DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. Claims 1-22 are pending.
Status of the Rejections
2. Rejection of claims 2, 3 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is being withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemor et al. (WO 2007/006322) in view of Doria et al. (US 10,564,147) and further supported by Rose et al. (US 2011/0124098).
Claim 1. Lemor et al. teach a system for high-throughput cell sorting (device comprised of parallel arrangement of acoustic transducer and dielectrophoretic electrode having overlap region for particles manipulation; see page 11, ll. 7-31 and page 25, ll. 4-17), comprising:
a. a microfluidic platform comprising a main microfluidic channel (substrate comprising microchannel; see page 12, ll. 20-30 and Fig 15);
c. a fluid disposed through the main microfluidic channel, said fluid comprising a plurality of cells having different sizes and different electric properties (fluid disposed in the microfluidic channel, the fluid comprised of particles/cells of different types, different types of cells inherently have different electric particles; see Fig 15 and page 25, ll. 4-17); and
d. a set of electrodes disposed on a floor of the main microfluidic channel, wherein the set of electrodes is configured to apply an alternating current (AC) to the plurality of cells (electrodes 153 disposed on the bottom wall of the channel wherein the electrodes apply high frequency electric field to particles/cells; see page 24, ll. 16-20 and page 2, ll. 8-26);
wherein applying the AC to the plurality of cells (160), including the subset of the plurality of cells trapped causes the plurality of cells (160) to move relative to the set of electrodes (200) based on the electric properties through dielectric polarization (parallel application of both acoustic wave and dielectrophoretic force i.e. applying AC field to plurality of particles/cells would include both subset of plurality of cells trapped and move to either repel or attract to electrodes based electric properties through polarization forces; see page 2, ll. 8-26 and page 25, ll. 4-17).
Lemor et al. teach acoustic wave is coupled to microfluidic channel and is applied using piezoceramic plate i.e. PZT (page 13, ll. 6-14 and see page 25, ll. 4-17) which separates particles/cells based on size as supported by Rose et al. [0036]. Lemor do not teach a microvortex generation component fluidly coupled to the microfluidic platform; wherein the microvortex generation component is configured to produce one or more microstreaming vortices, wherein each microstreaming vortex is capable of selectively trapping at least a subset of the plurality of cells based on size.
However, Doria et al. teach size-based separation of particles/cells from a liquid using cavity acoustic transducers (CAT) microstreaming producing oscillations which further creates plurality of vortices for trapping particles therein based on size (col. 2, ll. 26-67 over to col. 3, ll. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Doria et al. teaching to use CAT microstreaming as the choice of acoustic focusing in Lemor et al. device because CAT microstreaming enhances particle separation through mixing while in microvortices.
Claim 2. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the oscillation for producing the one or more microstreaming vortices is controlled by a piezoelectric transducer (PZT) voltage (see Doria et al., col. 4, ll. 18-19).
Claim 3. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the interfaces (180) fluidly coupled to fluid in the channel such that microvortex generation component generates the one or more microstreaming vortices at the interface, wherein the interface comprise a gas-liquid interface (see Doria et al., col. 2, ll. 26-43 and Fig 5).
Claim 4. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the system (100) is used to purify cell mixtures comprising different subpopulations with overlapping sizes (the device is capable of purify cell mixtures comprising different subpopulations with overlapping sizes. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
Claim 5. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the system (100) is used to separate lymphocyte subtypes in a high throughput manner for biomedical applications (the device is capable of separate lymphocyte subtypes in a high throughput manner for biomedical applications. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
Claim 6. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the electrodes (200) are disposed parallel or perpendicular to a flow direction of the main microfluidic channel (120) (Lemor et al. teach electrodes 153 disposed on the bottom wall of the channel, thus parallel to the fluid flow; see Fig 15).
Claim 7. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the microvortex generation component comprises one or more cavity acoustic transducers (CATs) (130), wherein the one or more CATs (130) are dead-end channels coupled to the main microfluidic channel (120), wherein the microfluidic platform (110) is coupled to an external acoustic source (140), wherein the fluid (150) intersects the CATs (130) to form one or more interfaces (180), wherein the CATs (130) are configured to oscillate the interfaces (180) to produce one or more microstreaming vortices (190) (see Doria et al. col.4 ll. 20-43 and Fig 5).
Claim 8. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the CATs (130) are disposed laterally to or on top of the main channel (Doria et al. teach CATs disposed laterally on the main channel; see Fig 15).
Claim 9. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the microvortex generation component comprises an external pump (Doria et al. teach pump used for pumping diluent; see col. 7, ll. 46-49).
Claim 19. Lemor et al. teach the electrodes (200) are used to selectively collect, concentrate, and detect intracellular components from purified cells trapped in microstreaming vortices (electrodes are capable of performing the function of collecting, concentrating and detecting intracellular components from purified cells. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
Claim 20. Lemor et al. teach the plurality of cells (160) is lysed by the electrodes (200), pumping a lysing buffer into the system, or a combination thereof (the electrodes apply electric field to cells (), thus electrodes are capable of lysing the cells and pumping lysing buffer into the device. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
Claim 21. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the intracellular component comprises DNA, RNA, protein, a small molecule, or a combination thereof (see Doria et al.; col. 9, ll. 52-56).
Claim 22. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the electrodes (200) are used for Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) heating of concentrated nucleic acids (the electrodes are capable for Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) heating of concentrated nucleic acids. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
Claim 10. A high-throughput method for cell sorting (method using parallel arrangement of acoustic transducer and dielectrophoretic electrode having overlap region for particles manipulation; see page 11, ll. 7-31 and page 25, ll. 4-17), comprising:
a. providing a microfluidic platform (110) comprising a main microfluidic channel (120) (substrate comprising microchannel; see page 12, ll. 20-30 and Fig 15);
c. providing a set of electrodes (200) disposed on a floor of the main microfluidic channel (120) (electrodes 153 disposed on the bottom wall of the channel, see page 24, ll. 16-20 and page 2, ll. 8-26);
d. flowing a fluid (150) through the main microfluidic channel (120), said fluid (150) comprising a plurality of cells (160) having different sizes and different electric properties (fluid disposed in the microfluidic channel, the fluid comprised of particles/cells of different types, different types of cells have different electric particles; see Fig 15 and page 25, ll. 4-17);
f. applying, by the set of electrodes (200), an alternating current (AC) to the plurality of cells (160), wherein applying the AC causes the plurality of cells (160) to move relative to the set of electrodes (200) based on the electric properties through dielectric polarization (parallel application of both acoustic wave and dielectrophoretic force i.e. electrodes 153 disposed on the bottom wall of the channel apply high frequency electric field to both subset of plurality of particles/cells move to either repel or attract to electrodes based electric properties through polarization forces; see page 24, ll. 16-20 and page 2, ll. 8-26 and page 25, ll. 4-17).
Lemor et al. teach acoustic wave is fluidly coupled to microfluidic channel and is applied using piezoceramic plate i.e. PZT (page 13, ll. 6-14 and see page 25, ll. 4-17) which separates particles/cells based on size as supported by Rose et al. [0036]. Lemor et al. do not teach providing a microvortex generation component fluidly connected to the microfluidic platform (110) and producing, one or more microstreaming vortices (190) such that each microstreaming vortex is capable of selectively trapping at least a subset of the plurality of cells (160) based on size.
However, Doria et al. teach size-based separation of particles/cells from a liquid using cavity acoustic transducers (CAT) microstreaming producing oscillations which further creates plurality of vortices for trapping particles therein based on size (col. 2, ll. 26-67 over to col. 3, ll. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Doria et al. teaching to use CAT microstreaming as the choice of acoustic focusing in Lemor et al. device because CAT microstreaming enhances particle separation through mixing while in microvortices.
Claim 11. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the oscillation is controlled by a piezoelectric transducer (PZT) voltage (see Doria et al., col. 4, ll. 18-19).
Claim 12. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the interfaces (180) comprise a gas-liquid interface (see Doria et al., col. 2, ll. 26-43).
Claim 13. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the method is used to purify cell mixtures comprising different subpopulations with overlapping sizes (see Doria et al. col. 6, ll. 63-67 over to col. 7, ll. 1-13).
Claim 14. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the method to separate lymphocyte subtypes in a high throughput manner for biomedical applications (red/white blood cells are separated from plasma; see col. 10, ll. 14-26).
Claim 15. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the electrodes (200) are disposed parallel or perpendicular to a flow direction of the main microfluidic channel (120) (Lemor et al. teach electrodes 153 disposed on the bottom wall of the channel, thus parallel to the fluid flow; see Fig 15).
Claim 16. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the microvortex generation component comprises one or more cavity acoustic transducers (CATs) (130), wherein the one or more CATs (130) are dead-end channels coupled to the main microfluidic channel (120), wherein the microfluidic platform (110) is coupled to an external acoustic source (140), wherein the fluid (150) intersects the CATs (130) to form one or more interfaces (180), wherein the CATs (130) are configured to oscillate the interfaces (180) to produce one or more microstreaming vortices (190) (see Doria et al. col.4 ll. 20-43 and Fig 5).
Claim 17. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the CATs (130) are disposed laterally to or on top of the main channel (Doria et al. teach CATs disposed laterally on the main channel; see Fig 15).
Claim 18. Lemor et al. in view of Doria et al. teach the microvortex generation component comprises an external pump (Doria et al. teach pump used for pumping diluent; see col. 7, ll. 46-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant on page 12 of remarks argues that Lemor do not teach feature of combination of microvortices and dielectrophoresis for cell sorting. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant on page 12 of remarks argues that Doria do not teach feature of combination of microvortices and dielectrophoresis for cell sorting. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As indicated above in the rejection, Lemor teaches parallel arrangement of acoustic transducer and dielectrophoretic electrode having overlap region for particles manipulation; see page 11, ll. 7-31 and page 25, ll. 4-17). Lemor et al. teach piezoceramic plate i.e. PZT provides acoustic wave in the channel (page 13, ll. 6-14 and see page 25, ll. 4-17) which separates particles/cells based on size.Doria et al. teach size-based separation of particles/cells from a liquid using cavity acoustic transducers (CAT) microstreaming producing oscillations which further creates plurality of vortices for trapping particles therein based on size (col. 2, ll. 26-67 over to col. 3, ll. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of Doria et al. teaching to use CAT microstreaming as the choice of acoustic focusing in Lemor et al. device because CAT microstreaming enhances particle separation through mixing while in microvortices.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GURPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7895. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/GURPREET KAUR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights