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 .
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siddiqi (US 6,033,574):
Regarding claim 1, Siddiqi discloses system for dispersing particles, the system comprising: a fluid container (124) comprising a fluid and a plurality of particles (see col. 15, lines 25-30); and one or more electric coils or one or more permanent magnets (126), the one or more electric coils or the one or more permanent magnets configured to sequentially generate a first electromagnetic field relative to the fluid container to aggregate the plurality of particles into one or more particle clusters (see col. 5, lines 5-10), a second electromagnetic field relative to the fluid container to raise the one or more particle clusters relative to a top wall of the fluid container (see col. 16, lines 12-20), and a third electromagnetic field relative to the fluid container that breaks apart the one or more raised particle clusters (see col. 7, lines 53-67); and a controller element (116,117,118,119,122 and other sub-elements that control motion in the embodiment of Fig. 12), the controller element configured to control the one or more electric coils or the one or more permanent magnets.
Regarding claim 2, and electric coil is disclosed (see col. 6, lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 3, a permanent magnet is disclosed (see col. 6, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 4, and electric coil is disclosed (see col. 6, lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 5, a permanent magnet is disclosed (see col. 6, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 6, and electric coil is disclosed (see col. 6, lines 51-53).
Claim 7 is rejected on the basis that only the “one or more electric coils” alternative of claim 1 is further limited, and the permanent magnet alternative is disclosed as explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqi (US 6,033,574) in view of Sullivan (US 7,713,752). The system of Siddiqi was discussed above. While technically anticipated by Siddiqi as explained above, Siddiqi does not disclose that a coil wraps around the container. Sullivan teaches an electric coil (5) wrapped around a container (1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have wrap the electric coil of Siddiqi around the container as taught by Sullivan, because Sullivan explains this a appropriate to agglomerate magnetic particles (see col. 6, lines 1-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot due to the new grounds for rejection.
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 DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights