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 Claims 1-11 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of measuring one or more particles, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/2025.
Claims 1-11 and 18-20 are pending examination in this response.
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 1-3, 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tondra et. al. (US 7609054 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Tondra teaches “A system with particle movement and magnetic field sensing,” (Abstract, A ferromagnetic thin-film based magnetic field detection system having a substrate supporting a magnetic field sensor in a channel with a first electrical conductor supported on the substrate); “the system comprising: a channel comprising a fluid and at least one particle in the fluid,” (Column 1 lines 15-18 and Column 5 lines 28 and 29, a channel transporting a fluid entraining such a particle); “wherein the at least one particle moves along a defined path of the channel in response to a magnetic field;” (Column 4 lines 21-31 Controlling both the flow speed and the location of particles in the channel cross sectional planes, at least in the vicinity of the detector, is needed so that the magnetic field disruption due to a passing particle is predictable. Combining a magnetic field sensing based magnetic material particle flow detector with a magnetic material particle path director results in the particle path director applying magnetic field based forces to passing magnetic material particles in a liquid flow such that those particles are confined to a small fraction of the total cross section of the operating flow channel near the magnetic field disruption detector.); “and a sensor that is integrated with the channel,” (Abstract, supporting a magnetic field sensor in a channel); “the sensor configured to generate an output signal related to the magnetic field.”(Column 9 lines 58-62, The plots shown in the graphs of FIGS. 4, 5, and 6 generally indicate what the detector output voltage versus time result would be for the event of a magnetic particle in the flow passing detector 12 assuming the detector output voltage is linearly related to the magnetic field intensity).
Regarding claim 2, Tondra teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “wherein the at least one particle comprises a magnetically sensitive particle.” (Column 4 lines 21-31 magnetic material particle).
Regarding claim 3, Tondra teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “wherein the fluid is a magnetically sensitive fluid.” (Column 2 lines 17-18 and Column 8 lines 46-48, particularly in detecting relatively large (13.times.18.times.85 .mu.m) segments of ferrofluids in such flows. Thus, a conductor beneath the channel with a length that is largely along the channel extent is useful for directing magnetizable particles moving with a flowing fluid in the channel.). Therefore, the ferrofluids and the magnetizable particles within the fluid both teach to the magnetically sensitive fluid.
Regarding claim 6, Tondra teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “wherein the output signal is indicative of position of the at least one particle.” (Column 17 lines 35-43 and Column 22 lines 8-11, Distinguishing magnetic material particle pairs, or bead pairs, from single particles, or beads, requires forces to be generated in the channel that pull the label particles, or label beads, apart from each other. The detector array is another way of distinguishing between single particles and pairs. It can also increase throughput, and allow for distinguishing one magnetic particle size or type from another.).
Regarding claim 7, Tondra teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “further comprising a magnetic structure integrated with the channel and” (Abstract, A ferromagnetic thin-film based magnetic field detection system having a substrate supporting a magnetic field sensor in a channel); “an integrated circuit that is integrated with the channel,” (Column 6 lines 9-11 and Column 2 lines 54-56, a monolithic integrated circuit with circuitry therein to operate the detector, or some other suitable base. A channel base material is supported directly on at least a portion of the substrate but without being across the magnetic field sensor from the substrate.). The recitation “wherein the integrated circuit is configured to control flow of the at least one particle in the channel by at least providing a signal to the magnetic structure.” is capability of the integrated circuit. However taught within (Controlling both the flow speed and the location of particles in the channel cross sectional planes, at least in the vicinity of the detector, is needed so that the magnetic field disruption due to a passing particle is predictable. Combining a magnetic field sensing based magnetic material particle flow detector with a magnetic material particle path director results in the particle path director applying magnetic field based forces to passing magnetic material particles in a liquid flow such that those particles are confined to a small fraction of the total cross section of the operating flow channel near the magnetic field disruption detector.)
Regarding claim 11, Tondra teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to, “further comprising an antenna configured to transmit information associated with the output signal of the sensor.” (Column lines 9-16, Magnetoresistors interconnection electrical conductors, 24, interconnect these four magnetoresistors resistors, and four further external connection electrical conductors, 27, connect interconnection conductors 24 to external operating circuitry (although on the same integrated circuit chip) for purposes of supplying electrical current to the detector and transmitting voltage signals to that external circuitry.).
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.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondra et. al. (US 7609054 B2) as applied to claim 1, in view of O’Donnell et. al. (US 9041150 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Tondra teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “further comprising a measurement circuit (Column 10 line 60, A more complete showing of the bridge circuit); The recitation “configured to generate a measurement is indicative of a number of turns of the magnetic field based on the output signal, and the number of turns is greater than one,” is capability of the measurement circuit. Tondra discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the measurement circuit as claimed, such circuit is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein. In addition, Tondra teaches an output voltage signal from the bridge which is in connection with signal magnetic particle pasingover the detector within (Column 11 lines 22-37, he output voltage signal from the bridge is substantially zero in value in the absence of a magnetic particle proximate detector 12 because of the balanced electrical currents in the two sides of the bridge circuit between the conductors merger locations in these circumstances. As a particle 16 passes over the region of magnetoresistor 12' in being entrained in liquid flowing in the operating channel, this output voltage signal will become negative, and will then become positive as it subsequently passes over the region of magnetoresistor 12''. If output voltage interconnection 17 between these two magnetoresistors in the detector channel bridge legs is relatively narrow compared to the particle size and those the lengths of bridge circuit legs in the channel, the output signal voltage waveform in connection with single magnetic particle passing over the detector will, to a degree, approximate a full sine wave).
Tondra does not teach “wherein the channel is spiral shaped.”.
O’Donnell integrated circuit system including a protective layer 570 may be an electromagnetic field (EMF) shielding in addition to “wherein the channel is spiral shaped.” within (Para 75, TSVs 150 may be vias. For example, an inductive spiral or coil may be fabricated within a TSV. Also, a particular aspect ratio may be required to retain or store charges in a capacitor.). Therefore the vias are the channel and they are spiral shaped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tondra to incorporate the teachings of O’Donnell wherein the channel is spiral. Doing so allows for increased separation by incorporating the magnetic separation in addition to hydrodynamic separation due to the shape of the channel.
Regarding claim 9, Tondra teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not teach “further comprising a heating structure integrated with the channel.”.
O'Donnell teaches “further comprising a heating structure integrated with the channel.” (Column 20 lines 24-30 The heating elements may also accelerate the processing of the material that is passing through the measuring layer 3620. For example, measuring layer 3620 may include channels for a liquid that is to be analyzed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tondra to incorporate the teachings of O’Donnell and further comprising a heating structure integrated with the channel. Doing so is detrimental to the system to better operate another layer such as the measuring layer (channels) as taught within O’Donnell.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondra et. al. (US 7609054 B2) as applied to claim 1, in view of Dittmer et. al. (US 9841421 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Tondra teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not explicitly teach “wherein the output signal is indicative of a cumulative exposure to the magnetic field.” .
Dittmer teaches The invention relates to a sensor device and a method for the detection of magnetic particles in a sample chamber with a contact surface in addition to “wherein the output signal is indicative of a cumulative exposure to the magnetic field.” within (column 15 lines 18-31, If desired, the accuracy of the corrected measurements can be further improved for example by using different signal processing, using more reference regions etc. Another improvement may be based on the observation that the signal obtained in a measurement (e.g. FTIR, single bead measurements, scattered light measurement etc.) at any given point in time is directly proportional to the amount of particles having a close interaction with the surface at that time. Therefore in principle, summing up all the signal obtained in an assay is proportional to the total amount of particles that have interacted with the surface during that assay. The accuracy of the measurements may thus be improved by correcting for the total amount of observed interactions (the cumulative signal change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tondra to incorporate the teachings of Dittmer wherein the output signal is indicative of a cumulative exposure to the magnetic field. Doing so improves accuracy by correcting for the total amount of observed interactions as taught within Dittmer.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondra et. al. (US 7609054 B2) as applied to claim 1, in view of Berney et. al. (US 20200072783 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tondra teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not teach “further comprising a piezoelectric structure integrated with the channel.”.
Berney teaches a semiconductor substrate and a first passive electrode attached to the semiconductor substrate. The first passive electrode can be configured to contact a solution and to provide a first electrical voltage as function of a concentration of an ion within the solution in addition to further comprising a piezoelectric structure integrated with the channel.” (Para [0064], In some examples, the MEMS component or a piezoelectric material can cause vibration in the channel to help prevent fouling of the channel such as by reducing the chance that fouling material will adhere to the channel walls.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tondra to incorporate the teachings of Berney wherein the device further comprises a piezoelectric structure integrated with the channel. Doing so would prevents unwanted materials building up within the channel as per Berney.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondra et. al. (US 7609054 B2) as applied to claim 7, in view of Ying et. al. (US 20120024770 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Tondra teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not teach “wherein the magnetic structure has a meander shape.”.
Ying teaches a microfluidic separation system which comprises a magnetic separator in addition to “wherein the magnetic structure has a meander shape.” within (Fig 1, number 36 channels). Therefore, the magnetic particles within the channel teaches to the meander shape of the magnetic structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tondra to incorporate the teachings of Ying wherein the channel is spiral. Doing so allows for increased separation by incorporating the magnetic separation in addition to hydrodynamic separation due to the shape of the channel.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondra et. al. (US 7609054 B2) in view of Ying et. al. (US 20120024770 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Tondra teaches “A system with particle movement in response to a magnetic stimulus,” (Abstract, A ferromagnetic thin-film based magnetic field detection system having a substrate supporting a magnetic field sensor in a channel with a first electrical conductor supported on the substrate); “the system comprising: a channel comprising a fluid and at least one particle in the fluid;” (Column 1 lines 15-18 and Column 5 lines 28 and 29, a channel transporting a fluid entraining such a particle); “and a magnetic structure integrated with the channel,” ((Abstract, A ferromagnetic thin-film based magnetic field detection system having a substrate supporting a magnetic field sensor in a channel with a first electrical conductor supported on the substrate).
Tondra does not teach “the magnetic structure comprising a meander shape”.
Ying teaches a microfluidic separation system which comprises a magnetic separator in addition to “wherein the magnetic structure has a meander shape.” within (Fig 1, number 36 channels). Therefore, the magnetic particles within the channel teaches to the meander shape of the magnetic structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tondra to incorporate the teachings of Ying wherein the channel is spiral. Doing so allows for increased separation by incorporating the magnetic separation in addition to hydrodynamic separation due to the shape of the channel.
Further taught by Tondra “and the magnetic structure configured to apply a gradient magnetic field to cause the at least one particle to move in the channel.” (Column 5 lines 10-13, Column 6 lines 37-40, and Column 5 lines 14-17, That is, the direction of the magnetic field based force on particles due to the downward field gradient must be relatively uniform. The fragmentary cross section view of this channel in FIG. 2 shows therein a downward pointing arrow representing the force vector for the force applied to particle 16 by the magnetic field gradient present at that location. A particle trajectory in the plane of corresponding ones of channel cross section areas can be derived from the equation of motion involving viscous-drag forces in the liquid flow and channel region magnetic field based forces).
Regarding claim 19, modified Tondra teaches all of claim 18 as above in addition to teaching “further comprising a sensor integrated with the channel,” (Abstract, supporting a magnetic field sensor in a channel); “the sensor configured to generate an output signal related to the gradient magnetic field.” (Column 9 lines 58-62, The plots shown in the graphs of FIGS. 4, 5, and 6 generally indicate what the detector output voltage versus time result would be for the event of a magnetic particle in the flow passing detector 12 assuming the detector output voltage is linearly related to the magnetic field intensity).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondra et. al. (US 7609054 B2) and Ying et. al. (US 20120024770 A1) as applied to claim 18, and in further view of O’Donnell et. al. (US 9041150 B2).
Regarding claim 20, modified Tondra teaches all of claim 18 but does not teach “further comprising at least one of a heating element integrated with the channel or a piezoelectric element integrated with the channel.”
O'Donnell teaches further comprising at least one of a heating element integrated with the channel or a piezoelectric element integrated with the channel.” (Column 20 lines 24-30 The heating elements may also accelerate the processing of the material that is passing through the measuring layer 3620. For example, measuring layer 3620 may include channels for a liquid that is to be analyzed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tondra to incorporate the teachings of O’Donnell and further comprising a heating structure integrated with the channel. Doing so is detrimental to the system to better operate another layer such as the measuring layer (channels) as taught within O’Donnell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VELVET E HERON whose telephone number is (571)272-1557. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (571) 270-3638. 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.
/V.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798