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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant cites MPEP 2114 and argues that “it is standard practice to present apparatus/device/system claims with computer-implemented claim elements” and that because the referenced Wagner et al. (US20190187043A1) was granted the U.S. Patent No. 10,908,066 claiming "at least one processor configured to analyze the detectable change and determine the property of the at least one of the two fluids inclusive of the any, respective constituent", that the configuration of the instant processor in instant claim(s) 1 and 14 should also be allowable. The applicant also argues that instant device is specifically designed for CAR-T/target cells and not sperm cells as disclosed in Wagner et al. However, Wagner still reads on claim 1 of the instant application because all the structural components (e.g. a microfluidic circuit imaging sensor, mammalian cells, etc.) that are needed to produce this device and to manipulate cells using photoacoustic pressure or to “analyze the detectable change and determine the property” such as, “CAR-T cells that exhibit the desired avidity” would be anticipated (Note in MPEP 2114 how if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be appropriate. See In re Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1258, 84 USPQ2d 1929, 1935-1936 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (The claims were drawn to multiplexer circuit. The patent at issue claimed "coupled to" and "coupled to receive" between various portions of the circuitry. In reference to the claim phrase "input terminals ‘coupled to receive’ first and second input variables," the court held that "the claimed circuit does not require any specific input or connection … [a]s such, ‘coupled to’ and ‘coupled to receive’ are clearly different … [a]s shown in [the figures of the] patent, input terminals … only need to be ‘capable of receiving’ an input variable for the multiplexer circuit as claimed". Therefore, the specification supported the claim construction "that ‘coupled to receive’ means ‘capable of receiving.’"); Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832, 20 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (The court held that "programmable" claim language required only that the accused product could be programmed to perform the claimed functionality.);In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64, 169 USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971) ("[I]t is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art").
In response to applicant's argument that Wagner et al. does not teach a "CAR-T cell," "an amount of photoacoustic pressure," "avidity," or a "photoacoustic force spectrum", a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wagner et al. (US20190187043A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wagner et al. teaches a system to perform avidity-based screening (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 5-20, and the flow architecture 100 and other cell sorting embodiments in [0114], [0142], [0176], [0183]-[0188] in Fig. 1-58), the system comprising:
a microfluidic circuit that includes an inlet designed to receive target cells and CAR-T cells that bind to the target cells (See how cells enter the flow architecture 100, i.e. a microfluidic circuit, in [0183]-[0185] in Fig. 1-5);
a light source (See the laser source 102 in [0183] in Fig. 1) configured to illuminate a portion of the microfluidic circuit that includes the CAR-T cells such that a photoacoustic pressure is applied to the CAR-T cells (See the photo-acoustic detector 104 in [0114], [0142], [0176], [0183]-[0188] in Fig. 1-5);
an imaging sensor configured to capture images of the CAR-T cells (See the use of sensors in [0114], [0258]-[0267], and how one or more detectors 206 can be used to produce an image or pseudo-image of the cell in [0188] in Fig. 2); and
a processor operatively coupled to the light source and to the imaging sensor (See Claims 5 and 21 in [0128]-[0133], [0429]-[0433]), wherein the processor is configured to: analyze the images to determine if a CAR-T cell has detached from a target cell; responsive to a determination that the CAR-T cell has detached from the target cell, record an amount of the photoacoustic pressure applied to the CAR-T cell; determine a desired avidity based at least in part on a photoacoustic force spectrum, wherein the photoacoustic force spectrum is based on a plurality of photoacoustic pressures applied to a plurality of detached CAR-T cells (See how an acoustic detection facility detects the shockwave emitted by a single cell. The magnitude of the shockwave, i.e. a pressure or force, is indicative of a cell characteristic. The characteristic may be a quantity of a nucleic acid, a {CAR-T} protein, a lipid, a nutrient, and a metabolic product. The system may further include a sort facility for sorting the single cell according to the identified characteristic. Also, see how multiple acoustic sensors or QCLs can be used in [0141]-[0176] in Fig. 1-58). One with ordinary skills in the arts would find the instant processor configuration obvious in view of the prior art.
Wagner et al further discloses that an extract, from the microfluidic circuit, one or more CAR-T cells that exhibit the desired avidity (See the reactor output 1618 and the cell soring switch 1610 in Fig. 16, and see the various ways targeted cells can be extracted from the system in [0195]-[0196], [0208], [0343] in Fig. 1-5).
Note what is discussed in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). The current claimed arrangement of the light source, the image sensor, and the processor, could render similar results as the cell sorting apparatus in the prior art.
Also, note what is discussed in MPEP § 2114 I-II. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The instant application recites the limitations of "a processor operatively coupled to the light source and to the imaging sensor, wherein the processor is configured to: analyze the images to determine if a CAR-T cell has detached from a target cell; responsive to a determination that the CAR-T cell has detached from the target cell, record an amount of the photoacoustic pressure applied to the CAR-T cell; determine a desired avidity based at least in part on a photoacoustic force spectrum, wherein the photoacoustic force spectrum is based on a plurality of photoacoustic pressures applied to a plurality of detached CAR-T cells", but fails to present the structural components that create and/or detect a "photoacoustic force spectrum" or the "photoacoustic pressures" associated to "extract… a desired avidity" when sorting cells that would not be obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Regarding Claim(s) 2-5, Wagner et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 1.
Wagner et al. teaches a system to perform avidity-based screening (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 5-20, and the flow architecture 100 and other cell sorting embodiments in [0114], [0142], [0176], [0183]-[0188] in Fig. 1-58), wherein responsive to the determination that the CAR-T cell has detached from the target cell, the processor is further configured to record a location of the CAR-T cell; wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether all of the CAR-T cells have detached from the target cells; (See how the QCL wavelengths may be supplemented by visible, near-infrared or other wavelength measurements to provide reference information such as cell location, shape, orientation, scattering, etc. in [0104]; See QCL 204 with laser 202 in [0186]-[0188] in Fig. 2);
wherein the processor determines the photoacoustic force spectrum based on photoacoustic pressures applied to each of the CAR-T cells that detached from the target cells; and wherein the extraction occurs responsive to a determination that all of the CAR-T cells have detached (See the QCL array-on-chip in [0225]; Also, see the Claims 5 and 21 in [0128]-[0133], [0429]-[0433]).
Regarding Claim(s) 7-8, Wagner et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 1.
Wagner et al. teaches a system to perform avidity-based screening (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 5-20, and the flow architecture 100 and other cell sorting embodiments in [0114], [0142], [0176], [0183]-[0188] in Fig. 1-58), wherein the light source comprises a laser (See the use of mid-IR quantum cascade lasers or quantum cascade lasers in [0093]-[0118], [0133]; Also, see the laser source 102 in Fig. 1 in [0183]);
wherein the microfluidic circuit includes a main chamber in which the CAR-T cells bind to the target cells (See the series of microwells 1304, i.e. chambers, are integrated into a microfluidic flow channel/chamber 1302 in [0209]-[0213] in Fig. 13a-14; Also, see the cell input chamber 1604 in Fig. 16 in [0218]).
Regarding Claim 14, Wagner et al. teaches a method to perform avidity-based screening (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 5-36, and the flow architecture 100 and other cell sorting embodiments in [0114], [0142], [0176], [0183]-[0188] in Fig. 1-58), the method comprising:
placing target cells into a microfluidic circuit along with CAR-T cells that bind to the target cells (See how cells enter the flow architecture 100, i.e. a microfluidic circuit, in [0183]-[0185] in Fig. 1-5);
illuminating, by a light source, a portion of the microfluidic circuit that includes the CAR-T cells such that a photoacoustic pressure is applied to the CAR-T cells (See the laser source 102 in [0183] in Fig. 1; Also, see the photo-acoustic detector 104 in [0114], [0142], [0176], [0183]-[0188] in Fig. 1-5);
capturing, by an imaging sensor, images of the CAR-T cells (See the use of sensors in [0114], [0258]-[0267], and how one or more detectors 206 can be used to produce an image or pseudo-image of the cell in [0188] in Fig. 2); and
analyzing the images, by a processor operatively coupled to the light source and to the imaging sensor, to determine if a CAR-T cell has detached from a target cell (See Claims 5 and 21 in [0128]-[0133], [0429]-[0433]);
responsive to a determination that the CAR-T cell has detached from the target cell, recording, by the processor, an amount of the photoacoustic pressure applied to the CAR-T cell; determining, by the processor, a desired avidity based at least in part on a photoacoustic force spectrum, wherein the photoacoustic force spectrum is based on a plurality of photoacoustic pressures applied to a plurality of detached CAR-T cells (See how an acoustic detection facility detects the shockwave emitted by a single cell. The magnitude of the shockwave, i.e. a pressure or force, is indicative of a cell characteristic. The characteristic may be a quantity of a nucleic acid, a {CAR-T} protein, a lipid, a nutrient, and a metabolic product. The system may further include a sort facility for sorting the single cell according to the identified characteristic. Also, see how multiple acoustic sensors or QCLs can be used in [0141]-[0176] in Fig. 1-58. One with ordinary skills in the arts would find the instant processor configuration obvious in view of the prior art.)
extracting, by the processor and from the microfluidic circuit, one or more CAR-T cells that exhibit the desired avidity (See the reactor output 1618 and the cell soring switch 1610 in Fig. 16, and see the various ways targeted cells can be extracted from the system in [0195]-[0196], [0208], [0343] in Fig. 1-5).
Note what is discussed in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. The current claimed arrangement of the light source, the image sensor, and the processor, could render similar results as the cell sorting apparatus in the prior art.
Also, note what is discussed in MPEP § 2114 I-II. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." The instant application recites the limitations of "analyzing the images, by a processor operatively coupled to the light source and to the imaging sensor, to determine if a CAR-T cell has detached from a target cell; responsive to a determination that the CAR-T cell has detached from the target cell, recording, by the processor, an amount of the photoacoustic pressure applied to the CAR-T cell; determining, by the processor, a desired avidity based at least in part on a photoacoustic force spectrum, wherein the photoacoustic force spectrum is based on a plurality of photoacoustic pressures applied to a plurality of detached CAR-T cells", but fails to present the structural components or exact method steps that create and/or detect a "photoacoustic force spectrum" or the "photoacoustic pressures" associated to "extract… a desired avidity" when sorting cells that would not be obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 15, Wagner et al. teaches the method limitations of claim 14.
Wagner et al. teaches a method to perform avidity-based screening (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 5-36, and the flow architecture 100 and other cell sorting embodiments in [0114], [0142], [0176], [0183]-[0188] in Fig. 1-58), wherein the placing the target cells in the microfluidic circuit comprises using a biochemical or physical agent to secure the target cells (See the use of various biochemical or physical agent when placing cells into the circuit in [0014], [0101], [0161]-[0162]).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 9-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US20190187043A1) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Guldiken et al. (US20140008307A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Wagner et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 1.
Wagner et al. fails to explicitly teach a system to perform avidity-based screening, wherein the imaging sensor comprises a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor camera or a charge-coupled device camera.
However, in the analogous art of microfluidic devices for acoustic particle manipulation and methods of separation, Guldiken et al. teaches a system to perform avidity-based screening (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-10, and the two stage microfluidic device in Fig. 1.1-4.12 in [0009]-[0034], [0051]-[0056]), wherein the imaging sensor comprises a complementary metal- oxide semiconductor camera or a charge-coupled device camera (See the CCD camera used in [0134]-[0136] in Fig. 3.4).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the imaging sensor of Wagner et al. by incorporating an imaging sensor that comprises a charged-coupled device camera (as taught in Guldiken et al.) for the benefit of imaging cells during sorting in a system.
Regarding Claim(s) 9-10, Wagner et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 8.
Wagner et al. fails to explicitly teach a system to perform avidity-based screening, wherein the main chamber includes an array of photoacoustic transducers that, responsive to light from the light source, induce the photoacoustic pressure that is applied to the CAR-T cells; or wherein the microfluidic circuit also includes a sorting chamber into which the plurality of detached CAR-T cells are guided.
However, in the analogous art of microfluidic devices for acoustic particle manipulation and methods of separation, Guldiken et al. teaches a system to perform avidity-based screening (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-10, and the two stage microfluidic device in Fig. 1.1-4.12 in [0009]-[0034], [0051]-[0056]), wherein the main chamber includes an array of photoacoustic transducers that, responsive to light from the light source, induce the photoacoustic pressure that is applied to the CAR-T cells (See how the use of acoustic transducers in [0060]-[0062], [0068]-[0077] in Fig.1.1; Also, see the bulk transducers 27-29 in [0125]-[0127] in Fig. 2.1; See the main chamber illustrated in Fig. 4.1);
wherein the microfluidic circuit also includes a sorting chamber into which the plurality of detached CAR-T cells are guided (See how the main chamber splits into various output chamber and/or channels after acoustic separation in [0054]-[0055] in Fig. 1.1 and 4.1).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the microfluidic circuit of Wagner et al. by incorporating a main chamber, an array of photoacoustic transducers that are responsive to light from the light source, and sorting chambers (as taught in Guldiken et al.) for the benefit of acoustically sorting cells in a system.
Regarding Claim 16, Wagner et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 15.
Wagner et al. fails to explicitly teach a system to perform avidity-based screening, wherein the target cells are placed such that a single target cell is attached each photoacoustic transducer in a plurality of photoacoustic transducers that are positioned relative to the microfluidic circuit.
However, in the analogous art of microfluidic devices for acoustic particle manipulation and methods of separation, Guldiken et al. teaches a method to perform avidity-based screening (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-18, and the two stage microfluidic device in Fig. 1.1-4.12 in [0009]-[0034], [0051]-[0056]), wherein the target cells are placed such that a single target cell is attached each photoacoustic transducer in a plurality of photoacoustic transducers that are positioned relative to the microfluidic circuit (See how the use of acoustic transducers in [0060]-[0062], [0068]-[0077] in Fig.1.1; Also, see the bulk transducers 27-29 in [0125]-[0127] in Fig. 2.1; See the main chamber illustrated in Fig. 4.1).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the method of Wagner et al. by incorporating a step where an array of photoacoustic transducers positioned relative to the circuit (as taught in Guldiken et al.) for the benefit of acoustically sorting single cells in a system.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US20190187043A1) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Khurana et al. (US11554370B2).
Regarding Claim(s) 11-13, Wagner et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 1.
Wagner et al. fails to explicitly teach a system to perform avidity-based screening, further comprising an optically transparent ultrasound detector configured to determine pressure values of generated photoacoustic signals; wherein the processor is configured to tag the CAR-T cell that detaches from the target cell with location information of the CAR-T cell; and wherein the processor is configured to tag the CAR-T cell that detaches from the target cell with the amount of the photoacoustic pressure that was applied to the CAR-T cell.
However, in the analogous art of methods and devices for analyzing biological samples, Khurana et al. teaches a system to perform avidity-based screening (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-30, and in Fig. 1-32), comprising an optically transparent ultrasound detector configured to determine pressure values of generated photoacoustic signals (See the ultrasound detector and ultrasonic sensor in [Col. 44 lines 10-34] in Fig. 1-3; Also, see how acoustic vibration can be used for separation in [Col. 42 lines 49-60], [Col. 71 lines 17-45] in Fig. 2C);
wherein the processor is configured to tag the CAR-T cell that detaches from the target cell with location information of the CAR-T cell (See the processor 1505 in [Col. 69 lines 20-67]-[Col. 70 lines 1-67] , [Col. 71 lines 1-67] in Fig. 15); and wherein the processor is configured to tag the CAR-T cell that detaches from the target cell with the amount of the photoacoustic pressure that was applied to the CAR-T cell (See how the process coupled with a detector can identify and store cell locations with tags or barcodes in [Col. 4 lines 36-58], [Col. 13 lines 21-27], [Col. 20 lines 21-28]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the microfluidic circuit of Wagner et al. by incorporating an optically transparent ultrasound detector and a processor configured to tag cells (as taught in Khurana et al.) for the benefit of tagging acoustically sorted cells by phenotype and location within a system.
Regarding Claim(s) 17-20, Wagner et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 14.
Wagner et al. fails to explicitly teach a system to perform avidity-based screening, further comprising recording, by the processor and responsive to the determination that the CAR-T cell has detached from the target cell, a location of the CAR-T cell; further comprising tagging, by the processor, the detached CAR-T cell with the recorded amount of photoacoustic pressure; further comprising determining, by an optically transparent ultrasound detector, pressure values of generated photoacoustic signals; further comprising: determining, by the processor, that all of the CAR-T cells have detached from the target cells; and determining, by the processor, the photoacoustic force spectrum based on photoacoustic pressures applied to each of the CAR-T cells that detached from the target cells.
However, in the analogous art of methods and devices for analyzing biological samples, Khurana et al. teaches a method to perform avidity-based screening (See the Abstract, the Claim(s) 1-30, and in Fig. 1-32), further comprising recording, by the processor and responsive to the determination that the CAR-T cell has detached from the target cell, a location of the CAR-T cell (See the processor 1505 in [Col. 69 lines 20-67]-[Col. 70 lines 1-67] , [Col. 71 lines 1-67] in Fig. 15); further comprising tagging, by the processor, the detached CAR-T cell with the recorded amount of photoacoustic pressure (See how the process coupled with a detector can identify and store cell locations with tags or barcodes in [Col. 4 lines 36-58], [Col. 13 lines 21-27], [Col. 20 lines 21-28]; Also, see how acoustic vibration can be used for separation in [Col. 42 lines 49-60], [Col. 71 lines 17-45] in Fig. 2C);
further comprising determining, by an optically transparent ultrasound detector, pressure values of generated photoacoustic signals (See the ultrasound detector and ultrasonic sensor in [Col. 44 lines 10-34] in Fig. 1-3);
further comprising: determining, by the processor, that all of the CAR-T cells have detached from the target cells; and determining, by the processor, the photoacoustic force spectrum based on photoacoustic pressures applied to each of the CAR-T cells that detached from the target cells (See how the process coupled with a detector can identify and store cell locations with tags or barcodes in [Col. 4 lines 36-58], [Col. 13 lines 21-27], [Col. 20 lines 21-28]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the method of Wagner et al. by incorporating an optically transparent ultrasound detector and a processor configured to tag cells (as taught in Khurana et al.) for the benefit of analyzing acoustically sorted cells by phenotype and location within a system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art teaches similar sorting devices and methods: Huang et al. (US20100139377A1), Lavieu et al. (US211103870B2), and Wagner et al. (US20220284574A1).
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 BRITNEY N WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:30pm CT.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797