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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the international searching authority did not fin a lack of unity. This is not found persuasive because the examiner has determined there is a lack of unity and provided explicit reasons explaining why there is a lack of unity. Applicant did not refute the examiner’s specific findings but merely argued another body did not make the same arguments as examiner. Such is unpersuasive without specific reason why the examiner’s finding of lack of unity is in error.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23 and 24 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 23 recites the limitation "the pressure sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the concentration sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 is rejected due to it’s dependence on claim 23.
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.
Claims 16-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent et al. (US 2018/0140758) and further in view of Dreschel et al. (US 2017/0106134).
Regarding claims 16 and 18 Vincent et al. discloses a device for separating and/or isolating and/or washing target particles from a particles suspension, said device comprising: (See Vincent Abstract and Fig. 6-8 wherein a device for separating blood particles is discloses.)
at least two inlets, wherein at least one first inlet is configured to receive a particles suspension, and a second inlet is configured to receive a buffer solution;
at least two outlets, wherein at least one first outlet is configured to evacuate suspension depleted of target particles, and a second outlet is configured to evacuate separated and/or isolated and/or washed target particles; (See Vincent Figs. 6-7 wherein inlets i1,i2,i3, are provided to receive buffer and particles and outlets, o1,o2,o3 are provided to receive a suspension depleted of target particles and separated particles respectively.)
a container having a longitudinal axis, comprising a chamber for fluid flow, said chamber being configured to be associated with a transducer; at least one transducer configured to generate bulk acoustic waves within the chamber, said transducer being located between the at least one first inlet and the at least one first outlet; (See Vincent Figs. 6-8 and [0175]-[0176]wherein an acoustic transducer produces volumetric, i.e. bulk, acoustic waves and is attached to a chamber located between first inlet and first outlet.)
wherein at least two inlets are located on one end of the container and at least two outlets are located on the other end along longitudinal axis of the container;wherein the at least one first inlet and the second inlet are each located on either side of longitudinal axis of the container,wherein the at least one first inlet and the second outlet are each located on either side of longitudinal axis of the container,wherein the second inlet and the at least one first outlet are each located on either side of longitudinal axis of the container, (See Vincent Figs. 6-7 wherein the inlets and outlets are on opposite ends of the container and each first and second inlet and each first and second outlet are each located on either side, i.e. top side, of the container.)
wherein the chamber comprises internal walls made of a material having an acoustic impedance superior to the acoustic impedance of the fluid flowing in said chamber, and wherein the device further comprises a coupling element to ensure a temporary coupling between a wall of the chamber and the transducer.(See Vincent Fig. 8 wherein the chamber comprises walls made of PMMA, i.e. with acoustic impedance superior to fluid, and a coupling element , i.e. contact layer, coupling the wall of the chamber and transducer temporarily.)
Dreschel discloses a device for sorting particles wherein the device comprises at least one flow rate sensor configured to measure the flow rate of the fluid in a chamber at least one pressure sensor. (See Dreschel Fig. 9 Abstract and [0067]-[0068] wherein sensors 905 including flow rate and pressure sensors are provided in the device chamber to allow system control and monitoring.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to provide flow rate and pressure sensors in a separation chamber as described by Dreschel in the device of Vincent because such sensors are known to be used in particle separation devices and allow adjustment of the device so that the device more effectively response to fluid conditions as would be desirable in the device of Vincent
Regarding claim 17 Vincent discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the bulk acoustic waves are emitted in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the container. (See Vincent Fig. 7-8 wherein the acoustic waves are emitted upwards perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the container.)
Regarding claim 20 Vincent discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the device comprises a third inlet configured to receive a second particles suspension and a third outlet configured to evacuate a suspension depleted of target particles, said third inlet and third outlet being symmetrical to a first inlet and a first outlet with respect to the longitudinal axis. (See Vincent Figs. 6-7 wherein an third inlet and third outlet are provided and are symmetrical along the longitudinal axis with the first inlet and first outlet.)
Regarding claims 21-22 Vincent discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the at least one first inlet has a longitudinal axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the container and the at least one first outlet has a longitudinal axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the container. (See Vincent Figs. 6-7 wherein the first inlet and outlet are arranged perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the container.)
Claims 19 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent et al. (US 2018/0140758) in view of Dreschel et al. (US 2017/0106134) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Fiering et al. (US 2018/0313816).
Regarding claims 19 and 23-24 Vincent discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above but does not specifically disclose a concentration sensor and control unit.
Fiering et al. discloses a fluidic device for separating particles using acoustic waves wherein the device comprises at least one concentration sensor configured to measure the concentration of target particles. (See Fiering Abstract and [014]-[015] wherien a target particle concentration sensor measures concentration of target particles in an outlet suspension.)
It is noted that in order to monitor said outlet suspension the concentration sensor must be operationally connected to the at least one first inlet and/or at least one first outlet and/or second inlet and/or second outlet.
Fiering also discloses further comprising an electronic control unit configured to recover data from the pressure sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a concentration sensor and electronic control unit as described by Fiering in the device of Vincent because such a sensor allows automated adjustment and control of the device ensuring optimal and efficient operation as would be desirable in the device of Vincent.
Modified Vincent also discloses further comprising an electronic control unit configured to recover data from the sensors and configured to monitor the flow rate of the fluid in the chamber on the basis of the recovered data from the pressure sensor, the concentration sensor and/or the flow rate sensor.(See Fiering Abstract and [014]-[015] and [0108]-[0112] wherein an electronic control unit receives electronic data from the sensor and performs control using said data and as such recovers data and monitors based on said data. And see See Dreschel Fig. 9 Abstract and [0067]-[0068] wherein sensors 905 including flow rate and pressure sensors are provided in the device chamber to allow system control and monitoring of flow rate.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HURST whose telephone number is (571)270-7065. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. 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.
/JONATHAN M HURST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799