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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/27/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 15-20 and 22-23 are pending and are examined. Claims 1-14 and 23 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies (“Formation of liposomes using a 3D flow focusing microfluidic device with spatially patterned wettability by corona discharge.” J Micromech. and Microengineering. 22. 2012; previously cited) in view of Mahmoudi (WO 2014/172504; previously cited), Tirumala et al. ("Corona discharges in sub-millimeter electrode gaps." J Electrostatics. 69: 36-42 (2011); previously cited), and Chawke (US Pub 2014/0111901).
Regarding Claim 15, Davies teaches a system for creating a water-in-oil (W/O) emulsion comprising:
a channel configured to receive a fluid (Fig. 1, channel in (A) and (B), To realize the designed device, we employed a two-step soft-lithography process to make a multi-level photoresist pattern with thicknesses of 20 and 30 µm so that when two identical PDMS molds were assembled, channels had heights of 40 and 60 µm.);
a corona emitting electrode disposed at a distance away from the channel and configured to emit a corona discharge (Next, the handheld corona generator with the standard electrode tip was held 3 mm from the channel outlet and the power level adjusted to the minimum level that produced a stable spark. The electrode was pointed directly into the opening and corona applied steadily for 3 s.); and
a source of water droplets in proximity to the corona emitting electrode so as to be configured to provide the water droplets in a space between the corona emitting electrode and the channel.
Davies is silent to a ground electrode disposed in the channel.
Mahmoudi teaches in the related art of corona discharge. [0018] In certain embodiments, step (a) includes providing an emitter electrode (e.g., sharp electrode) and a collector electrode, wherein at least the collector electrode (e.g., blunt electrode) is in physical contact with the mixture and a potential difference is applied between the emitter electrode and the collector electrode at or above a corona discharge threshold. [0019] In certain embodiments, the emitter electrode is not in physical contact with the mixture. [0022] In certain embodiments, the collector electrode is grounded. [0115] The grounded collector electrode is in contact with an oil/water (or other) emulsion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a ground electrode disposed in the channel, as taught by Mahmoudi, to the device of Davies, to allow for separating two or more phases of an emulsion or other mixture, as taught by Mahmoudi, in the Abstract.
Modified Davies is silent as to the corona emitting electrode and the ground electrode being spaced a horizontal distance (L) apart from one another, wherein L is up to 30 mm.
Tirumula teaches in the related art of corona discharges. Tirumula teaches, in the Abstract, electrode gaps between 0.3 mm to 5 mm. Reductions in the gap distance and wire diameter resulted in a significant increase in discharge currents.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the corona emitting electrode and the ground electrode spaced a horizontal distance (L) apart from one another, wherein L is up to 30 mm, in the device of modified Davies, as taught by Tirumula, to allow for controlling droplet size.
Modified Davies is silent to wherein an angle between the corona emitting electrode and the ground electrode is configured to form an emulsion.
Chawke teaches in the related art of charging fluids. See Abstract. [0046] FIGS. 3a through 3d illustrate a cross-shaped ionizing electrode 120 according to various embodiments. The cross-shaped ionizing electrode 120 may comprise a cross-shaped emitter plate 121 and five (5) emitter pins 125 connected to the emitter plate 121. The cross-shaped emitter plate 121 may comprise a first member 122 and a second member 124. The first member 122 and the second member 124 may intersect at a substantially 90-degree angle. The five (5) emitter pins 125 may be connected to a common side of the emitter plate 121, respectively positioned at the opposed ends of the first member 122, at the opposed ends of the second member 124, and at the intersection 127 of the first member 122 and the second member 124. FIG. 4 illustrates an ionizing electrode 120' comprising a cross-shaped emitter plate 121 and seven (7) emitter pins 125. [0047] The ionizing electrodes 120/120' illustrated in FIGS. 3a through 4 may comprise through-holes 128 positioned at opposed ends of the second member 124. The through-holes 128 may be configured to mount the ionizing electrode 120 in relation to other components of a fluid charging system, such as, for example, a fluid vessel, a ground electrode, fluid sampling devices, support structures, and the like. [0071] The fluid charging systems disclosed herein may be configured to provide charged fluid to a liquid bridge. For example, a fluid sampling device of a fluid charging system may be in fluid communication with a liquid bridge. In various embodiments, a liquid bridge may be configured to segment a charged fluid into droplets.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the emitting electrode and the ground electrode in the device of modified Davies, to be arranged at an angle, as taught by Chawke, to allow for the formation of droplets, as taught by Chawke, in [0071].
Regarding Claim 16, Davies teaches the system of claim 15.
Davies is silent to the corona emitting electrode is offset from the ground electrode.
Mahmoudi teaches in the related art of corona discharge. [0018] In certain embodiments, step (a) includes providing an emitter electrode (e.g., sharp electrode) and a collector electrode, wherein at least the collector electrode (e.g., blunt electrode) is in physical contact with the mixture and a potential difference is applied between the emitter electrode and the collector electrode at or above a corona discharge threshold. [0019] In certain embodiments, the emitter electrode is not in physical contact with the mixture. [0022] In certain embodiments, the collector electrode is grounded. In some embodiments, the collector electrode is biased with the same polarity above the ground level. In some embodiments, the emitter electrode energy is at +15kV, the collector electrode may be ground (0 kV) or the collector electrode can be biased by, e.g., +lkV.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have offset the corona emitting electrode and the ground electrode, as taught by Mahmoudi, in the device of Davies, to allow for separating two phases of a mixture, as taught by Mahmoudi in [0049].
Regarding Claim 17, Davies teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the corona emitting electrode is configured for relative movement with respect to a liquid phase in the channel (Figure 2. Novel oil-blocking technique for spatially selective hydrophilic surface modification of PDMS by corona discharge. (A) Oleic acid gradually fills the channel from the oil inlet until the advancing line of contact is pinned at the discontinuity. Scale bar denotes 100 µm. (B) Corona arc travels freely throughout unblocked outer channels, oxidizing the surfaces.).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Davies teaches the system of claim 15.
Modified Davies is silent to the channel is circular.
Regarding the channel is circular, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the channel in the device of modified Davies to be circular, so that the flow has a symmetrical pattern.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Davies teaches the system of claim 15.
Modified Davies is silent to a second corona emitting electrode and a second ground electrode, wherein the second ground electrode is in the channel, and wherein the second corona emitting electrode is disposed at a position offset from the second ground electrode by a distance that is lesser than a distance from the second corona emitting electrode to the ground electrode.
Tirumula teaches in the related art of corona discharge, electrodes and EHD flow. On page 2, A positive corona discharge generates ions near the sharp electrode which, driven by the electric field, drift towards the counter electrode. Along the way, their collisions with neutral air molecules transfer momentum, generating a bulk flow— an ionic wind (also called a corona or electric wind). In this work, fundamental experiments have been conducted to characterize and understand the physics of the discharge in multi-electrode configurations. Preliminary flow measurements suggest that this multi-electrode approach is inherently more efficient that the traditional two-electrode corona discharge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the corona emitting electrode and the ground electrode, as taught by Tirumula, in the device of modified Davies, to allow for enhancing the corona discharge, as taught by Tirumula.
In an alternative rejection, regarding the second corona emitting electrode and a second ground electrode and wherein the second ground electrode is in the channel, and wherein the second corona emitting electrode is disposed at a position offset from the second ground electrode by a distance that is lesser than a distance from the second corona emitting electrode to the ground electrode, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the corona emitting electrode and the ground electrode, in the device of modified Davies, wherein the second ground electrode is in the channel, and wherein the second corona emitting electrode is disposed at a position offset from the second ground electrode by a distance that is lesser than a distance from the second corona emitting electrode to the ground electrode, to allow for enhancing the corona discharge.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Davies teaches the system of claim 22.
Modified Davies is silent to comprising a second source of water droplets configured to provide water droplets in proximity to the second corona emitting electrode.
Regarding a second source of water droplets, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated a second source of water droplets (humidifier), in the device of modified Davies, to allow for more enhanced droplet formation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies (“Formation of liposomes using a 3D flow focusing microfluidic device with spatially patterned wettability by corona discharge.” J Micromech. and Microengineering. 22. 2012) in view of Mahmoudi (WO 2014/172504), Tirumala et al. "Corona discharges in sub-millimeter electrode gaps." J Electrostatics. 69: 36-42 (2011), and Chawke (US Pub 2014/0111901), and further in view of Srinivasan (US Pub 2007/0275415).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Davies teaches the system of claim 15.
Davies is silent to a power source configured to supply a differential potential to the corona emitting electrode.
Mahmoudi teaches in the related art of corona discharge. [0049] (c) a power source configured to apply a potential difference between the emitter electrode and the collector electrode at or above a corona discharge threshold, wherein a gaseous medium (e.g., nitrogen, oxygen, air, argon, helium, etc., or any combination/mixture thereof) is located between the emitter electrode and the mixture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a power source, as taught by Mahmoudi, to the device of Davies, to operate or power the device.
Modified Davies is silent to an amplifier.
Srinivasan teaches in the related art of droplets. Digital conditioning electronics (e.g., high input impedance amplifiers) can be used to interface with the potentiometric electrodes. [0544] The detection capabilities may be provided as one or more components of a sensor board. The sensor board may include one or more sensors. The sensor board may include additional electronic circuitry such as amplifiers, A/D converters, read-out circuits and the like for conditioning or amplifying the signal received from a droplet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an amplifier, as taught by Srinivasan, to the device of modified Davies, to allow for amplifying a signal from each droplet, as taught by Srinivasan, in [0544].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies (“Formation of liposomes using a 3D flow focusing microfluidic device with spatially patterned wettability by corona discharge.” J Micromech. and Microengineering. 22. 2012.), in view of Mahmoudi (WO 2014/172504), Tirumala et al. "Corona discharges in sub-millimeter electrode gaps." J Electrostatics. 69: 36-42 (2011), and Chawke (US Pub 2014/0111901), and further in view of Damak (US Pub 2018/0272358).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Davies teaches the system of claim 15.
Modified Davies is silent to the source of water droplets is a humidifier.
Damak teaches in the related art of collections of a species from water in the Abstract. [0161] Samples were placed 4 cm away from the outlet, perpendicularly to the axis, of two concentric cylinders (6.3 cm, 5 cm inner diameters) from which a uniform stream of fog was coming. Fog consisted in a cloud of air-suspended water droplets of radius 3.5 μm, generated using an ultrasonic humidifier (Air-O-Swiss AOS 7146) delivering a volume rate of up to 0.1 L/hour.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a humidifier, as taught by Damak, as the source of water droplets in the device of modified Davies, to allow for generating water droplets, as taught by Damak in [0161].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 4/27/26, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither the prior art of Davies nor Mahmoudi teaches or suggest a horizontal spacing between the corona emitting electrode and the found electrode of up to 30 mm. Applicant argues that the Rule 132 declaration establishes the criticality of the horizontal spacing between the corona emitting electrode and the found electrode of up to 30 mm.
In response, the examiner notes that the prior art of Tirumala teaches corona discharges in electrode gaps from 0.3 mm to 5 mm which is within the range of up to 30 mm. See Abstract. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE BRAZIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/JB/
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights