BJKDETAILED 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 .
Remarks
This office action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks and amendments submitted on 21 July 2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-8, 11-27, and 29-34 are pending.
Claims 9-10 and 28 are canceled.
Claims 21-27 and 29-31 are withdrawn.
Claims 32-34 are newly added.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, and 20-21 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 11-16, 19-20, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tung et al. (Tung, Kuan-Wen et al. “Deep, sub-wavelength acoustic patterning of complex and non-periodic shapes on soft membranes supported by air cavities.” Lab on a chip (2019).), hereinafter “Tung”.
Regarding Claim 1, Tung teaches an acoustic tweezer device (Abstract), comprising:
at least one acoustic source configured to provide acoustic energy (See the Operation principle of CMAP section: “the PZT substrate generates plane acoustic waves with uniform intensity”),
a fluid layer (See Fig. 2b showing the water layer – the “fluid” layer as water is a fluid.); and
a waveguide control structure disposed adjacent to the fluid layer and comprising solid material defining at least one cavity having a different acoustic impedance than both the solid material and the fluid layer (See Fig. 2b showing the PDMS (solid plastic) waveguide control structure defining a cavity (50 um across) having a different acoustic impedance as an air cavity: “Air cavities are utilized since they have a large acoustic impedance difference to most materials...” – Air has a different acoustic impedance than water and PDMS.),
the waveguide control structure including a waveguide formed in the solid material (Figs. 1A-C show the air cavities acting as waveguides in the solid material so as to form the waves into specific shapes for trapping cells.),
the waveguide extending along the fluid layer and defining a path of an acoustic microfluidic conduit in an adjacent portion of the fluid layer (Fig. 5 shows the waveguide as extending along the fluid layer and defining a path so as to form particular shapes.),
the waveguide including an elongated portion of the solid material extending between first and second ends (See the annotated Fig. 1 below. – Applicant has not described the particular structure of the “ends” as being edges of the substrate. Applicant should amend the claim to more clearly require that the waveguide extends all the way to the edge of the substrate and forms an opening at the edge commensurate with the waveguide shape, and that the acoustic source(s) is/are positioned as such ends of the waveguide lying at edges of the substrate.), the waveguide control structure being configured to guide propagation of acoustic energy along the elongated portion and along the path of the acoustic microfluidic conduit between the first and second ends to establish the acoustic microfluidic conduit (See the Operation principle of CMAP section: “pressure waves propagate through the air-embedded PDMS structure” See also the Discussion section: “the acoustic waves generated at the bottom substrate propagate through the thin, air-embedded PDMS structure, into the chamber fluid, and then into the PDMS lid”),
wherein the waveguide control structure is configured to direct the acoustic energy along the waveguide and through the acoustic microfluidic conduit, including along the elongated portion, to trap and manipulate particles in the acoustic microfluidic conduit without any physical boundary in the fluid layer (Fig. 5 shows trapping and manipulation of beads within the acoustic microfluidic conduits via directed acoustic energy through the waveguide control structures shown in Fig. 1a.),
as in Claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
826
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the at least one cavity comprises separate first and second lateral portions extending along the fluid layer and defining the waveguide in the solid material therebetween (Looking at Fig. 2b, the 50 um air cavity may be arbitrarily be broken up into left and right lateral “portions” where the solid layer therebetween (fluctuating with pressure actuation to come between the portions) forms the waveguide. Applicant has described mere “portions” (also construed as “regions” without imparting a particular structure defining those regions. As such, the cavity of Tung may be arbitrarily viewed as having the claimed regions.), as in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the path of the waveguide defines a narrow and arbitrarily shaped path of the acoustic microfluidic conduit within the fluid layer (Fig. 1a shows the waveguides as defining narrow arbitrarily shaped paths in the fluid layer, forming numerical shapes.), as in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the solid material of the waveguide control structure includes a first surface defining a top surface of the at least one cavity, wherein a projecting a portion of the solid material projects away from the first surface and into the at least one cavity so as to define the first and second lateral portions of the at least one cavity on opposing lateral sides of the portion (Fig. 1C shows a cavity formed by two air pockets, a protrusion therebetween (indicated by the “bulk” designator) defines first and second lateral portions of the cavity. Applicant may wish to clarify that the cavity remains a continuous volume, or that the protrusion does not extend all the way to the glass substrate.), as in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the waveguide control structure is configured to trap at least one of particles having positive acoustic contrasts or particles having negative acoustic contrasts in the acoustic microfluidic chamber (Fig. 1b shows the trapped particles as being cells, which typically have positive acoustic contrast. Further, as the structure of Tung is commensurately arranged as in the instant Claim 1, it would be expected to commensurately be capable of trapping particles with either positive or negative acoustic contrast depending on the mode of operation.), as in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the waveguide comprises first and second waveguides extending together along the fluid layer (Fig. 1a shows plural air chamber waveguides extending together along the plane of the fluidic layer.), and wherein a portion of the at least one cavity is disposed between the first and second waveguides (Fig. 1b shows portions of adjacent cavities disposed between adjacent waveguides.), as in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the first and second waveguides define separate first and second acoustic microfluidic conduits (Fig. 1a shows the adjacent waveguides as forming separate arbitrarily shaped conduits.), as in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the first and second waveguides together define a single acoustic microfluidic conduit in a portion of the fluid layer adjacent to a region of the waveguide control structure between the first and second waveguides (Fig. 4 shows the waveguides as forming a single branching conduit in the fluid layer between the waveguides surrounding each of the bulk regions.), as in Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the at least one cavity is filled with a gas or contains a vacuum (Fig. 1c shoes the cavity as being filled with air, a gas.), as in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the fluid layer comprises water (Fig. 2b shows the fluid layer as being water.) and the solid material of the waveguide structure comprises polydimethylsiloxane (Fig. 1b shows the waveguide structure as being polydimethylsiloxane -- PDMS.), as in Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the waveguide control structure comprises a membrane layer disposed between the fluid layer and the at least one cavity (Fig. 3b shows the membrane layer disposed between the fluid layer and the cavity.), as in Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 13 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the membrane layer at least partially encloses the at least one cavity (Fig. 3b shows the viscoelastic PDMS membrane layer as partially enclosing the cavity by sealing the top portion of the cavity.), as in Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the acoustic microfluidic conduit defines a quasi-2D open chamber (Figs. 1a and 5b show the fluid layer and conduits formed therein as a quasi-2D open chamber.), as in Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the waveguide control structure comprises at least one of a waveguide, a point array, a shaped hydrogel, a surface pattern, and/or a surface layer material (Fig. 4 shows the waveguide control PDMS structure acting as a waveguide and a point array.), as in Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the at least one cavity has positive acoustic contrast with both the solid material and the fluid layer (Given the commensurate arrangement of the fluid layer, solid material, and cavity, as well as their commensurate materials in Tung as in the instant claims, the arrangement of Tung is commensurately expected to have the cavity having positive acoustic contrast with both the solid material and the fluid layer.), as in Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, Tung teaches an acoustic tweezer device (Abstract), comprising:
a fluid layer (See Fig. 2b showing the water layer – the “fluid” layer as water is a fluid.); and
a waveguide control structure disposed adjacent to the fluid layer and comprising solid material, the solid material at least partially surrounding at least one region having a different acoustic impedance than both the solid material and the fluid layer (See Fig. 2b showing the PDMS (solid plastic) waveguide control structure defining a region (50 um across) having a different acoustic impedance as an air cavity: “Air cavities are utilized since they have a large acoustic impedance difference to most materials...” – Air has a different acoustic impedance than water and PDMS.),
the waveguide control structure including a waveguide formed in the solid material (Figs. 1A-C show the air cavities acting as waveguides in the solid material so as to form the waves into specific shapes for trapping cells.),
the waveguide extending along the fluid layer and defining a path in an adjacent portion of the fluid layer (Fig. 5 shows the waveguide as extending along the fluid layer and defining a path so as to form particular shapes.),
wherein the waveguide control structure is configured to direct acoustic energy along the waveguide, along the path, and through the fluid layer, in the direction of the waveguide, in a localized region of the fluid layer adjacent to the waveguide (Fig. 1 shows the waveguide air chambers as directing acoustic energy along their lengths (path) to a localized region of the fluid layer adjacent to the waveguide.), and
wherein the acoustic energy in the fluid layer adjacent to the waveguide traps and manipulates particles in the localized region along the path of the waveguide control structure (Fig. 5 shows trapping and manipulation of beads within the acoustic microfluidic conduits via directed acoustic energy through the waveguide control structures shown in Fig. 1a.), as in Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 32, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the elongated portion of the waveguide includes at least one straight portion having a greater length than width (See the annotated Fig. 1 above.), as in Claim 32.
Regarding Claim 33, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the projecting portion of the waveguide extends from the first end to the second end and has a greater length than width, and wherein the first and second lateral portions extend along the projecting portion between the first end and the second end (See the cross-sectional view in Fig. 1c and the 3D view of Fig. 5c where the projecting portion extends from the first end to the second end (the ends not being particularly defined and being interpreted as the bounds of the number shapes such as in Fig. 5b) and wherein the length of the projecting portion separating the number shapes is greater than its width, each section being bound in lengthwise increments. Applicant may wish to specify the locations of the ends and/or the smooth following of the projecting portion extending parallel with and at the center of the two lateral cavity portions, remaining at a constant spacing from the cavity walls.), as in Claim 33.
Regarding Claim 34, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the acoustic microfluidic conduit has lateral sides that confine the particles within the acoustic microfluidic conduit and that extend longitudinally between the first and second ends so as to define the path (See the Discussion section discussing particle trapping, and Fig. 5a showing the trapped particles along the path ends of the shaped numbers.), as in Claim 34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung in view of Kim et al. (US PAT 10,106,397 B1), hereinafter “Kim”. Tung has been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung does not specifically teach the acoustic tweezer device discussed above further comprising: a first acoustic lens acoustically coupled to a first end of the waveguide; and a second acoustic lens acoustically coupled to a second end of the waveguide, wherein the first and second ends of the waveguide comprises respective first and second ends of the path of the microfluidic acoustic conduit, and wherein the first and second acoustic lenses are each configured to direct and concentrate acoustic energy from a respective acoustic source into a respective one of the first or second ends of the waveguide, as in Claim 17.
However, Kim teaches a respective acoustic tweezer device comprising an acoustic lens 130 (Fig. 1) so as to focus ultrasonic waves for particle trapping (col. 1, lines 40-48), wherein the lens is situated at a point respective to particles 514 suspended in a water solution 510 (Fig. 5). Therein, the acoustic lens allows for focusing of the acoustic waves to a convergence point for more precisely acting on particles (Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 9-11).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Tung further comprising: a first acoustic lens acoustically coupled to a first end of the waveguide; and a second acoustic lens acoustically coupled to a second end of the waveguide (wherein it is noted that the waveguide comprises multiple separate air compartments forming an overall channel), wherein the first and second ends of the waveguide comprises respective first and second ends of the path of the microfluidic acoustic conduit (wherein the “ends” are points of the microfluidic branching conduit not directly over an air chamber), and wherein the first and second acoustic lenses are each configured to direct and concentrate acoustic energy from a respective acoustic source into a respective one of the first or second ends of the waveguide, such as suggested by Kim, so as to allow for focusing of the acoustic waves to a convergence point for more precisely acting on particles.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 17 as discussed above. Further, Tung/Kim teach the acoustic tweezer device discussed above wherein the first acoustic lens is disposed adjacent to the first end of the waveguide, and wherein the second acoustic lens is disposed adjacent to the second end of the waveguide (As discussed above regarding Claim 17, the device of Tung comprises plural air compartments forming the waveguide. As such, one skilled in the art would find it obvious to provide the Fresnel lens of Kim to each of the separate air compartments so as to achieve the benefits thereto in each of the air compartment waveguides so that each waveguide more precisely focuses particles. As such, this arrangement provides for a lens at a first end and a second end of the waveguide although the waveguides are not connected.), as in Claim 18.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that, when modifying the device of Tung with the lend arrangement of Kim, to provide the first acoustic lens as disposed adjacent to the first end of the waveguide, and the second acoustic lens as disposed adjacent to the second end of the waveguide, such as suggested by Kim, so as to achieve the desired particle trapping.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments sufficiently overcome those objections set forth over Claims 7 and 8 by the previous office action. As such, those claim objections are withdrawn herein.
35 USC 102
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s arguments are on the grounds that Tung fails to teach the claimed waveguide as being an elongated structure with first and second ends, the waveguide configured to propagate acoustic energy.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant has not provided sufficient particularity to the first and second ends, nor the acoustic propagation mechanism, so as to overcome Tung. Applicant’s first and second ends are not particularly defined and are thereby interpreted equivalent to the bounds of the number-shapes seen in Tung Fig. 5. Further, Applicant has not indicated the position of the acoustic source(s) as being at ends of the waveguide extending to the edge of the substrate, adjacent to which and overlapping with the end lying the acoustic source. See the Operation principle of CMAP section of Tung further discussing acoustic propagation along the number-shaped guide.
Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Tung.
Similarly as above as in Claim 1, Applicant argues that Tung does not teach the claimed elongated propagative waveguide of Claim 20.
However, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1, the Claim 20 retains sufficient breadth so as to be accounted for by the elements of Tung. Applicant is suggested to go into greater specificity regarding the ends extending to the edges of the substrate, and/or the spacing of the waveguide chamber and compartments thereof.
Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Tung.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s argument is on the alleged grounds that Kim does not cure the above relevant alleged deficiencies of Tung. However, Applicant’s argument is moot as Kim is not relied on for curing the relevantly discussed deficiencies.
Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claims 17-18 as unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over Tung in view of Kim.
New Claims
New Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Tung as discussed above in the body of the action.
Rejoinder
Claims 32-34 remain withdrawn from consideration herein, the device being able to perform a materially different method such as acoustic sensing, and the method of the independent Claim 21 not requiring the acoustic source of the device of Claim 1.
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 BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights