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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/20/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/25/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
amend “the electromagnets of the second plurality” to read “the second plurality of electromagnets”
amend “the electromagnets of the first plurality” to read “the first plurality of electromagnets”
amend “electromagnets of the first and second pluralities” to read “the first plurality electromagnets and the second plurality of electromagnets”
amend “the magnetic beads” to read “the plurality of magnetic beads”
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the electromagnets” to read “the first plurality electromagnets and the second plurality of electromagnets”
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the electromagnets” to read “the first plurality electromagnets and the second plurality of electromagnets”
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
amend “the first plurality” to read “the first plurality of electromagnets”
amend “the second plurality” to read “the second plurality of electromagnets”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the electromagnets” to read “the first plurality electromagnets and the second plurality of electromagnets”
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
amend “the target location” to read “the target area”
amend “the electromagnets” to read “the first plurality electromagnets and the second plurality of electromagnets”
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Arnold et al. (US 2020/0011773).
Regarding claim 1, Arnold et al. teach:
1. A system (Abstract+) comprising:
a housing (e.g., 105, 205) capable of receiving a vessel (e.g., fluid container; see i.e., The fluid container 115 can generally comprise any type of container configured to hold a sample fluid, such as a sample well, a vial, a fluid reservoir, or the like, defining a fluid-containing chamber therein. As best shown in FIG. 1B, the exemplary fluid container 115 can extend from an open, upper end 115a (open to the ambient atmosphere) to a lower, closed end 115b such that the fluid within the fluid container 115 can be loaded into the open, upper end 115a and/or removed therefrom by one or more liquid loading/collection devices 135 (as shown in FIG. 1A). ¶ 0040; As shown the inner ends of the electromagnets 210a-d can be spaced apart from the central axis so as to receive a fluid container therebetween, which can also be disposed through the bore 218. ¶ 0053) containing a fluid sample (e.g., sample fluid) and a plurality of magnetic beads (e.g., 120) therein (see i.e., By way of example, fluids can be processed within a fluid container, such as an open fluid container (e.g., open to the ambient atmosphere, without a top cover), using magnetic particles disposed within the fluids. The magnetic particles can be configured to be agitated by a magnetic field generated by magnetic structures arranged adjacent to the fluid containers, for example, arranged in a two-dimensional array about the periphery of the fluid container. Based on the selective application of signals to the magnetic structures surrounding the fluid container, the magnetic particles may be influenced to rotate, spin, and/or move laterally side-to-side within the fluid so as to mix the fluid and/or capture target analytes rapidly and efficiently within the fluid, by way of non-limiting example. As noted above, the magnetic structures can be formed from a plurality of electromagnets disposed around the fluid container, with each electromagnet being individually controlled to generate a desired magnetic field within the fluid container effective to influence the magnetic particles disposed therein. ¶ 0011; see also ¶ 0038, 0040-0041 for example), the housing having a circumference and a height perpendicular to the circumference (see i.e., circumference and a height formed around the electromagnets 210 in Fig. 2 for example);
a first plurality of electromagnets (e.g., 110a-d; 210a-d) spaced evenly around the circumference of the housing at a height h1 (see i.e., For example, though electromagnets 110a-d of the layer 145a may be disposed such that their centerline extends toward the fluid container [...] ¶ 0048; As shown the inner ends of the electromagnets 210a-d can be spaced apart from the central axis so as to receive a fluid container therebetween, which can also be disposed through the bore 218. ¶ 0053; and Figs. 1B-2 for example);
a second plurality of electromagnets (e.g., 110e-h; 210e-h) spaced evenly around the circumference of the housing at a height h2 (see i.e., By way of example, the electromagnets 110e-h of layer 145 n may be oriented substantially orthogonally (or another non-zero angle) relative to the plane containing the centerline of the electromagnets 110a-d [...] ¶ 0048; Additionally, as shown in FIG. 2, the assembly 205 includes a lower magnetic structure 245b, which also includes four electromagnets 210e-h similar to those of the structure of the upper magnetic structure 245a. ¶ 0055; and Figs. 1B-2 for example), the second plurality of electromagnets being equal in number to the first plurality of electromagnets (i.e., 110a-d & 110e-h; 210a-d & 210e-h), the electromagnets of the second plurality offset from the electromagnets of the first plurality around the circumference of the housing (see i.e., Moreover, the magnetic structure of each layer 145a-n need not be identical. For example, though electromagnets 110a-d of the layer 145 a may be disposed such that their centerline extends toward the fluid container, in some aspects the electromagnets of the other layer 145n can have a different configuration. By way of example, the electromagnets 110e-h of layer 145n may be oriented substantially orthogonally (or another non-zero angle) relative to the plane containing the centerline of the electromagnets 110a-d, as discussed in detail below. The magnetic structures 145a-n can be formed from a plurality of electromagnets disposed around the fluid container at one or more different vertical heights, with each electromagnet being individually controlled to generate a desired magnetic field within the fluid container effective to influence the magnetic particles disposed therein. ¶ 0048-0049; Moreover, though each of the electromagnets 210a-d is substantially vertically aligned with one of the electromagnets 210e-h, it will be appreciated that the electromagnets of each layer can be offset relative to one another [...] ¶ 0055);
a controller (e.g., 125) capable of selectively energizing electromagnets of the first and second pluralities in sequence capable of causing the magnetic beads to circulate in the vessel (see ¶ 0007-0008, and i.e., The magnetic structures may be formed as a plurality of electromagnets configured to be individually actuated by a controller Abstract; By way of example, fluids can be processed within a fluid container, such as an open fluid container (e.g., open to the ambient atmosphere, without a top cover), using magnetic particles disposed within the fluids. The magnetic particles can be configured to be agitated by a magnetic field generated by magnetic structures arranged adjacent to the fluid containers, for example, arranged in a two-dimensional array about the periphery of the fluid container. Based on the selective application of signals to the magnetic structures surrounding the fluid container, the magnetic particles may be influenced to rotate, spin, and/or move laterally side-to-side within the fluid so as to rapidly and efficiently mix the fluid and/or capture target analytes within the fluid, by way of non-limiting example. As noted above, the magnetic structures can be formed from a plurality of electromagnets disposed around the fluid container, with each electromagnet being individually controlled to generate a desired magnetic field within the fluid container effective to influence the magnetic particles disposed therein. ¶ 0011; With reference again to FIG. 1A, the exemplary fluid processing system 100 additionally includes a controller 125 operatively coupled to the magnetic structure 105 and configured to control the magnetic fields produced by its electromagnets. In various aspects, the controller 125 can be configured to control one or more power sources (not shown) configured to supply an electrical signal to the plurality of electromagnets. In some embodiments, the controller 125 can operate to regulate the magnetic field produced by each of the electromagnets by controlling the amplitude, frequency, and direction of the electrical current passing through a solenoid of each of the electromagnets. ¶ 0043; The magnetic structures 145a-n can be formed from a plurality of electromagnets disposed around the fluid container at one or more different vertical heights, with each electromagnet being individually controlled to generate a desired magnetic field within the fluid container effective to influence the magnetic particles disposed therein. Based on the selective application of electrical signals to the plurality of electromagnets surrounding the fluid container, the magnetic particles can be influenced to rotate, spin, move horizontally side-to-side, and/or vertically up-and-down within the fluid sample by the combined effect of the magnetic field gradients generated by the various electromagnets. ¶ 0049; Mixing fluids using magnetic particles agitated according to various aspects of the applicant's teachings can thus cause the magnetic particles to be dispersed homogeneously within each fluid container, providing for optimal exposure and enhanced mixing with the fluid. In this manner, the magnetic particles can be influenced to rotate, spin, move horizontally side-to-side, and/or vertically up-and-down within the fluid sample by the combined effect of the magnetic field gradients generated by the various electromagnets 210a-h. Mixing fluids using magnetic particles agitated according to various aspects of the applicant's teachings causes the magnetic particles to be dispersed homogeneously vertically and horizontally within each fluid container, providing for optimal exposure and enhanced mixing with the fluid. In some embodiments, at least a portion of the electromagnets may be operated in parallel, sequence, pulsed, or the like. In various aspects, the current supplied to the electromagnets may be controlled according to a processing protocol. In some embodiments, the processing protocol may be dynamically altered during operation of the fluid processing system based on various factors, such as feedback, operator input, detection of mixing efficiency, analysis results, or the like. ¶ 0060); and
a measuring device (this limitation is sufficiently broad to have read on i.e., measuring a [sic] device ¶ 0051; analytical instruments (e.g., mass spectrometer, detector, etc.) ¶ 0066; see also a differential mobility spectrometer (DMS) assembly as described in U.S. Pat. No. 8,217,344 (¶ 0068), which teaches a differential mobility spectrometer (DMS) comprising a controller and a detector (see i.e., Referring again to FIGS. 2 and 2, the output section 10C includes detector 69 with detector electrodes 70, 72. Controller 10D measures the current on electrodes 70, 72 as an indication of ions passed by filter 40. These electrodes are held at a potential by bias signals 71, 73, from controller 10D. Ions 24′ which passed filter 40 deposit their charge on a detector electrode 70, 72 under control of controller 10D, depending upon the polarity of the electrode and the control signals 71, 73 on the detector electrodes. Furthermore, by sweeping the compensation (i.e., the bias voltage), a complete spectrum of ion species in Sample S can be detected. C11/L12-33; A fieldable, integrated, planar DMS chemical sensor can be provided that can rapidly produce accurate, real-time or near real-time, in-situ, orthogonal data for identification of a wide range of chemical compounds. C20/L56-59),
wherein the controller is capable of modifying the sequence of energizing the electromagnets (see i.e., An electrical signal can be provided to each of the plurality of electromagnets so as to generate a magnetic field within the at least one fluid container so as to influence the plurality of magnetic particles, and the electrical signal can be adjusted to modify the magnetic field within the fluid sample. ¶ 0025; Additionally or alternatively, in some aspects the magnetic assembly can comprise at least one magnetic structure, the method further comprising selectively activating the at least one magnetic structure based on at least one of the volume of the fluid in the fluid chamber and to maintain the magnetic particles at a desired fluid level within the volume. For example, in some aspects, adjusting the electrical signal to modify the magnetic field within the fluid sample can comprise performing a multi-step sample processing protocol that can also include adjusting the vertical position of some of the electromagnets and/or selectively activating the electrodes of the various magnetic structures. ¶ 0028) in real time based on feedback (see i.e., the signals applied to the electromagnets 110 of each magnetic structure (e.g., in a single horizontal layer) can be configured to generate magnetic field gradients substantially in the x-y plane, while the signals applied to the electromagnets of the different magnetic structures, can result in magnetic field gradients exhibiting a z-direction or vertical component. In this manner, the combined effect of the plurality of electromagnets can produce a magnetic field within a fluid container with different characteristics, such as different strengths and/or directionality so as to rapidly and efficiently mix the fluid and/or capture target analytes within the fluid ¶ 0049; In some embodiments, at least a portion of the electromagnets may be operated in parallel, sequence, pulsed, or the like. In various aspects, the current supplied to the electromagnets may be controlled according to a processing protocol. In some embodiments, the processing protocol may be dynamically altered during operation of the fluid processing system based on various factors, such as feedback, operator input, detection of mixing efficiency, analysis results, or the like. ¶ 0060).
With regard to limitations in claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 (e.g., [...] for selectively energizing electromagnets of the first and second pluralities in sequence causing the magnetic beads to circulate in the vessel; and [...] to measure magnetic bead density in a target area within the vessel while the magnetic beads are circulated in the vessel and providing the measured bead density to the controller to provide closed loop control of magnetic bead density for sampling of a uniform bead dose in order to enable modification of the sequence of selective energizing of the electromagnets, [...] in real time based on feedback from the measuring device to generate a magnetic bead density sample in the target area, etc.), these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Regarding capability limitations recited in claim 1, the device of Arnold et al. includes a controller capable of modifying the sequence of energizing the electromagnets, see above. As such, the device of Arnold et al. is capable of the limitations.
Regarding claims 5-6, Arnold et al. teach:
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the first plurality further comprises three electromagnets and the second plurality further comprises three electromagnets (see i.e., The plurality of electromagnets in each of the magnetic structures can vary in number, but in some aspects the magnetic structures can comprise four electromagnets which define a space therebetween within which the fluid container can be disposed. ¶ 0015; For example, a magnetic structure 145 may include 2 electromagnets, 3 electromagnets, 4 electromagnets, 5 electromagnets, 6 electromagnets, 7 electromagnets, 8 electromagnets, 9 electromagnets, 10 electromagnets, or more. ¶ 0042; As shown in FIG. 2, the assembly 205 includes an upper magnetic structure 245a and a lower magnetic structure 245b, each of which includes four electromagnets 210 [...] ¶ 0053; and Figs. 1B-2 for example).
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the housing capable of holding the electromagnets in position around the circumference of the vessel when the vessel is received within the housing (see i.e., By way of example, fluids can be processed within a fluid container, such as an open fluid container (e.g., open to the ambient atmosphere, without a top cover), using magnetic particles disposed within the fluids. The magnetic particles can be configured to be agitated by a magnetic field generated by magnetic structures arranged adjacent to the fluid containers, for example, arranged in a two-dimensional array about the periphery of the fluid container. Based on the selective application of signals to the magnetic structures surrounding the fluid container, the magnetic particles may be influenced to rotate, spin, and/or move laterally side-to-side within the fluid so as to rapidly and efficiently mix the fluid and/or capture target analytes within the fluid, by way of non-limiting example. As noted above, the magnetic structures can be formed from a plurality of electromagnets disposed around the fluid container, with each electromagnet being individually controlled to generate a desired magnetic field within the fluid container effective to influence the magnetic particles disposed therein. ¶ 0011; The present teachings generally relate to fluid processing methods and systems for mixing, separating, filtering, or otherwise processing a fluid (e.g., a fluid sample, a solvent) by utilizing magnetic particles that are caused to move under the influence of an electromagnetic assembly disposed about a fluid container for containing the fluid. [...] Another non-limiting example of a technological advantage includes increased sample mixing efficiency as the magnetic structures of a magnetic assembly can influence the magnetic particles to provide for faster and more effective sample mixing due to, for example, more robust magnetic particle movement and movement in multiple dimensions, with less power consumption due to the configuration of the magnetic field of the electromagnetic assemblies relative to the fluid container(s). ¶ 0037; see also ¶ 0048-0049+, 0053-0055 for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al. (US 2020/0011773) in view of Rajagopal et al. (US 2014/0135198).
Regarding claim 2, Arnold et al. teach: 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the controller further comprises a microcontroller (this limitation is sufficiently broad to have read on a logic device (not shown) and/or a memory, such as a computing device, see i.e., In various aspects, the controller 125 can be any type of device and/or electrical component capable of actuating an electromagnet. For example, in some aspects, the controller 125 can include or be coupled to a logic device (not shown) and/or a memory, such as a computing device configured to execute an application configured to provide instructions for controlling the electromagnets of the magnetic structure(s) 145.). However, Arnold et al. do not explicitly teach: an H-bridge.
Rajagopal et al. teach: a molecular analysis device (Abstract+), comprising an H-bridge (e.g., 712, 713; see i.e., an H bridge is an electronic circuit that enables a voltage to be applied across a load in either direction. ¶ 0033; Standard H-Bridge configurations can be used to modulate the electric field across the electric dipoles. ¶ 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Arnold et al. with an H-bridge, as taught by Rajagopal et al., to modulate the electric field across the electric dipoles (Rajagopal et al. ¶ 0040). The Court stated that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
With regard to limitations in claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 (e.g., [...] receiving a vessel containing a fluid sample and a plurality of magnetic beads therein, [...] for selectively energizing electromagnets of the first and second pluralities in sequence causing the magnetic beads to circulate in the vessel, etc.), these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Arnold et al. teach:
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the microcontroller is capable of generating a signal for independently turning the electromagnets on and off individually or in groups (¶ 0011, 0038, 0043, 0060+).
4. The system of claim 2, wherein the microcontroller is capable of reversing the polarity of the electromagnets (see i.e., Depending on the direction of the current through the loop (e.g., based on the polarity of the voltage applied thereto), the magnetic fields generated by opposed pairs of electromagnets can substantially align in the same direction such that the magnetic field is further enhanced. ¶ 0054; it should be appreciated that the present teachings may also be used to assist in the mass transfer in the reverse direction [...] ¶ 0067; and Rajagopal et al. ¶ 0033).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al. (US 2020/0011773) in view of Debreczeny et al. (US 2015/0300938).
Regarding claim 7, Arnold et al. teach:
a target location within the vessel (see i.e., Activation of the electromagnets of an electromagnetic structure may generate a magnetic field gradient that influences magnetic particles in an x-y direction. In addition, activation of the electromagnets of a plurality of electromagnetic structures may generate magnetic field gradients that influences magnetic particles in an x-y direction and z-direction. Abstract; By way of example, the signals applied to the electromagnets of each magnetic structure (e.g., in a single horizontal layer) can generate magnetic field gradients substantially in the x-y plane, while the signals applied to the electromagnets of the different magnetic structures (e.g., the electromagnets in different horizontal layers) can result in magnetic field gradients exhibiting a z-direction or vertical component. ¶ 0012; Based on the selective application of electrical signals to the plurality of electromagnets surrounding the fluid container, the magnetic particles can be influenced to rotate, spin, move horizontally side-to-side, and/or vertically up-and-down within the fluid sample by the combined effect of the magnetic field gradients generated by the various electromagnets. By way of example, the signals applied to the electromagnets 110 of each magnetic structure (e.g., in a single horizontal layer) can be configured to generate magnetic field gradients substantially in the x-y plane, while the signals applied to the electromagnets of the different magnetic structures, can result in magnetic field gradients exhibiting a z-direction or vertical component. In this manner, the combined effect of the plurality of electromagnets can produce a magnetic field within a fluid container with different characteristics, such as different strengths and/or directionality so as to rapidly and efficiently mix the fluid and/or capture target analytes within the fluid, by way of non-limiting example. ¶ 0049) and
the controller to enable modification of the sequence of selective energizing of the electromagnets (see ¶ 0007-0008, and i.e., The magnetic structures may be formed as a plurality of electromagnets configured to be individually actuated by a controller Abstract; By way of example, fluids can be processed within a fluid container, such as an open fluid container (e.g., open to the ambient atmosphere, without a top cover), using magnetic particles disposed within the fluids. The magnetic particles can be configured to be agitated by a magnetic field generated by magnetic structures arranged adjacent to the fluid containers, for example, arranged in a two-dimensional array about the periphery of the fluid container. Based on the selective application of signals to the magnetic structures surrounding the fluid container, the magnetic particles may be influenced to rotate, spin, and/or move laterally side-to-side within the fluid so as to rapidly and efficiently mix the fluid and/or capture target analytes within the fluid, by way of non-limiting example. As noted above, the magnetic structures can be formed from a plurality of electromagnets disposed around the fluid container, with each electromagnet being individually controlled to generate a desired magnetic field within the fluid container effective to influence the magnetic particles disposed therein. ¶ 0011; With reference again to FIG. 1A, the exemplary fluid processing system 100 additionally includes a controller 125 operatively coupled to the magnetic structure 105 and configured to control the magnetic fields produced by its electromagnets. In various aspects, the controller 125 can be configured to control one or more power sources (not shown) configured to supply an electrical signal to the plurality of electromagnets. In some embodiments, the controller 125 can operate to regulate the magnetic field produced by each of the electromagnets by controlling the amplitude, frequency, and direction of the electrical current passing through a solenoid of each of the electromagnets. ¶ 0043; The magnetic structures 145a-n can be formed from a plurality of electromagnets disposed around the fluid container at one or more different vertical heights, with each electromagnet being individually controlled to generate a desired magnetic field within the fluid container effective to influence the magnetic particles disposed therein. Based on the selective application of electrical signals to the plurality of electromagnets surrounding the fluid container, the magnetic particles can be influenced to rotate, spin, move horizontally side-to-side, and/or vertically up-and-down within the fluid sample by the combined effect of the magnetic field gradients generated by the various electromagnets. ¶ 0049; Mixing fluids using magnetic particles agitated according to various aspects of the applicant's teachings can thus cause the magnetic particles to be dispersed homogeneously within each fluid container, providing for optimal exposure and enhanced mixing with the fluid. In this manner, the magnetic particles can be influenced to rotate, spin, move horizontally side-to-side, and/or vertically up-and-down within the fluid sample by the combined effect of the magnetic field gradients generated by the various electromagnets 210a-h. Mixing fluids using magnetic particles agitated according to various aspects of the applicant's teachings causes the magnetic particles to be dispersed homogeneously vertically and horizontally within each fluid container, providing for optimal exposure and enhanced mixing with the fluid. In some embodiments, at least a portion of the electromagnets may be operated in parallel, sequence, pulsed, or the like. In various aspects, the current supplied to the electromagnets may be controlled according to a processing protocol. In some embodiments, the processing protocol may be dynamically altered during operation of the fluid processing system based on various factors, such as feedback, operator input, detection of mixing efficiency, analysis results, or the like. ¶ 0060).
However, Arnold et al. do not explicitly teach: the measuring device comprises an optical scattering sensor.
Debreczeny et al. teach: a particle sensor (Abstract+) comprising an optical scattering sensor capable of measuring particle density and providing the measured particle density (see i.e., Measurement of particle concentration is important in many industrial and research applications. For example, monitoring cell density (e.g. biomass) in liquid cell cultures is used [...] ¶ 0003; The present methods are generally directed to techniques of illuminating a particulate suspension and determining the particulate concentration in correlation to the amount of back-scattered light. ¶ 0123; The methods include means of positioning and confirming the position of a light-detector sensor system in relation to the container and media of interest. ¶ 0149; Once scattered light is returned to the detector, the associated signal can be correlated with other useful parameters such as optical density (OD) values or particle concentration. ¶ 0153 (it is noted that particle concentration directly correlates to the particle density in the fluid sample)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Arnold et al. with an optical scattering sensor, as taught by Debreczeny et al., to accurately measure and determine the particle concentration in the fluid sample (Debreczeny et al. ¶ 0010+). The Court stated that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The Court in KSR, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one”, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (emphasis added), or solves a problem which is different from that which the applicant was trying to solve, may also be considered for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP 2141.
With regard to limitations in claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 (e.g., to measure magnetic bead density in a target area within the vessel while the magnetic beads are circulated in the vessel and providing the measured bead density to the controller to enable modification of the sequence of selective energizing of the electromagnets, wherein the controller is capable of modifying the sequence of energizing the electromagnets in real time based on feedback from the measuring device to generate a density sample in the target area, etc.), these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Drawing objection has been withdrawn.
In response to the Applicant's arguments to the process or intended use limitations (e.g., [...] for selectively energizing electromagnets of the first and second pluralities in sequence causing the magnetic beads to circulate in the vessel; and [...] to measure magnetic bead density in a target area within the vessel while the magnetic beads are circulated in the vessel and providing the measured bead density to the controller to provide closed loop control of magnetic bead density for sampling of a uniform bead dose in order to enable modification of the sequence of selective energizing of the electromagnets, [...] in real time based on feedback from the measuring device to generate a magnetic bead density sample in the target area, etc.), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The Courts have held that limitations regarding the contents, intended use or manner of operating an apparatus do not further limit the patentability of apparatus claims. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488,492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to include additional structural elements of the system. Applicant is thanked for their thoughtful amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN KWAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7072. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 4:30 am - 2:30 pm EST.
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.
/DEAN KWAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
DEAN KWAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights