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 § 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.
Claims 1-15 are 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 claims 1, 5 and 7, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the maximum acoustic pressure or pressure difference in the flow chamber” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 includes limitations “compatible”, “moreover”, “little”, “such as”, “preferably”, and “especially preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention and includes a relative term which is/are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dionne et al. (US 2011/0123392A1), in view of Leach et al. (US 2016/0325039A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dionne teaches a device (1) (the limitation “for concentrating and separating Legionella and/or amoebas” is reciting an intended use of the device without imparting additional structure) for separation of particulates from water by acoustophoresis (refer abstract), comprising:
a flow chamber (refer fig. 1, flow chamber is between inlet 101 and outlet 104) having an inlet opening (104) through which the water flows in and an outlet opening (104) through which the water flows out, wherein the openings (101, 104) are opposite to one another (Refer fig. 1), and an opening for discharging concentrated particulates (Refer [0051] disclosing collecting particulates and opening valve for removal of particulates), wherein the flow chamber has dimensions, a length (L), a height (H), and a width (B) (refer fig. 1 indicating a rectangular flow chamber), and a transducers (103) arranged outside the flow chamber, on a side of the flow chamber (refer fig. 1, para [0050]) for applying acoustic energy to the flow chamber to generate standing waves (refer para [0050]).
The limitation “wherein at least one of the dimensions of the flow chamber is designed in consideration of the acoustic contrast factor Φ of the Legionella and/or amoebas so as to generate one or more frequencies and pressure amplitudes of the standing waves such that the Legionella and/or amoebas concentrate or accumulate in the pressure nodes of the standing waves” does not provide any specificity to the dimensions of the flow chamber that imparts a structure that is different than the structure of flow chamber of Dionne. It should also be noted that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Dionne further teaches that “When the two or more ultrasonic transducers are located outside the flow chamber wall the thickness of the flow chamber wall can be tuned to maximize acoustic energy transfer into the fluid. The ultrasonic transducers are arranged at different distances from the inlet of the flow chamber” (refer [0010]). Dionne also discloses that “The apparatus can contain three, four, five, or more ultrasonic transducers. Each transducer forms a standing acoustic wave at a different ultrasonic frequency and each frequency can be optimized for a specific range of particle sizes in the fluid” (refer [0012]). However, Dionne does not disclose that two or more transducers are arranged on two sides of the flow chamber.
Leach teaches a device for separating cellular component from a fluid (abstract), wherein the device comprises a flow chamber having a rectangular shape (refer fig. 1-3), the device comprises a plurality wave generators (refer 14, 16, 22, 24; paragraphs [0065]-[0066]) to generate bulk standing acoustic wave in the chamber (refer abstract). Leach further discloses (refer [0058]) that “By adjusting the distance between the wave generators (or wave generator and reflective surface) and/or by adjusting the frequencies of the acoustic waves, the position of a pressure node associated with a SAW can be manipulated, located and controlled, for example, within a channel positioned between the wave generators (or wave generator and reflective surface). As discussed further below, the position of the acoustic wave in the fluid is determined by the frequency of the wave and the dimensions of the reservoir (e.g., a channel), containing the fluid”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the device of Dionne to include two or more transducers arranged on at least two sides of the flow chamber to promote separation efficiency as taught by Leach.
Regarding claim 2, modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne teaches that (refer [0036]) “The ultrasonic standing waves create localized regions of high and low pressure, corresponding to high and low density of the fluid. Secondary phase contaminants are pushed to the standing wave nodes or antinodes depending on their compressibility and density relative to the surrounding fluid. Particles of higher density and compressibility (e.g., bacterial spores) move to the nodes in the standing waves while secondary phases of lower density (such as oils) move to the antinodes”. Dionne also teaches that (refer [0054]) “the system of FIG. 7 includes cells operating at 200 kHz [701], 400 kHz [702], 600 kHz [703], 800 kHz [704], 1000 kHz [705] and 1200 kHz [706]. Each cell has been optimized for a specific range of particle/organism size”. Adjusting the frequencies based on contaminants and flow direction would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve desired removal of contaminants from the passing fluid.
Regarding claim 3, modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne teaches that the device has rectangular cross-sectional area (Refer fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne teaches that the height and width of the flow chamber are of different lengths (refer fig. 1 indicating rectangular shape).
Regarding claim 5 , modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne teaches that ultrasonic frequencies can be in the range from 1 kHz to 100 MHz, with amplitudes of 1-100 of volts (refer [0050]). Dionne also discloses that (refer [0065]) “By simply subjecting the organisms to acoustophoresis without cavitation the smaller worms were crushed open and the larger organisms suffered catastrophic neuromuscular problems. This occurred when the pressure amplitude was about 0.5 MPa at the acoustic nodes”. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6 , modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne teaches that ultrasonic frequencies can be in the range from 1 kHz to 100 MHz, with amplitudes of 1-100 of volts (refer [0050]). Dionne also discloses that (refer [0065]) “By simply subjecting the organisms to acoustophoresis without cavitation the smaller worms were crushed open and the larger organisms suffered catastrophic neuromuscular problems. This occurred when the pressure amplitude was about 0.5 MPa at the acoustic nodes”. Dionne discloses that the flow chamber can have macro-scale dimensions. In other words, the dimensions of the cross-section of the flow chamber are much larger than the wavelength corresponding to the generated sound (refer [0049]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne teaches that ultrasonic frequencies can be in the range from 1 kHz to 100 MHz, with amplitudes of 1-100 of volts (refer [0050]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne teaches that two or more acoustic standing wave can be a pulsed waveform resulting in high intensity acoustic pressure. The high intensity acoustic pressure can have sufficient amplitude to rupture the cell wall and cellular membranes of microorganisms (refer [0019]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Discovering mathematical relationship between the contrast factor of a particular contaminant and the acoustic pressure would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Dionne discloses higher intensity acoustic pressure can have sufficient amplitude to rupture the cell wall and cellular membranes of microorganisms.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne discloses that the flow chamber can have macro-scale dimensions. In other words, the dimensions of the cross-section of the flow chamber are much larger than the wavelength corresponding to the generated sound (refer [0049]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne teaches that thickness of wall of the flow chamber is tuned to maximize acoustic energy transfer into fluid (refer [0010], [0016]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne teaches using the device for removal of particulates from water (refer abstract), and therefore it is inherent that the material of the device or flow chamber is compatible with water.
Regarding claim 13, modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne teaches that the transducers are aligned perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the flow chamber and are arranged on the same plane and also on different planes along the longitudinal axis of the flow chamber (refer fig. 1 indicating transducers 103 aligned perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the flow chamber).
Regarding claim 14, modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne teaches that the transducers are formed from piezoelectric element (refer [0015]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dionne et al. (US 2011/0123392A1), in view of Leach et al. (US 2016/0325039A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lipkens et al. (US 2017/0173498).
Regarding claim 15, modified Dionne teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Dionne teaches that the transducer is ultrasonic transducer (refer [0010]). Modified Dionne does not disclose that the transducers are connected to a mass or an oscillating piston (10), wherein the oscillating piston (10) is connected via a spring element (11) to the flow chamber (2).
Lipkens teaches that acoustic standing wave is utilized to separate components from a multi-component fluid (abstract), wherein the standing wave is generated by a transducer comprising housing having a top end, a bottom end, and an interior volume; and a crystal at the bottom end of the housing having an exposed exterior surface and an interior surface, the crystal being able to vibrate when driven by a voltage signal (refer [0012]), the crystal vibrates with a more uniform displacement, like a piston (Refer [0084]), crystal is supported on its perimeter by the housing, with a small elastic layer, e.g. silicone or similar material, located between the crystal and the housing (refer [0081]) (herein the elastic layer is interpreted as spring element).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known structure of ultrasonic transducer having a piston and spring element to generate standing waves as disclosed by Lipkens in the device of modified Dionne. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include and that are applicable in this instance: Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lipkens et al. (US 2016/0361670) teaches a large-scale acoustic separation device comprising an acoustic chamber, a fluid outlet at a top end of the acoustic chamber, a concentrate outlet at a bottom end of the acoustic chamber, and an inlet on a first side end of the acoustic chamber.
Dutra et al. (US 2013/0277316) teaches a system for removing lipids from blood, the system uses an acoustophoretic separator having improved trapping force.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777