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 .
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election of the invention of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
Objection – Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: referring to paragraph [0052], the reference to “atmospheric pressure … 1.013.105 Pa)” appears in error, inasmuch as standard atmospheric pressure in Pascals is 101,325 Pa. Appropriate correction of the specification is required.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to claims 1, 2, 8, 11 and 19, the various recitations of the term “high molecular weight” (see, e.g., claim 1, line 4 and claim 19, final line) are each being construed by the Office as referring to a polymer with a molecular weight ≥ 1MDa, in accordance with the term’s broadest definition herein (see Spec., ¶ [0053]).
Objection – Claims
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim concludes with a semi-colon (“;”) rather than a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “adjusting the flow rate and/or decrease in pressure to the extent of improvement.” The term “extent of improvement” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. According to the specification (see, e.g., ¶ [0112]), the extent of adjusting the flow rate and/or decrease in pressure can be optimized empirically for each application’s fluid and geometry; however, it is unclear what constitutes an “improvement” for a given application or fluid of interest. Is any extent of “increasing a mixing rate, heat transfer or reaction rate” of a particular fluid (cf., claim 1, line 1) to be taken as an “improvement”? If so, it is not seen wherein claim 10 further substantively limits the scope of claim 1. If not, the extent to which mixing rate, heat transfer or reaction rate of a particular fluid must be increased in order to qualify as an “improvement” for purposes of claim 10 is not discernible with reasonable certainty from review of the antecedent disclosure. Clarification, at least by way of explanation, is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19, as presently understood, are deemed free of the prior art.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-19 are allowed. Claims 2 and 10 would be allowable if amended or rewritten to overcome, respectively, the informality objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-19 are deemed to distinguish over the closest prior art as represented by Machado, et al (Biomicrofluidics 10, 043507 (2016)) and Kawale, et al (Biomicrofluidics 13, 014111 (2019)).
Machado, et al describe flow behaviors and flow uniformization due to elastic instabilities of shear-thinning polymer solutions in model porous media (Abs., Section II; Section IIIB.). Experimental evidence is presented to show that above an instability threshold, obtained for Weissenburg number Wic ~ 10, the flow of polymer solutions (viz., aqueous solutions of hydrolyzed polyacrylamide, mol. wt.: 18 x 106 g/mol) becomes more homogeneous (Section V).
Kawale, et al describe the development of a passive fluidic rectifier based on an anisotropic porous medium consisting of a periodic array of triangular pillars that can operate at low Reynolds number (Abs., p. 014111-2, 4th para). The authors report that the rectification is achieved when the type of high Weissenburg number elastic instabilities changes the flow direction (p. 014111-9, Section IV).
Neither Machado, et al nor Kawale, et al contemplate producing a microscopic elastic flow instability by increasing the mixing rate, heat transfer or reaction rate of a first carrier fluid (in which a high molecular weight polymer is dissolved) and a second carrier fluid, as in the present invention. Thus, the elected claims distinguish over the cited art at least by the limitation: “increasing a mixing rate, heat transfer, or reaction rate of the first carrier fluid and a second carrier fluid by producing a microscopic elastic flow instability … by causing a flow rate and/or decrease in pressure of the first carrier fluid from the inlet to the outlet to exceed a predetermined threshold, and allowing the high molecular weight polymer to autonomously produce the microscopic elastic flow instability” (Claim 1, line 6 et seq.).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/09-22-26
Prosecution Insights