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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the shading of reference characters should be more clear because the hand written reference characters to not clearly identify the recited structure and function. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeAngelo et al. (US 2005/0186183) in view of Patatanyan et al. (US 2022/0106357). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by DeAngelo as teaching:
a lyobead manufacturing system (see title and abstract) comprising:
a reagent fluid (paragraph [0022]) source 3 containing a fluid (paragraph [0032]);
a fluid dispense head 7 configured to dispense a plurality of spherical droplets (paragraph [0063], [0067]) of the fluid;
a fluid line 8 connecting the reagent fluid source with the fluid dispense head;
a fluid pressurizing system 10 comprising a pressure regulator configured to pressurize the reagent fluid source (the claimed pressure regulator is inherent because gravitational force with regulate fluid pressure since higher level fluid is pressured to flow downward in a fluid source as disclosed in paragraphs [0030]-[0031]);
a liquid container 21 comprising a liquid coolant (wherein the disclosed stabilized/processed product reconstituted with an appropriate dilute/fluid in paragraph [0032] inherently meets the liquid coolant because the platelets in paragraph [0080] are cooled such that blood is a liquid coolant); and
a motion system 2, 10 for moving the fluid dispense head in at least two dimensions relative to the liquid container while maintaining a constant height above an upper surface of the liquid coolant. DeAngelo discloses the claimed invention, except for the recited pump (disclosed in paragraphs [0063], [0065], [0067] and shown in figures 1, 2). Patatanyan, another lyobead type manufacturing system, disclosed that feature at paragraph [0165]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the features of DeAngelo with the features of Patatanyan for the purpose of using a motive force to move pressurized fluid through a system including a motion system. Furthermore, DeAngelo in view of Patatanyan discloses the claimed invention, except for the claim 2 fluid volume from 2 to 50 L and claim 3 chiller viscosity adjustment configuration. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features, since the teachings of DeAngelo in view of Patatanyan would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of that feature and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of that feature as being necessary for patentability.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-41 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, and/or cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 3-41 have not been further treated on the merits.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other references cited with this action may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would be proper or reasonable under current Office procedure and practice. References A, B, C, N, O, cited with this action are patent publications from the same inventive entity as the current application. References D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, P, Q, R, cited with this application teach lyobead type manufacturing systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
Saturday, March 7, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753