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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 November 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (371 of PCT/US2021/043387, filed 28 July 2021, which has PRO 63/059,425, filed 31 July 2020) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 17 November 2025, have been fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejections of Claim(s) 1 and 3-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCOTT et al. (US 2014/0017151 A1) in view of YAMAGISHI et al. (Journal of Membrane Science, 105, 1995, pg. 249-259), Applicant argues that “not all elements of independent claim 1… are taught by Scott in view of Yamagishi, so no prima facie case of obviousness exists over the pending claims” (pg. 5, bottom). Applicant argues that the claimed invention “is not directed to machinery that works on an article or material. The claims are instead directed to the article itself” in response to the Office action’s rejection of the limitation of “recovers extracellular vesicles in the filtration chamber in an amount greater than a like ultrafiltration device that is uncoated” (pg. 5-6). Applicant further argues the pending claims are also “not directed to machinery, they are directed to a device”, i.e., a device that has a recovery rate of at least 80% of the extracellular vesicles, and that none of the cited art teaches such a recovery rate (pg. 6, middle). Applicant continues, arguing that neither SCOTT nor YAMAGISHI disclose recovering extracellular vesicles (pg. 7-8), and for these reasons “not all elements of independent claim 1 are taught”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is seemingly differentiating a “device” from a “machine” as wholly separate statutory categories of invention. There is no such distinction. The statutory categories considered for patentability are processes, machines, manufacture, or compositions of matter. The instant application is directed toward a machine, i.e., a machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)). This category "includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683, 690 (1854)). The claimed invention is certainly not directed toward “the article itself” as argued by Applicant—even the claim construction references “A coated ultrafiltration device”. The additional recitation of “for filtering extracellular vesicles” is considered part of the preamble and has no bearing on the patentability of the claimed device. By broadest reasonable interpretation, Applicant’s invention is directed toward a machine (e.g., a device) and not toward whatever materials or articles worked upon by the device or means/methods by which the device is used.
If Applicant does intend to pursue such an argument that the application is somehow directed toward both the device (as constructed) AND the article worked upon (i.e., extracellular vesicles), further structural and/or functional limitations would be required for the article to be considered. The recitation of “wherein the coated ultrafiltration device recovers at least 80% of the extracellular vesicles in the filtration chamber” does not constitute further providing structural or functional limitations to the claimed invention because no such structure or function is required or implied from such a recitation. This recitation is considered directed toward an intended result from the practice or use of the claimed ultrafiltration device. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Because the prior art, singly or in combination, teaches all claimed structural language, the “adapted to” or “adapted for” clause in question is optional and does not limit the claim. The clause expresses the intended use of the claimed structural element and thereby, does not further limit the claim (MPEP §2111.04). Such a recitation is also directed toward a material or article worked upon (i.e., extracellular vesicles) by the claimed device and a manner or method by which the claimed device is used (i.e., for extracellular vesicle recovery). The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCOTT et al. (US 2014/0017151 A1) in view of YAMAGISHI et al. (Journal of Membrane Science, 105, 1995, pg. 249-259).
Regarding Claim 1, SCOTT discloses a centrifugal filter device for separating biological substances, e.g., enzymes, nucleic acids, and proteins (p0002), e.g., albumin and IgG (i.e., a… device for filtering extracellular vesicles; p0087). The device is a sample preparation device that includes a reservoir 14, a column 18, a holder region with a filtration device 50, and an outlet which when assembled can be placed in a conventional centrifuge tube 70 for centrifugation (FIGs. 2-4, 6; abstract). Briefly, the device comprises generally cylindrical sample reservoir 14 in fluid communication with a column 18 (p0052; FIG. 4) that tapers downwardly and converges at stem 23 to the filtration device 50, which includes first and second membranes 12A and 12B arranged substantially vertically and ends in a collection tip 30 protruding outwardly from the bottom (p0017, p0053, p0057; FIG. 3). When assembled, reservoir 14 slots into filtration device 50, and the overall sample preparation device is housed in a conventional centrifuge tube 70 closeable with a cap 72 (p0063; FIGs. 2, 6). Suitable membranes 12A and 12B include ultraporous membranes for ultrafiltration and include polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes (p0058).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
SCOTT is deficient in disclosing a coating on a portion of the semipermeable membrane exposed to the filtration chamber.
YAMAGISHI discloses synthetic membranes for purification of solutions and recognizes that these membranes are typically fouled with deposits and build-up of unwanted cells or other suspended particles (§1, par. 1). For polyethersulfone (PES) ultrafiltration membranes (§2.1, par. 1), YAMAGISHI suggests a solution whereby 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) polymer (i.e., a non-animal-derived ultra-low attachment coating) is attached to the membranes (§1 par. 2) to yield PES membranes modified with HEMA (§2.2, par. 1). Advantageously, such modified membranes yielded improved performance, including higher permeation flux and showed reduced albumin adsorption on the modified membranes (§4, par. 1-2). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide HEMA coatings onto PES membranes as taught by YAMAGISHI for the PES membranes disclosed by SCOTT.
The recitation “wherein the coated ultrafiltration device recovers at least 80% of the extracellular vesicles in the filtration chamber” is directed toward an intended result from the practice or use of the claimed ultrafiltration device. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Because the prior art, singly or in combination, teaches all claimed structural language, the “adapted to” or “adapted for” clause in question is optional and does not limit the claim. The clause expresses the intended use of the claimed structural element and thereby, does not further limit the claim (MPEP §2111.04). Such a recitation is also directed toward a material or article worked upon (i.e., extracellular vesicles) by the claimed device and a manner or method by which the claimed device is used (i.e., for extracellular vesicle recovery). The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
The recitation “[a] coated ultrafiltration device for filtering extracellular vesicles” is considered a preamble having no patentable significance. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (MPEP 2111.02 II). The claim body does not provide any structure or functionality attributed toward filtering extracellular vesicles, e.g., no disclosure of a unique coating or a unique semipermeable membrane having specificity toward an identified biological molecule; as such, the recitation is considered merely an intended use or purpose of the claimed ultrafiltration device.
Regarding Claim 3, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 1. As shown in the figures, the disclosed sample preparation device comprises a cylindrical tube shape (see reservoir 14, filtration device 50 sections). As further shown in FIG. 3, the walls of the sample preparation device converge and taper to meet at the collection tip 32 (i.e., a conical bottom).
Regarding Claim 5, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 1. As shown in FIG. 3, the filtration device 50 has a conical shape, tapering towards the bottom, and comprises a collection tip 30 at the bottom (i.e., a closed bottom end), a sample reservoir 11 open to the top (i.e., an open top end opposite the bottom end), and sidewalls containing membranes 12A and 12B (i.e., a sidewall disposed between the bottom end and top end to form the conically shaped filtration chamber; p0057; FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 5. As shown in FIG. 2, the reservoir 12 segment of the sample preparation device slots into the sample reservoir 11 of the filtration device 50 (i.e., wherein the open top end is disposed at a bottom end of the upper chamber and is in communication with the upper chamber; p0056; FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 5. As noted earlier, the filtration device 50 includes a housing having two substantially vertically oriented membranes in the sample reservoir 11 (i.e., wherein the semipermeable membrane disposed substantially vertically around the filtration chamber forms at least a portion of the sidewall of the filtration chamber; p0017).
Regarding Claim 8, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 1. SCOTT further discloses the membranes 12A and 12B are polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes (i.e., wherein the semipermeable membrane comprises a polyethersulfone membrane; p0058).
Regarding Claim 9, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 1. As noted earlier, the filtration device 50 includes a housing having two substantially vertically oriented membranes in the sample reservoir 11 (i.e., wherein the semipermeable membrane comprises two membrane portions disposed substantially vertically around the filtration chamber; p0017).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 1. The instant limitations “wherein the device is suitable for storage at room temperature prior to use” (Claim 10) and “wherein the device is stored at a temperature of about 4°C prior to use” (Claim 11) are directed toward intended uses of the claimed device. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II).
Regarding Claim 12, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 1. As shown in FIG. 6, a cap 72 is screwed onto the top of the assembled device in the centrifuge tube 70 (i.e., wherein the device comprises a cap to seal the upper chamber; p0063).
Regarding Claim 13, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 1. The limitations requiring an upper portion and a lower portion wherein the upper portion of the device comprises the upper chamber, filtration chamber, and semipermeable membrane, and wherein the lower portion comprises the lower portion are considered arbitrary designations and do no more to further limit the claimed invention other than to provide additional definitions/groupings already considered in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 13. As shown in FIGs. 2, 5, and 7-9, the separate components of the device are separable (i.e., wherein the upper portion is releasably connected to the lower portion).
Regarding Claim 15, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 1. SCOTT discloses the use of the device for separating/purifying proteins for biomedical use (e.g., Examples); such uses require sterile equipment and environment (i.e., wherein the device is sterile).
Regarding Claim 16, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 1. As shown in FIG. 6, the device is seated into a conventional centrifuge tube (i.e., wherein the ultrafiltration device is shaped to be received in a centrifuge; FIG. 6, p0063).
Regarding Claims 17-19, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 1. As is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, conventional centrifuge tubes have 1-1.5 mL, 15 mL, and 50 mL capacities; because SCOTT teaches that the disclosed device can be seated in a conventional centrifuge tube, such instant limitations are met (i.e., wherein the device comprises a 1 mL centrifuge tube (Claim 17); wherein the device comprises a 15 mL centrifuge tube (Claim 18); wherein the device comprises a 50 mL centrifuge tube (Claim 19); p0063). While SCOTT is deficient in explicitly disclosing a 500 µL filtration chamber capacity, a 6 mL filtration chamber capacity, or a 20 mL filtration chamber capacity, SCOTT does disclose exemplary volumes of 3 mL and 11 mL (p0052). The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the devices. Because the claimed invention would not perform differently than that of modified SCOTT, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); MPEP §2144.04). As such, the claimed filtration chamber capacities would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 20, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 1. YAMAGISHI further discloses nominal molecular weight cut-offs of PES membranes of 50 KDa (i.e., wherein the semipermeable membrane comprises a molecular weight cut-off… 50,000 MWCO; §2.1, par. 1).
Regarding Claim 21, modified SCOTT makes obvious the device of Claim 1. The recitation “wherein the coated ultrafiltration device recovers from 80% to 87.5% of the extracellular vesicles in the filtration chamber” is directed toward an intended result from the practice or use of the claimed ultrafiltration device. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Because the prior art, singly or in combination, teaches all claimed structural language, the “adapted to” or “adapted for” clause in question is optional and does not limit the claim. The clause expresses the intended use of the claimed structural element and thereby, does not further limit the claim (MPEP §2111.04). Such a recitation is also directed toward a material or article worked upon (i.e., extracellular vesicles) by the claimed device and a manner or method by which the claimed device is used (i.e., for extracellular vesicle recovery). The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights