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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, and 21-24, in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that Group II should be rejoined with elected Group I because Groups I and II are directed to a product and a method of using said product. This is not found persuasive because the restriction was made under PCT Rule 13.1 applying PCT Rule 13.2. Although the groups of invention shared common technical feature of a packed bed of particles for separation of microparticles and/or nanoparticles from a liquid suspension, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art. Applicant did not argue that the restriction erred in relying upon US 2019/0056302 to show the common technical feature is known in the art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the reference numbers mentioned in the description: [0066] in instant specification mention several reference numbers in describing Fig. 1. However, none of the reference numbers are shown in the figure. 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. 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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 recites “m(Currently amended) aterial properties”. The correct phrasing should be “material properties”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2019/0056302 to Berezin et al. (hereinafter “Berezin”).
With respect to claim 1, Berezin discloses an acoustic separation device (see [0080])comprising:
a flow passage through which can be directed a liquid suspension supporting microparticles and/or nanoparticles therein (see [0108]);
at least one pillar array situated within the flow path and oriented perpendicular to the inflow direction (equivalent to claimed “at least one packed bed of particles physically retained within the flow passage through which can pass therethrough the liquid suspension”) (see [0109]-[0116]); and
a standing acoustic wave generating device such as an ultrasonic actuation (equivalent to claimed “an ultrasonic actuation system for mechanically activating at least one packed bed during passage therethrough of the liquid suspension (see [0108] & [0119]).
With respect to claim 2, Berezin discloses the pillar array is uniformly sized (see [0109]).
With respect to claim 3, Berezin discloses the pillar arrays (see [0109]).
With respect to claim 5, Berezin discloses PMMA beads (see [107]).
With respect to claim 7, Berezin discloses particles having a dimension measured in micrometers (see [104]).
With respect to claim 10, Berezin discloses operation of the actuator is optimized within specific frequency ranges in order to match the cavity resonances, and depends on the dimensions of and the materials used for fabrication of the reservoirs and the array structure as well as the acoustic properties of the operating fluid (see [0100]).
With respect to claims 21-23, Berezin discloses a longitudinal standing bulk acoustic wave (LSBAW) structure, trap, or enrichment structure that locally augments a pressure field to retain particles at a single predefined location along a channel (see [0029]). The acoustic separation device comprises microchannels (see [0084]). Pillar arrays form LSBAW (see [0109]).
With respect to claim 24, Berezin discloses ultrasonic actuation device is a piezoelectric transducer (see [0099]).
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.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0056302 to Berezin et al. (hereinafter “Berezin”).
The disclosure of Berezin is as discussed above.
With respect to claims 9 and 11, Berezin does not explicitly disclose where (i) each packed bed is formed from particles of different shapes, dimensions, and/or material properties and (ii) each packed bed is mechanically actuated at a different resonance frequency, and or a different power level. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing instant claimed invention to recognize that in employing plurality of packed beds, each packed bed may contain particles of different shapes, dimension and/or material properties to achieve higher separation performance than a single, uniformed packed bed. Additionally, one skilled in the art recognizes utilizing different resonance frequency for each packed bed containing different particles sizes since which would result in improved separation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IN SUK C BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
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.
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights