use the device in any method at all including that as may be intended by applicant.
The claims are rejected for reasons stated above and herein below.
Applicant asserts claim 37 is supported at page 32, lines 10-21 and claim 17 of the PCT. The examiner disagrees. The passage and claim only recites “gas chip (9) on the outer side of the gas permeable membrane (8) opposite from the processing chamber”. There is no mention of an outer side being opposite from any side of the membrane forming at least part of the top surface/or bottom surface. Therefore, the claim is directed to new matter. It is hereby request that applicant provide for the specific text of the specification that describes each of the respective claim amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the valves on the at least one harvest channel and on the at least one output harvest channel and on the input seeding tree and on the output seeding tree (claim 24) (the specification drawings do provide for any valves represented by any reference numerals nor labels) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
It is noted that the claims are directed to a device, not a process. Although the claims mention particles, cells, seeding flow, and harvest flow, such are not positively claimed as structural elements of the device. The device is not required to be used to “flow” anything including the undefined “seeding” and “harvest” flows.
A claim is only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus. The particles, cells, and seeding flow are considered to be materials and/or articles that can be and/or intended to be worked upon.
It is noted that the phrase “at least one” only requires the presence of one.
It is noted that term “plurality” only requires 2.
It is noted that the term “or” provides for alternatives. The phrase “and/or” also provides for alternatives and can be interpreted minimally as “or”.
It is noted that the terms “input”, “output”, “seeding” and “harvest” do not provide for any further structural elements, structural distinctions of the respective channels, flows, etc. that applicant has elected to name as such.
The device is not required to be used in any method at all including that as may be intended by applicant, with any undefined seeding and harvest flows.
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.
Claim 37 is 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.. The examiner fails to locate any description of the amendment of claim 37, said outer side being opposite from the side of the gas permeable membrane forming at least part of the top surface and/or the bottom surface of the elongated segment.
Claims 21-22, 24-26, 28-32, 34, and 37-41 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The examiner has attempted to identify all of the errors of the claims. However, the examiner requests that applicant correct any issues/errors that may have been inadvertently omitted by the examiner.
As to claim 21, it is unclear what is structurally meant by the phrases “delimited by” because it is unclear what the phrase modifies. See detailed explanation above in Response to Arguments. It is unclear if such structures listed after “delimited by” are elements of the claimed invention or element of the claimed invention (processing chamber or at least one elongated segment). As presently drafted such structures . (top surface, bottom surface, at least one output harvest channel, at least one input harvest channel, first side, and second side, input seeding tree, and output seeding tree) are positively claimed as being elements of the processing chamber nor elongated segment.
It is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the top surface, bottom surface, at least one output harvest channel, at least one input harvest channel, first side, and second side to each other because the claim does not provide for such. It is unclear how such unconnected structures can be considered as defining an elongated processing chamber or elongate segment of the processing chamber. A list of parts that are not required to be structurally connected do not define a single structure/device. Therefore, it is unclear how the claims as drafted are considered to define an elongated processing chamber or elongated chamber segment.
As to claim 21 it is unclear if applicant intends for the device to comprise an input seeding tree and an output seeding tree because reciting that a previously positively claimed structural element is connected to a structural element not previously positively claimed element does not require the latter to be a structural element of the invention. In other words, the phrases “connected to an input seeding tree” and “connected to an output seeding tree) do not require “an input seeding tree” and “an output seeding tree” to be a structural elements of the invention.
It is unclear what is structurally considered as “at least one elongated segment” of the elongated processing chamber because the claim does not definitively structurally define such. It is unclear what is the distinction between the entire elongated processing chamber and an elongated segment of the chamber because the claim does not provide for such. It is unclear if such are different or one in the same. There are no structurally boundaries, dimensions, etc. provided for in the claim to determine what is considered as “an elongated segment” of the chamber. Although the claim only requires the presence of one elongated segment, there are no structural boundaries provided for in the claim that distinguishes one segment from the entire elongated processing chamber and from any other segment of the elongated processing chamber (in the event that the processing chamber comprises more than one elongated segment). There is no indication as what are the boundaries of one elongated segment, where each segment begins and ends. It is noted that first and second sides are insufficient to define a segment of the elongated processing chamber that also comprises a plurality of side walls.
It is noted that the term “plurality” only minimally requires two. It is unclear how only 2 channels and 2 junctions would be considered a “tree”. See Response to Arguments above.
As to claim 21, it is unclear what/which input seeding channel(s) is/are being referenced by the phrase “each input seeding channel”. If this is intended refer to each of the plurality of input seeding channels, then the claim should clearly recite such.
It is unclear what is the nexus of each of “a junction” to the prior plurality of junctions. It is unclear if such “a junction” is amongst or different from the plurality of junctions because the claim does not clearly provide for such.
It is unclear what is the structural nexus of “another input seeding channel” to the prior plurality of seeding input channels (if such “another” is amongst the plurality of seeding input channels or different from such).
Claim 21 recites the limitation " said junctions with the at least one elongated segment being along the first side of the at least one elongated segment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the claim previously recites a plurality of junctions there is no recitation of a plurality junctions with the at least one elongated segment. Therefore, it is also unclear what is the nexus of “said junctions” with the plurality of junctions previously recited because the claim does not clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is noted that the at least one elongated segment has not been previously claimed as comprising a first side. Therefore, there is no prior basis for “the first side of the at least one elongated segment”.
As to claim 21, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the phrase “having a single input seeding tree root” because it is unclear is structurally considered as, defines a single input seeding tree root. It is further unclear what is the structural nexus, connectivity of such root to the prior plurality of channels and plurality of junctions of the seeding input tree because the claim does not provide for such.
As to claim 21, it is noted that the claim repeats the same language addressed above directed to the input seeding tree, input seeding channels, etc. except the language refers to “output seeding channels” and “output seeding tree”. The same rejections above are also applicable to the recitations directed to the “output seeding channels” and “output seeding tree”.
As to claim 21, it is unclear what/which output seeding channel is being referenced by the phrase “each output seeding channel”. If this is intended refer to each of the plurality of output seeding channels, then the claim should clearly recite such.
It is unclear what is the nexus of each of “a junction” to the prior plurality of junctions. It is unclear such “a junction” is amongst or different from the plurality of junctions because the claim does not clearly provide for such. Note the phrase “a plurality of junctions” is recited twice in the claim without any distinction from each other.
It is unclear what is the structural nexus of “another output seeding channel” to the prior plurality of seeding output channels (if such another is amongst the plurality of seeding output channels or different from such).
Claim 21 recites the limitation " said junctions with the at least one elongated segment being along the second side of the at least one elongated segment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim previously recites a plurality of junctions there is no recitation of a plurality junctions with the at least one elongated segment. Therefore, it is also unclear what is the nexus of “said junctions” with the plurality of junctions previously recited because the claim does not clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is noted that the at least one elongated segment has not been previously claimed as comprising a second side. Therefore, there is no prior basis for “the second side of the at least one elongated segment”.
As to claim 21, in the paragraph beginning with “the plurality of output seeding channels and the plurality of junctions…”, it is unclear what/which plurality of junctions are being referenced by “the plurality of junctions” because the claim previously recites “a plurality of junctions” twice.
As to claim 21, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the phrase “having a single output seeding tree root” because it is unclear what is structurally considered as, defines a single output seeding tree root because the claim does not recite such. It is further unclear what is the structural nexus, connectivity of such root to the prior plurality of channels and plurality of junctions of the seeding output tree because the claim does not provide for such.
As to claim 21, it is unclear what is structurally meant required by the phrase “wherein the input seeding channels tree and the output seeding tree are arranged facing each other on both sides of the at least one elongated segment” because the respective trees have not been defined as comprising any faces, surfaces, structure etc. that can be considered as facing each other.
Claim 21 recites the limitation " both sides of the at least one elongated segment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is presumed that “both sides” is intended to refer to the first side and the second side. It is presumed that the phrase “arranged on both sides” is meant for each of the respective plurality of input/output seeding channels to be respectively connected to each of the first and second sides. If so, then the claim should clearly recite such. In addition to the prior remarks, it is noted that no specific number of any specific channels are required to be connected to any side(s) of the processing chamber. However, it is noted that the at least one elongated segment has not been claimed as comprising a first side and a second side. It is noted that the “in order to allow…” clause is directed to intended use. As noted above, there is no requirement for the device to be used to flow anything in any direction in anything. Furthermore, as previously noted above, it is unclear what is structurally required to define the input seeding root and output seeding root and the connectivity of such to the plurality of input seeding channels, plurality of junctions, plurality of output seeding channels, and further plurality of junctions because the claim does not clearly recite such.
As to claim 21, in the “wherein…” paragraph, it is unclear which/what input seeding channel and output seeding channel, respectively are being referenced by “the input seeding channel” and “the output seeding channel” because the claim previously recites “a plurality of input seeding channels” and “a plurality of output seeding channels”.
It is noted that the “at least one input harvest channel” and “at least one output harvest channel” are not required to be connected to any specific element/location of the at least one elongated segment. Although harvest flow is not structure, there is no indication to how such is related to the at least one input harvest channel and at least one output harvest channel.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the top surface and/or the bottom surface of the at least one elongated segment of the processing chamber " in the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The at least one elongated segment has not been previously claimed as comprising a top surface and a bottom surface.
Dependent claims 22, 24-26, 28-32, 34, and 37-41 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "all harvest output harvest channels between the first node closest to the tree root of the output harvest tree…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No output harvest channels have been claimed more less being present between any node and any tree root. Claim 21 only recites “at least one output harvest channel”. If applicant intends to refer to such, then the claim should clearly recite such. Furthermore, there is no basis for any harvest channels being located between the first node closest to the tree root of the output harvest tree. There is no prior basis for “the node closest to…” because no node has been previously claimed nor structurally defined in the claims and no node has been mentioned as being closest to (compared to what….closer than what) any tree root of the output harvest tree. Furthermore, it is note that no output harvest tree has been previously claimed nor structurally defined in the claims, nor has any tree root of the output harvest tree been claimed and structurally defined in the claim. There is no prior antecedent basis for the entire phrase.
As to claim 22, it is unclear what/which segment is being reference by “the segment”. It is unclear what is the nexus of such to the “at least one elongated segment” because the claim does not provide for such.
As to claim 22, it is unclear which/what input harvest channel(s) is/are being referenced by “each input harvest channel”; “said input harvest channel”; and “the input harvest channels” because claim 21 previously only recites “at least one input harvest channel”. It is unclear what is the nexus of each of the phrases to the at least one input harvest channel because the claim does not provide for such.
Claim 22 recites the limitation " the sum…” and “the products…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The article “the” should be “a”. As noted above, the phrases “at least one output harvest channel” and “at least one input harvest channel” only requires one. There are no input harvest channels and output harvest channels previously claimed. Furthermore, it is unclear how there is “the sum for all output harvest channels” and “the sum of the volumes of the input harvest channels” because more than one output harvest channel and more than one input harvest channel have not been claimed as elements of the device.
As to claim 22, it is unclear what is structurally meant by, the recited ratio because such ratio is not clearly and definitively structurally defined relative to the prior positively claimed elements of the microfluidic device. It is unclear what are the variables W and Sj because such is not clearly defined in the claim as being any unit value of measurement (length, area, volume, etc.). Furthermore, it is unclear if “volume” is referring to volumetric capacity of such structures or volume of material/flow in the structures because the claim does not clearly recite such.
As to claim 24, it is unclear if multiple valves are located on each of the at least one input harvest channel, at least one output harvest channel, input seeding tree, and output seeding tree or if a single valve is located on each of the prior. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of such valves to the plurality of input seeding channels and plurality of junctions of the input seeding tree and the plurality of the output seeding channels and plurality of junctions of the output seeding tree because the claim does not provide such. It is noted that the phrase “on the …seeding tree” could mean on the respective plurality of channels and plurality of junctions of each respective tree. However, it is unclear how any valves can be on a junction. Furthermore, it is noted that such valves as claimed are not shown in the drawings.
As to claim 25, it is unclear what surface area of what structure of the elongated processing chamber the claim is being references because the claim does not provide for such. However, it is noted that one can select any portion (area) of a surface of the chamber that is greater than such value.
As to claim 26, it is unclear what is meant by “for each of the at least one elongated segment” because it has not been established that more than one elongated segment is present. The phrase is grammatically incorrect. It appears as if the phrase should read as for “the at least one elongated segment”. However, in view of how the claim is currently drafted, it is unclear what/which at least one elongated segment” is being referenced by the phrase “the at least one elongated segment” recited later in the claim. The language employed in the claim is not consistent and is confusing. The same is applicable to claims 28 and 31.
As to claim 26, as noted above, it is unclear what is the nexus of “two adjacent junctions” to the prior “a plurality of junctions” (recited twice in claim 21” and further “a junction” (recited 4 times in claim 21) because the claim does not provide for such.
Claim 26 recites the limitation " two adjacent junctions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such “two adjacent junctions” have been previously claimed. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required by the term “adjacent” because the term does not provide for any definitive structural nexus (structural connection, distance, nor definitive relative location) of any junctions. The term is relative, what may be considered as “adjacent” to one person may not be considered as such another. Furthermore, it is unclear how the device comprises “a pitch” if device is only required to comprise two junctions. In such case, such “pitch” is only a single distance between the two “adjacent” junctions.
As to claim 26, it is unclear which/what junctions are being referenced by the phrase “said junctions” because as noted above claim 21 recites numerous phrases directed to junctions such as in the phrases “a plurality of junctions” (recited twice in claim 21” and further “a junction” (recited 4 times in claim 21).
Furthermore, it is noted that any such two junctions with the at least one elongated segment is an alternative, option not a requirement. Therefore, the claim is conditional and is only further structurally limiting if such alternative is selected in reference to claim 21.
As to claim 28, see above rejection of claim 26 that is also applicable to claim 28. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “a traverse direction” because no relative basis is provided for in the claim. It is noted that any direction can be considered traverse relative to some other direction or object. As such it is unclear what cross section is being referenced. If applicant intends for the claim to refer to the traverse direction previously mentioned in claim 21, then the claim should recite such because “a traverse direction” is not required to be the same as that of claim 21. Furthermore, it is unclear which/what input seeding channels are being referenced because claim 21 recites a plurality of input seeding channels. Furthermore, it is unclear what cross section of such channels are being referenced because the claim does not provide for such. It is noted that an elongated segment of the elongated processing chamber and a channel has a plurality of cross sections (vertical, horizontal, diagonal, at specific angles, etc.). However, no specific cross section is provided for in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitations “the input seeding channels having a junction with the at least one elongated segment….” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are no such input seeding channels previously claimed as having a junction with the at least one elongated segment.
As to claim 29, as noted above, it is unclear what is structurally required to define a seeding tree because such is not structurally defined in the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural nexus, connectivity of the “at least two seeding trees” to the prior “a input seeding tree”, “input seeding tree root”; “a output seeding tree”; and “output seeding tree root” of claim 21 because the claim does not provide for such. It is further unclear which/what seeding trees are being referenced by the phrase “the seeding trees”. It is unclear if this is inclusive of or different from “the input seeding tree” and “the output seeding tree” because the claim does not clearly recite such.
As to claims 30 and 32, it is unclear which/what input seeding channel and output seeding channel are being reference by “any input seeding channel” and “any output seeding channel” because claim 21 recites a plurality of input seeding channels and a plurality of output seeding channel. Therefore, unclear what is the nexus of “any input seeding channel” and “any output seeding channel” to prior respective a plurality of such previously recited in claim 21. It is unclear if such are the same, inclusive or, or different because the claims do not clearly recite such. Furthermore, as noted above, any such junction with the at least one elongated segment (of the elongated processing chamber) is optional. It is unclear what is the structural nexus of the respective junctions recited in the various “a junction with…”clauses with the various “a plurality of junctions” (recited twice in claim 21” and further “a junction” (recited 4 times in claim 21) because the claims do not clearly recite such.
It is unclear if the a junction in claims 30 and 32 is the same or different from any of various, junctions recited in claim 21. Furthermore, the phrase “in direction” in claim 30 appears to be grammatical incorrect.
As to claim 30, it is unclear what is structurally required of a part of the processing chamber to be considered as an “upper part” because no relative basis is provided for to determine what is, structurally defines “an upper part of the processing chamber. Any part of the chamber can be considered as “upper” relative to something (a lower point, location, etc.).
As to claims 30-31, it is unclear what is the nexus of direction perpendicular to the top surface and height to the longitudinal direction recited in claim 21, if such are the same or different because the claims do not recite such.
As to claim 31, it is unclear which/what elongated segment is being referenced by the phrase “for each at least one elongated segment” because as previously stated in reference to the phrase as employed in claim 26. See rejection of claim 26 above that is also applicable to claim 31.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the side of the gas permeable membrane forming at least part of the top surface and/or the bottom surface of the at least one elongated segment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The gas permeable membrane has not been previously claimed as comprising any sides. No side of the gas permeable membrane has been previously claimed as forming at least part of the top surface and/or the bottom surface of the at least one elongated segment.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally meant by “opposite from the side forming at least part of the top surface or bottom surface of the elongated segment…” because the claim does not provide for such. Any two structures can be subjectively considered as being “opposite” of each other. However, the term “opposite” does provide for any structural connectivity nor definitive relative location.
As to claims 38, it is unclear which/what seeding and input harvest channel and output harvest channel are being referenced by phrases, “the input harvest channel” and “the output harvest channels…” because claim 21 recites “at least one input harvest channel” and “at least one output harvest channel”. Claim 38 is not consistent with such. Furthermore, it is noted that the claim does not specify who, what is required to collect particles Furthermore, it is unclear what is employed to block each of the input and output seeding trees in the recited steps. It is presumed to be that the trees are blocked by the valves. Therefore, the claim should clearly recite such. However, the claim does not specify if the channels and/or junctions are blocked. It is unclear what is the structural nexus of such valves to the plurality channels and plurality of junctions of the respective trees.
Claim 41 employs the same or similar language as claim 22 (rejected above) except for claim 41 recites input seeding channels rather than all output harvest channels and each/said/ the input harvest channel(s). However, the rejections of claim 22 are also applicable to claim 41.
As to claim 41, it is unclear which/what elongated segment, input seeding channel, is being referenced by “the elongated segment”; “the segment”; “all input seeding channels…”; “each input seeding channel”; “said input seeding channel”, and “the input seeding channels” because claim 21 previously recites “at least one elongated segment…” and “a plurality of input seeding channels”. It is unclear what is the nexus of the various phrases directed to input seeding channel to each other and the prior “a plurality of input seeding channels” recited in claim 21 because the claim does not clearly provide for such.
As to claim 41, it is unclear what is meant by “Vk is, for each input seeding channel taken between a first node closest to the input seeding tree root of the input seeding tree and the elongated segment, a volume of said input seeding channel” because of reasons previously stated above and the device is not claimed as comprising an first node that is structurally defined in the claim nor any other node such than any relative distance comparison can be determined as being closest to any structurally undefined input seeding tree root relative to any node or any other positively claimed element of the device. It is unclear if applicant intends for the device to comprise a node(s) and is structurally considered as a node because no node(s) is positively claimed and structurally defined.
Claim 41 recites the limitations “the sum, for all…”; “the products of..”; "the total volume"; “the sum of the volumes of the input seeding channels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LAURENT; Jérémie et al.; COLLINS; JOHN; Lim; Chwee Teck et al.; Quake; Stephen et al.; Dennis, JR.; Glynn et al.; Qin; Lidong et al.; and Xiong; Zhen et al. discloses a device including branched channels and junctions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571-272-1267. 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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights