DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on March 4, 2022, and any subsequent filings.
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 .
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 following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
The reactor core element, plurality of fluid channels, and open-pore cellular network material as recited in Claims 1;
The pair of spacers as recited in Claim 6;
The plurality of reactor core elements as recited in Claim 8;
The reactor core elements connected in parallel as recited in Claim 9;
The reactor core elements connected in series as recited in Claim 10;
The plurality of fluid channels and open-pore cellular network material as recited in Claim 15;
The reactor core elements recited in Claim 16;
The reactor core elements connected in parallel as recited in Claim 17;
The reactor core elements connected in series as recited in Claim 18;
The window of one of the at least two reactor core components is serially connected with a window of another of the at least two reactor core components as recited in Claim 23;
The reactor core element, plurality of fluid channels, and open-pore cellular network material as recited in Claim 24;
The reactor core elements recited in Claim 28;
The reactor core elements connected in parallel as recited in Claim 29;
The reactor core elements connected in series as recited in Claim 30; and,
The reactor core element, at least one fluid channel within at least one reactor core element, and the least one fluid channel and into and through a primary fluid output manifold recited in Claim 34.
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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: an extra space appears between “spacers” and “between” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-35 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 a reactor core element having certain structural features yet the entirety of what constitutes a reactor core element is not defined by the claims, specification, or drawings.
Claim 1 recites length and width dimensions of the windows being larger than “corresponding” rector core element length and width dimensions yet what comprises that correspondence is not defined by the claims, specification, or drawings. Further, no point of reference given as to what axis with respect to the other structural components is considered the length and width dimensions. When combined with the lack of what constitutes the reactor core element more uncertainty is injected into the claims such that the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear.
Claim 1 recites a plurality of fluid channels extending through the reactor core element yet the lack of clarity as to what constitutes the reactor core element also makes the location of the fluid channels unclear.
Claim 1 recites “an open-pore cellular network material having a bi-continuous tortuous phase structure” yet nothing appears in the claims, specification, or drawings to define the actual structure being claimed.
Claim 8 recites that the reactor core element is a reactor core stack yet the reactor core stack appears as different structures in at least Figures 2A, 4, and 13 rendering both the reactor core stack and reactor core element limitations indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "two or more of the reactor core elements" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the plurality of reactor core elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites two or more reactor core elements that connect in parallel yet given the lack of clarity of what constitutes a reactor core element, how two indefinite structures maybe connect in parallel also lacks clarity.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "two or more of the reactor core elements" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the plurality of reactor core elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites two or more reactor core elements that connect in series yet given the lack of clarity of what constitutes a reactor core element, how two indefinite structures maybe connect in series also lacks clarity.
Claim 15 recites a plurality of reactor core stacks yet the reactor core stack appears as different structures in at least Figures 2A, 4, and 13 rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 15 recites length and width dimensions of the windows being larger than “corresponding” rector core stack length and width dimensions yet what comprises that correspondence is not defined by the claims, specification, or drawings nor is any point of reference given as to what axis with respect to the other structural components is considered the length and width dimensions.
Claim 15 recites “an open-pore cellular network material having a bi-continuous tortuous phase structure” yet nothing appears in the claims, specification, or drawings to define the actual structure being claimed.
Claim 16 recites that at least one reactor core stack is a reactor core element yet the reactor core stack yet in light of Claim 8 which recites the exact opposite that the reactor core element is a reactor core stack and that the reactor core element appears as different structures in at least Figures 2A, 4, and 13, both the reactor core stack and reactor core element limitations indefinite.
Claim 17 recites two or more reactor core elements that connect in parallel yet given the lack of clarity of what constitutes a reactor core element, how two indefinite structures maybe connect in parallel also lacks clarity.
Claim 18 recites two or more reactor core elements that connect in series yet given the lack of clarity of what constitutes a reactor core element, how two indefinite structures maybe connect in series also lacks clarity.
Claim 24 recites a method for “compositionally changing a primary input fluid” yet nothing recited in the claim indicates any compositional change rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 24 recites a reactor core element having certain structural features yet the entirety of what constitutes a reactor core element is not defined by the claims, specification, or drawings.
Claim 24 recites “an open-pore cellular network material having a bi-continuous tortuous phase structure” yet nothing appears in the claims, specification, or drawings to define the actual structure being claimed.
Claim 24 recites “a reactor core element having“ “at least one side of the window is larger in width and length than the reactor core element” yet how a structural element may have a dimension larger than itself is not clear.
Claim 25 recites a reactor core stack yet the reactor core stack appears as different structures in at least Figures 2A, 4, and 13 rendering both the limitation indefinite.
Claim 27 recites a reactor core stack yet the reactor core stack appears as different structures in at least Figures 2A, 4, and 13 rendering both the limitation indefinite.
Claim 28 recites a reactor core stack including two or more reactor core elements yet in light of Claim 8 which recites the reactor core element is a reactor core stack and that the reactor core element appears as different structures in at least Figures 2A, 4, and 13, both the reactor core stack and reactor core element limitations indefinite.
Claim 28 recites two or more reactor core elements that connect in parallel yet given the lack of clarity of what constitutes a reactor core element, how two indefinite structures maybe connect in parallel also lacks clarity.
Claim 29 recites a reactor core stack including two or more reactor core elements yet in light of Claim 8 which recites the reactor core element is a reactor core stack and that the reactor core element appears as different structures in at least Figures 2A, 4, and 13, both the reactor core stack and reactor core element limitations indefinite.
Claim 30 recites two or more reactor core elements that connect in series yet given the lack of clarity of what constitutes a reactor core element, how two indefinite structures maybe connect in series also lacks clarity.
Claim 34 recites a reactor core element yet what constitutes a reactor core element is not defined by the claims, specification, or drawings.
Claim 34 recites a fluid channel within the reactor core element yet the lack of clarity as to what constitutes the reactor core element also makes the location of the fluid channel unclear.
Claim 34 recites the primary input fluid is compositionally changed yet does not recite the steps or acts that perform this function.
Claim 34 recites the secondary input fluid is compositionally changed yet does not recite the steps or acts that perform this function.
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Prior Art Rejections
Although an attempt has been made to determine the scope and meaning of the claimed invention, the indefinite limitations are fundamental to understanding the claims and prevent a thorough search of the prior art based upon any cognizable technical features and limitations in the art. Further, "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art," MPEP 2173.06(II).
Although no rejections based upon the prior art have been made, this does not mean that the prior art does not disclose the intended definite claims. From the limited understanding of the claimed invention and the international search report in PCT/US2020/0494866, which may or may not be correct, the following prior art appears to disclose, either alone or in combination, the claims of the instant application: Lathuilière, et al., “Encapsulated Cellular Implants for Recombinant Protein Delivery and Therapeutic Modulation of the Immune System,” Int’l. J. of Molecular Sci., 16:12, 10578-600, 2015; Billy, European Publication No. EP0599714A1; Palti, U.S. Publication No. 2014/0088725; Palti, International Publication No. WO 2013/041950A1; Palti, U.S. Patent No. 9,138,522; and, Palti, U.S. Patent No. 9,827,534.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights