DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/27/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “first a second” and should be amended to recite “first and second”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “a single microfluidic conduits” and should be amended to recite “a single microfluidic conduit”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16 and 19-20 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:
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.),
wherein the at least one cavity defines a waveguide 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.),
wherein the waveguide control structure is configured to direct acoustic energy along the waveguide and through the acoustic microfluidic conduit 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.
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 waveguide comprises a portion of the solid material having a greater thickness than adjacent portions of the solid material disposed between the first and second lateral portions of the cavity and the fluid layer (Fig. 2b shows the waveguide having a portion of the solid material having a greater thickness (the left and right walls of the solid material pointed to by the black arrow) than the portion between the first and second lateral portions of the cavity and the fluid layer (the thin portion between the first and second lateral portions of the cavity and the fluid layer).), 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 a 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 conduits 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 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above further comprising a substrate layer disposed adjacent to the waveguide control layer and opposite to the fluid layer (Fig. 1c shows a glass substrate disposed adjacent to the waveguide control layer and opposite to the fluid layer.), as in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Tung teaches the acoustic tweezer device discussed above further comprising a cover layer disposed adjacent to the fluid layer and opposite to the waveguide control layer (Fig. 1c shows a PDMS cover layer disposed adjacent to the fluid layer and opposite to the waveguide control layer.), as in Claim 10.
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.),
wherein the at least one region defines a waveguide 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 and also 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 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.
Conclusion
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