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
Newly submitted claims 32-33 (Group II) and claim 34 (Group III) are directed to inventions that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed in claims 9, 11, 14-17, and 21-31 (Group I) for the following reasons:
Groups I-III (claims 9, 11, 14-17, and 21-34) lack unity of invention because the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of:
an apparatus, comprising:
a bioreactor chamber configured to grow cells;
a plurality of microcarriers disposed inside the bioreactor chamber and configured to support attachment and growth of the cells,
wherein each microcarrier comprises a respective magnetoelastic sensor configured to vibrate with a specific resonant frequency when activated by a first magnetic field and to produce a remotely detectable second magnetic field from a vibration; and
a drive coil configured to generate the first magnetic field and a detection coil configured to detect the second magnetic field.
This technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Crespo del Arco (ES 2352482) (machine translation) (previously cited) in view of Chin (US 20050074904) (newly cited).
Regarding the technical feature, Crespo del Arco discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a bioreactor chamber (pg. 4, line 80, part “a)”) configured to grow cells (pg. 3, lines 73-79);
a carrier (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)”) disposed inside the bioreactor chamber and configured to support attachment and growth of the cells (pg. 4, lines 80-89 “any other form”),
wherein each microcarrier comprises a respective magnetoelastic sensor (pg. 4, line 80, part “a)”) configured to vibrate with a specific resonant frequency (pg. 4, line 80, part “b)”) when activated by a first magnetic field and to produce a remotely detectable second magnetic field from a vibration (pg. 4, lines 89-93, part “c)” and “d)”); and
a drive coil (pg. 4, lines 105-117) configured to generate the first magnetic field to activate the magnetoelastic sensor (pg. 4, lines 105-117 and pg. 4, line 80, part “a)”) and a detection coil (pg. 5, line 163 to pg. 6, line 175) configured to detect the second magnetic field (pg. 4, line 80, part “a)” and pg. 6, lines 196-198).
Chin discloses a microcarrier (abstract, “magnetostrictive particle”).
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the carrier of Crespo del Arco with the microcarrier of Chin in order to find use in identifying and quantitating ligands as well as chemicals and environmental conditions in a sample or patient (Chin, abstract).
Regarding the limitation “a plurality of microcarriers … each microcarrier comprises a respective magnetoelastic sensor”, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Crespo del Arco with the plurality of microcarriers in order to gain more accurate sensor data with numerous points of contact with the target object.
Regarding the limitation “configured to…” the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of Crespo del Arco would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the structures present.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 32-34 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Specification
The previous objections to the specification are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 28-31, the phrase “a processing unit configured to analyze the second magnetic field to calculate one or more resonant response parameters of the magnetoelastic sensor” of claim 28 is to be considered a controller limitation. The term is not to invoke an interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Dependent claims 29-31 also depend from claim 28, and therefore also inherently contain this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9, 11, 14-15, 22-25, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Crespo del Arco (ES 2352482) (machine translation) (previously cited) in view of Chin (US 20050074904) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Crespo del Arco discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a bioreactor chamber (pg. 4, line 80, part “a)”) configured to grow cells (pg. 3, lines 73-79);
a plurality of carriers (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)”) disposed inside the bioreactor chamber configured to support attachment and growth of the cells (pg. 4, lines 80-89 “any other form”),
wherein each microcarrier comprises a respective magnetoelastic sensor (pg. 4, line 80, part “a)”) configured to vibrate with a specific resonant frequency (pg. 4, line 80, part “b)”) when activated by a first magnetic field (pg. 4, lines 89-90, part “c)”and to produce a remotely detectable second magnetic field from a vibration (pg. 4, line 89-93, part “c)” and “d)”); and
a drive coil configured to generate the first magnetic field (pg. 4, lines 105-117) and a detection coil (pg. 5, line 163 to pg. 6, line 175) configured to detect the second magnetic field (pg. 6, lines 196-198);
Crespo del Arco does not disclose:
a plurality of microcarriers.
wherein the drive coil is configured to move linearly relative to the bioreactor chamber along a scan direction that is perpendicular to the first magnetic field, such that, at different relative linear positions during the linear movement, different respective magnetoelastic sensors of the plurality of microcarriers are aligned with and selectively activated by the first magnetic field.
Regarding feature 1, Chin discloses a microcarrier (abstract, “magnetostrictive particle”).
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the carrier of Crespo del Arco with the microcarrier of Chin in order to find use in identifying and quantitating ligands as well as chemicals and environmental conditions in a sample or patient (Chin, abstract).
Regarding the limitation “a plurality of microcarriers … each microcarrier comprises a respective magnetoelastic sensor”, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Crespo del Arco with the plurality of microcarriers in order to gain more accurate sensor data with numerous points of contact with the target object.
Regarding feature 2, this limitation is an intended use or manner of operation of modified Crespo del Arco. The manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified Crespo del Arco would be fully capable of operating in this manner given separable structures, such as the drive coil, detection coil, and bioreactor chamber.
In addition, in terms of an explanation, according to Crespo del Arco’s Example (starting at pg. 5, line 162 to at least pg. 6, line 187), “[t]he vessel was placed on a system of two coils” after the vessel was “sealed to ensure perfect control of the microenvironment”. This shows that the two components were not integrated parts, but rather, the bioreactor chamber was movable relative to the drive coil during the Example.
In addition, according to MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D), adjustability of a part is not a patentable advance; and, making parts separable or removable would be obvious. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C). Given Crespo del Arco’s disclosure at pg. 6, lines 182-187, wherein the “vessel was placed on a system of two coils” it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drive coil to be movable relative to the bioreactor chamber in order to cause the magnetic field to activate the magnetoelastic sensors.
Regarding the limitation “selectively activated” the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified Crespo del Arco would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the different frequencies that could be swept over using the drive coil, potentially causing a resonance response at its respective resonance frequency of a magnetoelastic sensor of the plurality thereof. Additionally, the location of the coil would also be able to selectively activate the magnetoelastic sensors based on physical location, see the above motivation statement.
Regarding the limitations “configured to…”, the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of Crespo del Arco would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the structures present.
Regarding claim 11, Crespo del Arco discloses wherein the first magnetic field comprises an AC magnetic field component (pg. 6, lines 182 to end of page), wherein the drive coil comprises an AC coil configured to generate the AC magnetic field component (pg. 6, lines 182 to end of page “alternating electromagnetic field … was applied to one of the coils”).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose: wherein the first magnetic field comprises a DC magnetic field component, wherein the drive coil comprises a DC coil configured to generate the DC magnetic field component.
Chin discloses wherein the first magnetic field comprises a DC magnetic field component, wherein the drive coil (paragraphs [0064]-[0065] “Helmholtz coil”) comprises a DC coil configured to generate the DC magnetic field component (paragraph [0088]).
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the carrier of Crespo del Arco with the DC magnetic field component drive coil of Chin in order to find use in identifying and quantitating ligands as well as chemicals and environmental conditions in a sample or patient (Chin, abstract). Specifically, the DC magnetic field in conjunction with the AC magnetic field would be able to drive the resonator (Chin, paragraph [0088]).
Regarding the limitation “configured to…” the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of Crespo del Arco would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the structures present.
Regarding claim 14, Crespo del Arco discloses wherein the detection coil (pg. 5, line 163 to pg. 6, line 175) is configured to move relative to the bioreactor chamber (pg. 6, lines 182-187).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose wherein the detection coil is configured to rotate relative to the bioreactor chamber relative to the bioreactor chamber such that, at different relative rotational positions during rotation, the second magnetic field generated by different respective magnetoelastic sensors in the plurality of microcarriers is selectively detected by the detection coil.
However, according to Crespo del Arco’s Example (starting at pg. 5, line 162 to at least pg. 6, line 187), “[t]he vessel was placed on a system of two coils” after the vessel was “sealed to ensure perfect control of the microenvironment”. This shows that the two components were not integrated parts, but rather, the bioreactor chamber was movable relative to the detector coil during the Example.
Nevertheless, although Crespo del Arco’s detection coil is movable relative to the bioreactor chamber, it does not necessarily have the degrees of freedom necessary to rotate along an axis. For instance, a constraining slot could be used to limit the rotation of the bioreactor chamber or detection coil.
Contrarily, regarding the limitation “the detection coil is configured to rotate relative to the bioreactor chamber”, rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the already movable detection coil of Crespo del Arco to be rotatable as well in order to cause the magnetic field to activate the magnetoelastic sensors.
In addition, according to MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D), adjustability of a part is not a patentable advance; and, making parts separable or removable would be obvious. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C). Given Crespo del Arco’s disclosure at pg. 6, lines 182-187, wherein the “vessel was placed on a system of two coils” it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drive coil to be rotatable as well as movable relative to the bioreactor chamber in order to cause the magnetic field to activate the magnetoelastic sensors.
If it is deemed that regarding the limitation “a plurality of microcarriers” is not disclosed, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Crespo del Arco with the plurality of microcarriers in order to gain more accurate sensor data with numerous points of contact with the target object.
Regarding the limitation “is selectively activated” the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified Crespo del Arco would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the different frequencies that could be swept over using the drive coil, potentially causing a resonance response at its respective resonance frequency of a magnetoelastic sensor of the plurality thereof. Additionally, the location of the coil would also be able to selectively activate the magnetoelastic sensors based on physical location, see above motivation statement.
Regarding the limitation “configured to…” the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of Crespo del Arco would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the structures present.
Regarding claim 15, Crespo del Arco discloses a detection coil (pg. 5, line 163 to pg. 6, line 175).
Crespo del Arco discloses wherein the detection coil (pg. 5, line 163 to pg. 6, line 175) is one of a plurality of detection coils (claim 5 “one or more coils”) configured to simultaneously detect the second magnetic fields generated by the magnetoelastic sensors in the plurality of microcarriers (pg. 4, lines 91-93).
If it is deemed that Crespo del Arco does not disclose wherein the detection coil is one of a plurality of detection coils, regarding the limitation “a plurality of detection coils”, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Crespo del Arco with the plurality of detection coils in order to gain more types of information from the sample, with different frequencies of resonance picked up by the plurality of detection coils.
Regarding the limitation “the plurality of microcarriers”, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Crespo del Arco with the plurality of microcarriers in order to gain more accurate sensor data with numerous points of contact with the target object.
Regarding the limitation “configured to…” the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of Crespo del Arco would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the plurality of detection coils present due to the modification above.
If it is deemed that Crespo del Arco does not disclose the limitation: “configured to simultaneously detect the second magnetic fields generated by the magnetoelastic sensors in the plurality of microcarriers”, Chin discloses: configured to simultaneously detect the second magnetic fields generated by the magnetoelastic sensors in the plurality of microcarriers (paragraphs [0178-[0179]).
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Crespo del Arco with the simultaneous detection of the magnetoelastic sensors in the microcarriers of Examples 2 and 3 of Chin in order to assess the performance of a multiple particle magnetoelastic sensor to easily identify a shift in resonance frequency for a single particle in a group or collection of particles; the binding of bacteria to a particle can be detected due to its mass load’s effect on the shift in resonance frequency of the particle (Chin, paragraphs [0178]-[0179]).
Regarding claim 22, Crespo del Arco discloses wherein the magnetoelastic sensor comprises a magnetoelastic substrate (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)”).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose wherein the magnetoelastic substrate has a rod or a rectangular strip shape.
Chin discloses wherein the magnetoelastic substrate has a rod or a rectangular strip shape (paragraph [0103] “bar-like or tube-like in shape”).
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Crespo del Arco with the shape of Chin in order to allow for a particular resonance frequency (Chin, paragraphs [0051] and [0055]).
In addition, the claim limitation is obvious, as the configuration of the claimed shape is a matter of choice, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Crespo del Arco with the shape of a rectangular strip or rod in order to cause the strip or rod to vibrate longitudinally, using its mass to mechanically influence the response of the secondary magnetic field back to the magnetic field detection coil.
Regarding claim 23, Crespo del Arco discloses the magnetoelastic substrate (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)”).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose wherein the magnetoelastic substrate has an aspect ratio between 1.5 and 10, wherein the aspect ratio is calculated as a ratio of an axial length of the magnetoelastic substrate to a maximum width in a cross-section that is perpendicular to the axial length of the magnetoelastic substrate.
Chin discloses wherein the magnetoelastic substrate has an aspect ratio between 1.5 and 10, wherein the aspect ratio is calculated as a ratio of an axial length of the magnetoelastic substrate to a maximum width in a cross-section that is perpendicular to the axial length of the magnetoelastic substrate (paragraph [0103], implicit to the ranges of dimensions given in this paragraph, e.g.: a width of 1 µm to a length of 1.5 µm to 10 µm).
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Crespo del Arco’s device with the aspect ratio of Chin in order to allow for a particular resonance frequency (Chin, paragraphs [0051] and [0055]).
In addition, the claim limitation is obvious under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions … [and the claimed device] would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. In addition, the claim limitation is obvious, as the configuration of the claimed shape is a matter of choice, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Crespo del Arco with the shape of a rectangular strip or rod in order to cause the strip or rod to vibrate longitudinally, using its mass to mechanically influence the response of the secondary magnetic field back to the magnetic field detection coil.
Regarding claim 24, Crespo del Arco discloses wherein the magnetoelastic sensor comprises a first coated layer (pg. 5, lines 127-128) encapsulating the magnetoelastic substrate (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)” and pg. 4, lines 94-105), wherein the first coated layer comprises a biocompatible material (pg. 5, lines 127-128 “coated with substances that promote cell adhesion to promote culture growth”).
Regarding claim 25, Crespo del Arco discloses wherein the magnetoelastic sensor (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)”) comprises a first coated layer, wherein a first coated layer is configured to promote attachment of cells to the microcarrier without destruction of the cells (pg. 5, lines 127-128 “coated with substances that promote cell adhesion to promote culture growth”).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose a second coated layer encapsulating the first coated layer.
Chin discloses a second coated layer encapsulating the first coated layer (paragraph [0062]).
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sensors of Crespo del Arco with the second coated layer of Chin in order to facilitate fixation thereto of additional layers of the binding element, or for example, other coatings such as a polymer for coupling/attaching optional binding agents (Chin, paragraph [0062]-[0063]).
Additionally, regarding the limitation, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sensor of Crespo del Arco with the second coat in order to be able to provide a basis for other coatings that are biocompatible or receptors such as antibodies to bind to a target object.
Regarding the limitation “configured to…” the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of Crespo del Arco would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the structures present.
Regarding claim 28, Crespo del Arco discloses a processing unit (pg. 6, lines 202 to end of page, “Digital Signal Processor” and “control and data acquisition computer”) configured to analyze the second magnetic field to calculate one or more resonant response parameters of the magnetoelastic sensor (pg. 6, lines 202 to end of page, “the module of the impedance of the excitation/capture coils (5) was obtained for each frequency, which allowed the measurement of the frequency at which the assembly formed by the coils and the magnetoelastic sensor (3) and (4) resonated.”).
Regarding the phase “one or more resonant response parameters”, the phrase is claimed in the alternative. Because “one … resonant response parameters” have already been rejected under Crespo del Arco, “or more” is not required to be rejected at this time.
Regarding claim 29, Crespo del Arco discloses a magnetoelastic sensor (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)”).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose wherein the one or more resonant response parameters comprise a phase angle of impedance at a resonant frequency of the magnetoelastic sensor.
Chin discloses wherein the one or more resonant response parameters comprise a phase angle of impedance at a resonant frequency of the magnetoelastic sensor (paragraph [0087]).
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Crespo del Arco with the resonant response parameters comprised in Chin in order to display a plot of phase, amplitude, or impedance versus frequency and predict resonance peak data for a plurality of magnetoelastic sensors (Chin, paragraph [0087]); data can be displayed with these plots, resulting in detection or quantification of the target object (Chin, paragraphs [0087] and [0133]).
Regarding the phase “one or more resonant response parameters”, the phrase is claimed in the alternative. Because “one … resonant response parameters” have already been rejected under modified Crespo del Arco, “or more” is not required to be rejected at this time.
Regarding claim 30, Crespo del Arco discloses one or more resonant response parameters (pg. 6, lines 182 to end of page) and the magnetoelastic sensor (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)”).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose wherein the one or more resonant response parameters comprise a magnitude of impedance at a resonant frequency of the magnetoelastic sensor.
Chin discloses wherein the one or more resonant response parameters comprise a magnitude of impedance at a resonant frequency of the magnetoelastic sensor (paragraph [0087]).
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Crespo del Arco with the resonant response parameters comprised in Chin in order to display a plot of phase, amplitude, or impedance versus frequency and predict resonance peak data for a plurality of magnetoelastic sensors (Chin, paragraph [0087]); data can be displayed with these plots, resulting in detection or quantification of the target object (Chin, paragraphs [0087] and [0133]).
Regarding the phase “one or more resonant response parameters”, the phrase is claimed in the alternative. Because “one … resonant response parameters” have already been rejected under modified Crespo del Arco, “or more” is not required to be rejected at this time.
Regarding claim 31, Crespo del Arco discloses one or more resonant response parameters (pg. 6, lines 182 to end of page) and the magnetoelastic sensor (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)”).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose wherein the one or more resonant response parameters comprise a resonance quality factor of the magnetoelastic sensor.
Chin discloses wherein the one or more resonant response parameters comprise a resonance quality factor of the magnetoelastic sensor (paragraphs [0085]-[0086] and [0120]).
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Crespo del Arco with the resonant response parameters comprised in Chin in order to find a Q value of the resonator (Chin, paragraph [0085]); this in turn, would allow for quantitation of a high Q value magnetostrictive alloy that would allow for detection of a target particle such as a single bacterium the weight, for instance, of less than 10 picograms (Chin, paragraph [0085]-[0086]).
Regarding the phase “one or more resonant response parameters”, the phrase is claimed in the alternative. Because “one … resonant response parameters” have already been rejected under modified Crespo del Arco, “or more” is not required to be rejected at this time.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crespo del Arco (ES 2352482) (machine translation) (previously cited) in view of Chin (US 20050074904) (previously cited) as applied to claim 9, further in view of Dittmer (US 20100033158) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, Crespo del Arco discloses a carrier (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)”).
Modified Crespo del Arco teaches: the plurality of microcarriers are inside the bioreactor chamber (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)” and pg. 4, lines 94-105).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose wherein the plurality of microcarriers are arranged in two or more planes inside the bioreactor chamber.
Chin discloses a microcarrier (abstract, “magnetostrictive particle”).
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the carrier of Crespo del Arco with the microcarrier of Chin in order to find use in identifying and quantitating ligands as well as chemicals and environmental conditions in a sample or patient (Chin, abstract).
Regarding the limitation “a plurality of microcarriers … each microcarrier comprising a respective magnetoelastic sensor”, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Crespo del Arco with the plurality of microcarriers in order to gain more accurate sensor data with numerous points of contact with the target object.
Dittmer discloses wherein the plurality of microcarriers are arranged in two planes (Fig. 15 and paragraph [0099]) inside a reaction chamber (paragraph [0099]).
In the analogous art of measuring agglutination parameters using magnetic particles, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Crespo del Arco’s device to arrange a plurality of microcarriers into two planes in order to separate the plurality of microcarriers based on magnetophoretic separation based on clustering of masses over time (Crespo del Arco, paragraph [0099]).
Regarding the phase “two or more planes”, the phrase is claimed in the alternative. Because “two … planes” have already been rejected under modified Crespo del Arco, “or more” is not required to be rejected at this time.
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crespo del Arco (ES 2352482) (machine translation) (previously cited) in view of Chin (US 20050074904) (previously cited) as applied to claim 9, further in view of Grimes (“Wireless Magnetoelastic Resonance Sensors: A Critical Review”) (previously cited in an IDS from 09/09/2022).
Regarding claim 17, Crespo del Arco discloses wherein the magnetoelastic sensor is one of a plurality of magnetoelastic sensors (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)” and pg. 4, lines 94-105), and the drive coil (pg. 4, lines 105-117).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose a plurality of magnetoelastic sensors having different resonant frequencies when they are exposed to the first magnetic field, wherein the drive coil is configured to generate the first magnetic field having a frequency spectrum containing all resonant frequencies of the plurality of magnetoelastic sensors.
Grimes discloses wherein the magnetoelastic sensor (Fig. 15 and caption, “a magnetoelastic sensor array”) is one of a plurality of magnetoelastic sensors (Fig. 15 and caption, “four sensor elements”) having different resonant frequencies (Fig. 16) when they are exposed to the first magnetic field (Fig. 16 and caption, “inserting the sensor array into a solenoid”), wherein the drive coil (Fig. 16 and caption, “a solenoid”) is configured to generate the first magnetic field (Fig. 16 and caption, a magnetic field is implicitly generated by a solenoid) having a frequency spectrum containing all resonant frequencies of the plurality of magnetoelastic sensors (Fig. 16 and caption).
In the analogous art of wireless magnetoelastic resonance sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Crespo del Arco with the plurality of magnetoelastic sensors in order to be able to monitor different variables, such as gas concentration, chemical concentration, temperature, and pH (Grimes, pgs. 306-308 and pg. 307, Table 1).
Regarding the limitation “a plurality of magnetoelastic sensors”, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Crespo del Arco with the plurality of magnetoelastic sensors in order to gain more accurate sensor data with numerous points of contact with the target object.
Regarding the limitation “configured to…” the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of Crespo del Arco would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the structures present.
Regarding claim 21, Crespo del Arco discloses a carrier (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)”).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose wherein the microcarrier comprises a plurality of magnetoelastic sensors, wherein the plurality of magnetoelastic sensors have different lengths so that they vibrate with different resonant frequencies when they are activated by the first magnetic field.
Chin discloses a microcarrier (abstract, “magnetostrictive particle”).
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the carrier of Crespo del Arco with the microcarrier of Chin in order to find use in identifying and quantitating ligands as well as chemicals and environmental conditions in a sample or patient (Chin, abstract).
Grimes discloses wherein the microcarrier comprises a plurality of magnetoelastic sensors (Fig. 15 and caption), wherein the plurality of magnetoelastic sensors have different lengths (Fig. 15 and caption) so that they vibrate with different resonant frequencies when they are activated by the first magnetic field (Fig. 16 and caption).
In the analogous art of wireless magnetoelastic resonance sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Crespo del Arco with the plurality of magnetoelastic sensors in order to be able to monitor different variables, such as gas concentration, chemical concentration, temperature, and pH (Grimes, pgs. 306-308 and pg. 307, Table 1).
Regarding the limitation “a plurality of magnetoelastic sensors”, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Crespo del Arco with the plurality of magnetoelastic sensors in order to gain more accurate sensor data with numerous points of contact with the target object.
Regarding the limitation “so that…” the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of Crespo del Arco would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the structures present.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crespo del Arco (ES 2352482) (machine translation) (previously cited) in view of Chin (US 20050074904) (previously cited) as applied to claim 25, further in view of Lin (“Monitoring the Long-Term Degradation Behavior of Biomimetic Bioadhesive using Wireless Magnetoelastic Sensor”) (previously cited in an IDS from 09/09/2022) and Frauenschuh (“A Microcarrier-Based Cultivation System for Expansion of Primary Mesenchymal Stem Cells”) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 26, Crespo del Arco discloses wherein the biocompatible material in the first coated layer (pg. 5, lines 127-128 “coated with substances that promote cell adhesion to promote culture growth”).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose wherein the biocompatible material in the first coated layer comprises parylene, and the second coated layer comprises polydopamine and denatured collagen covalently linked to the polydopamine.
Lin discloses wherein the biocompatible material in the first coated layer comprises parylene (pg. 2, right col. and Fig. 2), and the second coated layer comprises polydopamine (pg. 2, right col. and Fig. 2) and PEG-D covalently linked to the polydopamine (pg. 2, right col. and Fig. 2).
In the analogous art of wireless magnetoelastic sensors using bioadhesives, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of modified Crespo del Arco with the first and second layer of Lin in order to ensure that the magnetoelastic sensors have a moisture barrier, an inert surface, and also a surface of polydopamine so that an adhesive surface can be provided for subsequent covalent attachment of another layer (Lin, pg. 2, right col.).
Modified Crespo del Arco does not disclose denatured collagen.
Frauenschuh discloses that denatured collagen is used as a coating on a microcarrier (pg. 191, left col., middle paragraph “Cytodex type 3 carriers are characterized by a thin surface layer of denatured collagen type I”).
In the analogous art of a microcarrier-based cultivation system for expansion of primary mesenchymal stem cells, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Crespo del Arco with the denature collagen coating of Frauenschuh in order to promote difficult to culture cell lines that are anchorage-dependent to adhere to the denatured collagen (pg. 191, left col., middle paragraph).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crespo del Arco (ES 2352482) (machine translation) (previously cited) in view of Chin (US 20050074904) (previously cited) as applied to claim 25, further in view of Cai (“A Wireless, Remote Query Glucose Biosensor Based on a pH-Sensitive Polymer”) (previously cited in an IDS from 09/09/2022).
Regarding claim 27, Crespo del Arco discloses the magnetoelastic sensor (pg. 4, line 80, parts “a)” and “b)”). Also, modified Crespo del Arco teaches a microcarrier (see rejection to independent claim 9).
Crespo del Arco does not disclose wherein the magnetoelastic sensor comprises a third coated layer, wherein the third coated layer comprises a chemical configured to react to an analyte surrounding the microcarrier such that reaction of the chemical to the analyte causes shrink or swell of the third coated layer, thereby changing a resonant response of the magnetoelastic sensor.
Cai discloses wherein the magnetoelastic sensor (abstract, “magnetoelastic sensor”) comprises a coated layer, wherein the coated layer (abstract, “pH-sensitive polymer”) comprises a chemical (abstract, “glucose oxidase”) configured to react to an analyte (abstract, “glucose”) surrounding the carrier (abstract, “magnetoelastic sensor”) such that reaction of the chemical to the analyte causes shrinking or swelling of the third coated layer, thereby changing a resonant response of the magnetoelastic sensor (abstract).
In the analogous art of wireless, remote query glucose biosensors based on a pH-sensitive polymer, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetoelastic sensor of Crespo del Arco with the coating of Cai in order to have a layer that is pH-sensitive to be able to detect pH without physical connections between the sensor and the monitoring instrument (Cai, abstract).
Regarding the phrase “a third coated layer”, the first and second coated layers have already been disclosed in the rejection to claim 25; Cai discloses the third coated layer in the rejection to this claim, claim 27. Reasons to combine are given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant arguments on pg. 11 of 13, top paragraph, about claim 9, the Applicant has described that the drive coil is required to move linearly relative to the bioreactor chamber along the claimed scan direction so that the magnetoelastic sensors are aligned with and selectively activated by the first magnetic field at different relative positions. However, because the drive coil and the bioreactor chamber are already relatively movable to one another, and additionally separable under MPEP § 2144.04, the intended manner of operation (i.e. relative linear movement) would be able to be fulfilled by modified Crespo del Arco.
Regarding the Applicant arguments on pg. 11 of 13, middle two paragraphs about the previous Office Action, MPEP § 2144.04 describes adjustability and separability of parts, and this explanation was sufficient to fulfill the rejection over the previous claim set. However, the term relative “linear” movement is not described until this claim set, as an amendment. Nevertheless, the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified Crespo del Arco would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the separable structures, such as the drive coil, detection coil, and bioreactor chamber. A “linear” movement would mean that the relative velocity is constant, which is an intended use or manner of operating the two separable components.
Regarding Applicant arguments on pg. 11 of 13, bottom paragraph, about the motivation statement “in order to cause the magnetic field to activate the magnetoelastic sensors”, the currently recited intended use of scanning the bioreactor in a linear fashion need not have a motivation statement, as the limitation is an intended use or manner of operation of modified Crespo del Arco. The original claim 9 combination of Crespo del Arco in view of Chin (wherein Chin describes microcarriers) has the motivation statement:
In the analogous art of magnetostrictive ligand sensors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the carrier of Crespo del Arco with the microcarrier of Chin in order to find use in identifying and quantitating ligands as well as chemicals and environmental conditions in a sample or patient (Chin, abstract).
-- Current and previous Office Action
This motivation statement is sufficient for the combination of references.
In addition, the previously cited motivation from now canceled claim 13 statement adds how to make the magnetic field activate the sensors which are used for the purposes already described in the above motivation statement.
In addition, according to MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D), adjustability of a part is not a patentable advance; and, making parts separable or removable would be obvious. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C). Given Crespo del Arco’s disclosure at pg. 6, lines 182-187, wherein the “vessel was placed on a system of two coils” it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drive coil to be movable relative to the bioreactor chamber in order to cause the magnetic field to activate the magnetoelastic sensors.
-- Previous Office Action
Because magnetic fields have an implicit strength that diminishes with a distance away from their source, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the placement of the drive coil in relation to the bioreactor chamber to be moved to be closer together so that the part of the bioreactor chamber that is necessary to measure, which contains the microcarriers comprising the magnetoelastic sensors, is activated by the magnetic field.
In terms of linear scanning, this is an intended use or manner of operation of the device of modified Crespo del Arco, and thus does not require a statement of motivation or obviousness.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are rejected as the independent claim is still rejected and no further arguments were made regarding the dependent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN G ESPERON whose telephone number is 571-272-9807, and whose fax number is 571-273-8464. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am - 6 pm every other Friday.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 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 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.
/N.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799