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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 06/22/26 regarding rejected claim 3, the new added limitation “the zeta potentiometer does not employ an external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces in zeta potential analysis” fails 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Current specification does not disclose what type of force is employed. In other words, beside forces of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces, there are many other forces could be employed in a zeta potentiometer. For example: a buoyant force, a gravitational force, atomic force, mass force, van der Waals forces, diffusiophoresis force, mechanical force ... If the current Applicants’ zeta potentiometer does not employ an external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces in zeta potential analysis, then what type of force that current Applicants’ zeta potentiometer is employed?
For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follow: any of the following forces could be employed in current Applicants’ zeta potentiometer: a buoyant force, a gravitational force, atomic force, mass force, van der Waals forces.
Appropriate correction is required.
2. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/26 has been entered.
4. 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.
5. Claims 3-12, 14, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
6. Regarding to claim 3, the new added limitation “the zeta potentiometer does not employ an external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces in zeta potential analysis”, and claim 14 discloses “the zeta potentiometer does not employ [an] external forces in the zeta potential analysis”. These limitations fail 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Current specification does not disclose what type of force is employed. In other words, beside external forces of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces, there are many other forces could be employed in a zeta potentiometer. For example: a buoyant force, a gravitational force, atomic force, mass force, van der Waals forces, diffusiophoresis force, mechanical force ... If the current Applicants’ zeta potentiometer does not employ external forces in zeta potential analysis as disclosed in the claims, then what type of force that current Applicants’ zeta potentiometer is employed?
For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follow: any of the following forces could be employed in current Applicants’ zeta potentiometer: a buoyant force, a gravitational force, atomic force, mass force, van der Waals forces, diffusiophoresis force, mechanical force ...
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim(s) 3, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Sharpe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,757,726) in view of Mavliev (U.S. Pat. No. 10,241,024) or Hammond et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0118708) or in view of Avesar (WO 2018150414). Hereafter “Sharpe”, “Mavliev”, “Hammond”, “Avesar”.
Regarding Claims 3, Sharpe teaches a zeta potentiometer (figures 1, 3A, 5, 7, 22, are not
different from zeta potentiometer) comprising:
at least one flow channel (figure 1, flow channel 18);
at least one light source for illuminating the flow channel (figure 1, radiation source 30,
flow channel 18);
an imaging device positioned to observe the illuminated flow channel (figures 1, 22, flow
channel 18, detector 56 is not different from an imaging device); and
a sample storage location adapted to provide sample to the at least one flow channel
(figure 1, sample storage 14).
However, Sharpe does not teach that the zeta potentiometer does not employ an external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces in zeta potential analysis. Mavliev teaches the zeta potentiometer not employ an external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces in zeta potential analysis, (figures 4, 5, pumps 402, 404, particle Monitoring System 100. There is no external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces. Please see 112(a) rejection in paragraphs 5-6 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sharpe by not employ an external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces in zeta potential analysis in order to deliver sample with mechanism device (figures 4, 5, pumps 402, 404, particle Monitoring System 100).
Moreover, Hammond also teaches the zeta potentiometer does not employ an external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces in zeta potential analysis, ([0060], lines 13-17, “if the electric field force Fe is also zero, then the only other forces acting on the bacterium are buoyancy and gravity; under such circumstances”. Buoyancy and gravity are different from an external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces. Please see 112(a) rejection in paragraphs 5-6 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sharpe by not employ an external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces in zeta potential analysis in order to process analysis in specific circumstances (Hammond, [0060], lines 13-17).
Further, Avesar also teaches the zeta potentiometer does not employ an external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces in zeta potential analysis, ([0066]. Note: “various forces, e.g., one or more of surface tension or Laplace pressure, adhesive forces, and ambient pressure”. These forces are different from an external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces in zeta potential analysis. Please see 112(a) rejection in paragraphs 5-6 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sharpe by not employ an external force of a magnetic field, an electric field, or electro-acoustic forces in zeta potential analysis in order to process analysis a specific force, (Avesar, [0066]).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Sharpe as modified by Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar teach the zeta potentiometer according to claim 3 as stated above except for the sample storage location resides above the at least one flow channel. Sharpe further teaches the sample storage location resides above the at least one flow channel (figure 1, sample storage 14 resides above flow channel 18).
Regarding Claim 8, Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar, teaches the sample storage location defines an area (figure 1, sample reservoir 106-1 location defines an area). However, Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar, does not teach area of 100µm. The selection of 100µm or similar range is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate area for the benefit of well operated for the system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Sharpe as modified by Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar teach the zeta potentiometer according to claim 3 as stated above except for at least one flow channel comprises a solute concentration gradient. Sharpe further teaches at least one flow channel comprises a solute concentration gradient (figure 1, it is inherent that sample inlet 48 with sheath source 16, and flow channel 18 create a solute concentration gradient).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, 12, Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar, teach all the limitations of claims 3, 9, as stated above except for pressure measurement ports in fluid communications with the at least one channel, and the at least one flow channel is connected to two main channels. Sharpe further teaches at least one flow channel is connected to two main channels, and the two main channels have differing flow rates of solute (figure 1, flow channel 18 is connected to two main channels 22, 24. It is inherent that flow channel 18 and two channel 22, 24, must have differing flow rates of solute).
Further, as indicated in previous office action, Avesar also teaches at least one flow channel is connected to two main channels, and the two main channels have differing flow rates of solute (figure 1, chamber 60 is not different from flow channel, and is connected to two main channels 80, 115, 125; [0057, 0058]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar, by having at least one flow channel is connected to two main channels in order to provide fluid efficiently (Avesar, [0057, 0058]).
Regarding Claim(s) 14 Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar, teach all the limitations of claim 3 as stated above except for the zeta potentiometer does not employ an external force in the zeta potential analysis. Mavliev teaches the zeta potentiometer does not employ an external force in the zeta potential analysis, (figures 4, 5, pumps 402, 404, particle Monitoring System 100. There is no external force, and forces of pumps 402, 404, could be considered as internal forces. Please see 112(a) rejection in paragraphs 5-6 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sharpe, Hammond, Avesar, by not employ an external force in zeta potential analysis in order to deliver sample with mechanism device (figures 4, 5, pumps 402, 404, particle Monitoring System 100).
Moreover, Hammond also teaches the zeta potentiometer does not employ an external force in the zeta potential analysis, ([0060], lines 13-17. “if the electric field force Fe is also zero, then the only other forces acting on the bacterium are buoyancy and gravity; under such circumstances, settling should occur”. Buoyancy force is different from an external force, and could be considered as internal force. Please see 112(a) rejection in paragraphs 5-6 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sharpe, Mavliev, Avesar, by not employ an external force in zeta potential analysis in order to process analysis in specific circumstances (Hammond, [0060], lines 13-17).
Further, Avesar also teaches the zeta potentiometer does not employ an external force in the zeta potential analysis, ([0066]. Note: “various forces (e.g., one or more of surface tension or Laplace pressure, adhesive forces, and ambient pressure”. These forces are different from an external force, and could be considered as internal force. Please see 112(a) rejection in paragraphs 5-6 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, by not employ an external force in zeta potential analysis in order to process analysis a specific force, (Avesar, [0066]).
9. Claim(s) 7, 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Sharpe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,757,726) in view of Mavliev (U.S. Pat. No. 10,241,024) or Hammond et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0118708), or Avesar (WO 2018150414), further in view of JP 2006523127 (JP2006523127). Hereafter “Sharpe”, “Mavliev”, “Hammond”, “Avesar”, “JP2006523127”. (Please see attached files for reference of JP2006523127 in previous office action).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Sharpe, as modified by Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar teach the zeta potentiometer according to claim 3 as stated above except for hydrostatic pressure drives sample flow into the at least one flow channel. Sharpe further teaches hydrostatic pressure drives sample flow into the at least one flow channel (column 17, lines 21-28). Further, as indicated in previous office action, JP2006523127 also teaches hydrostatic pressure drives sample flow into the at least one flow channel (page 9, lines 13-14. BTT Brain Temperature Tunnel is not different from a flow channel). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar, by having hydrostatic pressure in order to deliver substance to the BTT location.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar, teach all the limitations of claim 3 as stated above except for pressure measurement ports in fluid communications with the at least one channel. JP2006523127 teaches pressure measurement ports in fluid communications with the at least one channel, (page 11, lines 50-51; Page 12, lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar by having pressure measurement ports in fluid communications with the at least one channel in order to measure fluid pressure (JP2006523127, page 11, lines 50-51; Page 12, lines 1-2).
10. Claim(s) 4, 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,757,726) in view of Mavliev (U.S. Pat. No. 10,241,024) or Hammond et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0118708), or Avesar (WO 2018150414), further in view of Elangovan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0328893). Hereafter “Sharpe”, “Mavliev”, “Hammond”, “Avesar”, “Elangovan”.
Regarding Claim 4, Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the imaging device comprises a microscope. Elangovan teaches imaging device comprises a microscope ([0016], lines 13-15; [0017], lines 1-6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar, by having a microscope in order to implement inspection system for viewing very small objects.
Regarding Claim 5, Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a light emitting diode. Elangovan teaches the light source comprises a light emitting diode ([0080], lines 14-16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Sharpe, Mavliev, Hammond, Avesar, by having a light emitting diode in order to implement inspection system with compact size and high efficiency.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
July 10, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights