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 group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 03/09/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-13 being examined and claims 14-20 being withdrawn pursuant to the election filed 03/09/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 27-28 recites “the one or more dielectrophoretic module” where it is suggested that it should be amended to be “the one or more dielectrophoretic modules”
Claim 3 appears to be an improper Markush group, as it recites “wherein the formable materials are selected from gold…, and polyetherimide (PEI).” Please see MPEP 2117.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1:
Line 8 recites “one or more hydrophoretic modules” where it is unclear if these are the same or different from the ones described on line 5.
Line 9 recites “the hydrophoretic module” where first because line 5 recites “one or more hydrophoretic modules” if in the instance where there is more hydrophoretic modules, it is unclear if line 9 is referring to a specific one or all of them. Second because lines 4-6 describe an optional component of the device, in the instance where it is not present it is unclear if line 9 has proper antecedent basis.
Line 10 recites “one or more hydrophoretic modules” where it is unclear if these are the same or different from the ones described prior. Suggested amendments will be described below.
Lines 11-12 recites “the hydrophoretic modules” twice where it is unclear where in the instance when there is only one hydrophoretic module what lines 11-12 are referring to.
Line 13 recites “to focus cells” where it is unclear if these cells are the same or different from the cells described on line 9. For examination it will be interpreted that they are the same.
Line 14 recites “one or more dielectrophoretic modules” where it is unclear if these are the same or different from the ones described on line 11. For examination it will be interpreted that they are the same.
Line 15 recites “the hydrophoretic modules” where it is unclear in the instance when there is only one hydrophoretic module what line 15 is referring to.
Line 15 recites “the outlets” where there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as no outlets have been recited prior. It is noted that later in the claim it describes outer and inner outlets, therefore for examination it will be interpreted that it is the inner and outer outlets that are being referred to.
Lines 15-16 recites “the dielectrophoretic modules” where it is unclear in the instance when there is only one dielectrophoretic module what lines 15-16 is referring to.
Line 16 recites “separate cells” where it is unclear if the cells are the same or different from those described prior. For examination it will be interpreted that they are the same.
Lines 16-17 recites “the dielectrophoretic modules” where it is unclear in the instance when there is only one dielectrophoretic module what lines 16-17 is referring to.
Lines 17-18 recites “comprise one or more of structural features (i), (ii), (iii) and/or (iv): and line 21 recites “and/or (iv)”
It is unclear what lines 17-18 and 21 requires due to the usage of “one or more” and “and/or” twice. For examination, it will be interpreted that one or more of (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) is required to meet the limitation of claim 1.
For claim 1, it is suggested that all the components of the device are positively recited. For example, when lines 10-12 recites “one or more hydrophoretic modules that are in fluid communication with the one or more inlet channels and one or more dielectrophoretic modules” it is somewhat unclear if the one or more dielectrophoretic modules are present or not. While line 14 does then positively recite them, it is unclear if they are the same or different from the ones described in lines 10-12, therefore it would clearer to ensure each component has been positively recited first.
Second, it is suggested to move the optional components to be after the positively recited components. This is because when listing the optional components first, it becomes unclear what is actually present and then when those components are positively recited later in the claim this adds additional unclarity if they are the same or different from the ones before.
Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 4 recites “the dielectrophoretic module” on lines 2-3, where in the instance when there are multiple dielectrophoretic modules, it is unclear if claim 4 is making reference to a specific one or if it applies to all of them.
Claim 5 recites “the cell delivery channel” on line 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as no cell delivery channel has been recited prior. Based on the language of the claim, this appears to be a typo and should instead be “the cell delivery chamber”
Claim 6 recites “one or more filters” on line 1, where it is unclear if these are the same or different from the optional one or more filters of claim 1.
For examination it will be interpreted that the optional one or more filters from claim 1 are now required for claim 6.
It is suggested to amend claim 6 to recite “the one or more filters”
Claim 8 recites “the hydrophoretic modules” on line 2, where in the instance when there is only one hydrophoretic module, it is unclear what claim 8 is referring to.
Claim 9 recites “the hydrophoretic modules” on lines 1-2, where in the instance when there is only one hydrophoretic module, it is unclear what claim 9 is referring to.
Line 3 recites “align the cells into two streams along the channel edges.” where it is unclear if these two streams are the same or different from the two streams described on line 13 of claim 1. For examination it will be interpreted that they are the same streams.
Claim 13 recites “comprises one inlet channel, at least 2 hydrophoretic modules; at least 2 dielectrophoretic modules; at least 2 inner outlets; and at least 4 outer outlets.” where it is unclear if these components are the same or different from those described in claim 1.
For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same components.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., “High-throughput continuous dielectrophoretic separation of neural stem cells” herein Jiang.
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches a dielectrophoresis (DEP) device capable of high-throughput continuous dielectrophoretic cell separation or sorting comprising (page 2 column 1 paragraph 3 see hydrodynamic oblique angle parallel electrode sorter (HOAPES) that incorporates hydrophoresis and dielectrophoresis (DEP) in a single platform and the system performs better that previous devices by continuously sorting cells, Figure 1):
one or more inlet channels that can accommodate a fluid input comprising cells (page 3 see description of Figure 1 that shows a fluid inlet);
optionally, one or more filters that are in fluid communication with the one or more inlet channels and one or more hydrophoretic modules, wherein the one or more filters are configured to prevent passage of cell aggregates from the fluid input (page 3 Figure 1 see PDMS pillars that create a filter to remove cell clumps, where the filter is connected to the inlet and hydrophoretic module);
one or more hydrophoretic modules that are in fluid communication with the one or more inlet channels and one or more dielectrophoretic modules, wherein the hydrophoretic modules comprise a serpentine channel structure, and wherein the hydrophoretic modules are configured to focus cells into two streams along the edges of the serpentine channel structure (page 1 abstract see the hydrophoresis module consists of a serpentine channel with ridges and trenches to generate a diverging fluid flow that focuses cells into two streams along the channel edges, page 3 see Figure 1 which has a hydrophoretic module and a dielectrophoretic module, the hydrophoretic module in fluid communication with both the inlet and the dielectrophoretic module);
one or more dielectrophoretic modules comprising an electrode array that are in fluid communication with the hydrophoretic modules and the outlets, wherein the dielectrophoretic modules separate cells by their inherent cell electrophysiological properties (page 3 see Figure 1 where there is a dielectrophoretic module that is in fluid communication with the hydrophoretic module and outlets, page 9 column 2 paragraph 1 see DEP module has electrodes that form an angled electrode array and see the cells experiencing sufficient positive DEP (pDEP) exit via the inner outlet and that the frequency of the applied electric fields changes the percentage of cells in pDEP to enable the selection of subpopulations of cells), and wherein the dielectrophoretic modules comprise one or more of structural features (i), (ii), (iii) and/or (iv):
(i) the electrode array comprises 2 or more electrodes (page 3 Figure 1e which shows a 40 electrode array in the DEP module);
(ii) the electrodes having a width from 25 µm to 500 µm (supplemental Figures, see supplemental figure S1 where the electrode width is 35 µm, page 4 column 2 paragraph 3 see that when the electrodes are not rounded, the electrode width at the point would be 50 µm, and see supplemental figure S1 which shows pointed electrodes);
(iii) the electrodes having a tip radius of greater than 50 µm (supplemental Figures, see supplemental figure S1 where the electrode tip inner radius is 50 µm and the outer radius is 85 µm); and/or
(iv) the gap between the electrodes in the electrode array is nonuniform in size (page 4 column 2 paragraph 2, page 5 column 1 continued see the radius of curvature for the inner electrode edge on the rounded tips was 50 µm and the radius of curvature for the outer electrode was 85 µm, where the differential curvature creates a larger gap of 65 µm between electrodes at the curves. This leads to the slanted electrodes are 35 µm wide with 35 µm gaps, but at the points the electrodes are 35 µm wide with 65 µm gaps, see supplemental figure S1);
a plurality of outer outlets in fluid communication with the one or more dielectrophoretic modules that are configured to collect cells that were not focused by DEP (page 2 column 1 paragraph 2 see induced DEP force directs targeted cells to the middle of the channel, where channel outlets separately collect two cell populations, those remaining along the outer edges of the channel and those focused to the middle of the channel, page 4 column 1 paragraph 2 see cells experiencing pDEP will be in the center of the channel and exit via inner channel outlet, and cells not in pDEP would remain at the channel edges and exit through the outer channel outlets, page 3 see Figure 1 where there are two outer outlets connected to the outer channels); and
one or more inner outlets in fluid communication with the one or more dielectrophoretic module that are configured to collect cells that were focused by DEP (page 2 column 1 paragraph 2, page 4 column 1 paragraph 2, page 3 see Figure 1 where there is one inner outlet connected to the inner channel);
wherein the focused cells of the one or more inner outlets have different dielectric properties than the unfocused cells in the plurality of outer outlets (abstract see separation in the dielectrophoresis module is driven by inherent cell electrophysiological properties, page 2 column 1 paragraph 2, page 4 column 1 paragraph 2).
Please note that only one of (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) is required to meet the limitations of claim 1, however Jiang teaches all four limitations and thus they have been mapped to.
Further, please note that the limitation “optionally, a cell mixing section in fluid communication with the one or more inlet channels and one or more hydrophoretic modules, wherein the cell mixing section distributes the cells more evenly in the fluid input before flowing into the hydrophoretic module;” is not required, as the cell mixing section is an optional component.
Please note the limitations “capable of high-throughput continuous dielectrophoretic cell separation or sorting”, “one or more inlet channels that can accommodate a fluid input comprising cells”, “wherein the one or more filters are configured to prevent passage of cell aggregates from the fluid input”, “the hydrophoretic modules are configured to focus cells into two streams along the edges of the serpentine channel structure”, “the dielectrophoretic modules separate cells by their inherent cell electrophysiological properties”, “are configured to collect cells that were not focused by DEP”, “the one or more dielectrophoretic module that are configured to collect cells that were focused by DEP” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Jiang and the apparatus of Jiang is capable of all of the above. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Jiang (see MPEP §2114).
In the supplemental figure S1, the outlet diameters have a dimension of 1500 µm. These diameters would be for both the inner and outer outlets seen in Figure 1.
The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the outer outlet and inner outlet diameters in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the diameter of the outlets exceed 1500 µm since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, MPEP §2131.03 (III), and further being motivated to ensure the outlets are large enough for collecting the sorted cells (page 7 column 1 continuation of NSPC sorting with the HOAPES device where it describes that cells from inner and outer outlets are collected and placed in separate Eppendorf tubes).
Regarding claim 2, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein the DEP device is made from two substrate layers that comprise formable materials which are aligned and connected or bonded together (page 3 Figure 1b which shows an isometric view of the module with PDMS channel and glass slide, these are two substrate materials that will be connected together).
Regarding claim 3, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 2. Jiang further teaches wherein the formable materials are selected from glass, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (page 3 Figure 1b).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein the DEP device further comprises a cell delivery chamber and is reversibly attachable to the one or more inlet channels, wherein the cell delivery channel is a pressurized chamber that is reversibly attachable to a pressure exerting device (page 6 column 2 paragraph 3 continuing into page 7 column 1, see cells loaded into the device by attaching Tygon tubing to the end of a 1 ml syringe, the syringe was primed with DEP buffer and then 30 µL of cells in the DEP buffer was drawn into the tubing, the tubing was attached to the channel inlet, then the syringe pump was turned on to induce flow of cells into the channel. The tubing is a cell delivery chamber reversibly attached to the inlet channel, the tubing is also a pressurized chamber that is reversibly attachable to a pressure exerting device because it is connected to a syringe pump).
The limitation “that allows intermittent or continuous mixing of solutions” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Jiang and the apparatus of Jiang is capable of intermittent or continuous mixing of solutions. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Jiang (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 6, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein the DEP device comprises one or more filters, and wherein the one or more filters are an array of raised structures that have defined gap sizes between the raised structures (page 5 column 1 paragraph 1 into column 2, see an array of 70 µm tall PDMS posts that create a filter to capture cell clumps, where in the first row the posts are 150 µm wide with 100 µm gaps between ports, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein the walls of the serpentine channel structure of the hydrophoretic modules have a width greater than 10 µm (supplemental figures, see S1 where the hydrophoresis channel width is 500 µm).
Regarding claim 9, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein the serpentine channel structure of the hydrophoretic modules comprises microstructures that changes the cross-sectional area of the channel structure to align the cells into two streams along the channel edges (abstract see hydrophoresis module consists of a serpentine channel with ridges and trenches to generate a diverging fluid flow that focuses cells into two streams along the channel edges).
Regarding claim 10, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein for structural feature (ii), the width of the electrodes is from 50 µm to 400 µm (page 4 column 2 paragraph 3 see that when the electrodes are not rounded, the electrode width at the point would be 50 µm, and see supplemental figure S1 which shows pointed electrodes).
Regarding claim 11, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1.
The limitations of claim 11 are directed to structural feature (iii), which is not required if any of the other structural features (i), (ii), or (iv) are taught. As Jiang does teach these other features, the limitations of claim 11 are not required.
However, if the limitations of claim 11 are required it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electrode tip radius be from 100 µm to 250 µm since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, MPEP §2131.03 (III), and further being motivated to ensure the electrodes have the proper size to interact with the cells.
Regarding claim 12, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein for structural feature (iv), the gap between the electrodes is variable along the lengths of the electrodes, wherein the gap is narrowest at the base of the electrodes, and most wide at the tip of the electrodes (page 4 column 2 paragraph 2, page 5 column 1 continued see the radius of curvature for the inner electrode edge on the rounded tips was 50 µm and the radius of curvature for the outer electrode was 85 µm, where the differential curvature creates a larger gap of 65 µm between electrodes at the curves. This leads to the slanted electrodes are 35 µm wide with 35 µm gaps, but at the points the electrodes are 35 µm wide with 65 µm gaps, see supplemental figure S1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., “High-throughput continuous dielectrophoretic separation of neural stem cells” herein Jiang in view of Yasuda (US-2012/0088295-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 2. Jiang further teaches wherein at least one of the substrate layers comprises hydrophoretic features with multiple independent heights (Jiang; page 5 column 1 paragraph 1 see the channel height is 70 µm except in the hydrophoretic module where the height varies due to polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) microstructures on the channel ceiling. Therefore the microstructures will each have their own independent height).
However, Jiang does not teach wherein the dielectrophoretic module has a microfluidic channel height that is modified to be less than the overall height of the hydrophoretic features.
In the analogous art of concentrating and separating cells, Yasuda teaches separation and purification of particulates by difference in polarities of the dielectrophoretic forces (Yasuda; [0001], [0073]).
Specifically, Yasuda teaches where Figure 11 shows an upper drawing 3301 that includes a sample liquid inlet 3311, dielectrophoretic force applying portion 3312, V-shaped interdigitated electrodes 3313 and 3313’, and lower flow path 3315, and a lower drawing shows an upper flow path 3316 (Yasuda; [0073]). [0073] further describes that the dielectrophoretic force applying portion 3312, lower flow path 3315, and upper flow path 3316 are formed in a PDMS chip and each of them has a height of 10 µm.
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., HOAPES device) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., the dielectrophoretic module) with other component(s) (i.e., dielectrophoretic module with a microfluidic channel height that is modified to be less than the overall height of the hydrophoretic features), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., dielectrophoretic module with a height of 70 µm for a height of 10 µm), and the results of the substitution (i.e., separation of cells based using dielectrophoresis) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute the height of the dielectrophoretic module being 70 µm of reference Jiang with a height of 10 µm of reference Yasuda, since the result would have been predictable.
As seen in the supplemental Figure 1 of Jiang, for the hydrophoretic module it will have a trench depth of 40 µm, a ridge width of 50 µm, a trench width of 50 µm, and a channel height of 70 µm. The height of the dielectrophoretic module has now been changed to be 10 µm, which is less than the overall height of the hydrophoretic features.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., “High-throughput continuous dielectrophoretic separation of neural stem cells” herein Jiang in view of Nguyen et al., “Recent Advances and Future Perspectives on Microfluidic Liquid Handling” herein Nguyen.
Regarding claim 7, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1. Jiang does not teach wherein the DEP device comprises the cell mixing section, and wherein the cell mixing section mixes by using hydrophoretic mixing, or acoustic actuated mixing.
In the analogous art of microfluidic platforms, Nguyen teaches where mixing and separation are essential steps in most lab-on-a-chip platforms as sample preparation and detection are required for a variety of biological and chemical assays (Nguyen; abstract).
Specifically, Nguyen teaches where for continuous-flow microfluidics it is common to have a mixing stage and separation stage, where to increase mixing efficiency acoustic external energy can be employed (Nguyen; Figure 1, page 3 2.1.1 paragraph 1). Additionally, page 9 2.2.4 describes dielectrophoretic separation, and as such it is understood that the acoustic mixing and dielectrophoretic separation may be used together within the same microfluidic platform.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the HOAPES of Jiang such that it includes a mixing stage that uses acoustic external energy as taught by Nguyen because Nguyen teaches that for microfluidic platforms it is desirable to include a mixing stage prior to a separation stage, and that mixing is an essential step in most lab-on-a-chip platforms as sample preparation is required for a variety of biological and chemical assays (Nguyen; abstract, page 13 conclusions and perspectives section).
Claim(s) 11 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., “High-throughput continuous dielectrophoretic separation of neural stem cells” herein Jiang and in view of translated Kawahito (JP-2009142768-A).
Regarding claim 11, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1. If it is determined that structural feature (iii) is required and that Jiang does not teach the electrode tip radius is from 100 µm to 250 µm, in the same problem solving area of attracting particles such as cells and algae through dielectrophoresis, Kawahito teaches that the radius of curvature of the edges relative to the distance between electrodes affect the electric field distribution generated by the application of a pulsed voltage concentrates on the first electrode with the curvature to attract cells and algae through dielectrophoresis (Kawahito; [0024]).
Specifically, Kawahito teaches that in theory the smaller the radius of curvature of the electrode the better but that when the radius is reduced the electric field tends to concentrate excessively at the curved portion of the electrode making it prone to damage (Kawahito; [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum electrode tip radius to a range of 100 µm to 250 µm which would allow for the desired electric field distribution while also making sure the electrode curvature isn’t so small as to negatively impact the electric field as described by Kawahito (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., “High-throughput continuous dielectrophoretic separation of neural stem cells” herein Jiang and in view of Childers (US-2005/0211557-A1).
Regarding claim 13, Jiang teaches the DEP device of claim 1. Jiang does teach wherein the DEP device comprises one inlet channel (Jiang; see Figure 1), however Jiang does not teach at least 2 hydrophoretic modules; at least 2 dielectrophoretic modules; at least 2 inner outlets; and at least 4 outer outlets.
In the analogous art of sorting cells by applying a first non-uniform electric field via a first electrode array to cause movement of the first portion of the cells in a second direction, Childers teaches a series of sorters (Childers; abstract).
Specifically, Childers teaches a biodevice with a plurality of cell sorters arranged in series, where an output of a preceding cell sorter directs the first portion of cells into an input of a subsequent cell sorter in the series (Childers; [0017]). [0021] describes where in one embodiment the at least two cell sorters in series operate at different frequencies where each frequency is selected to separate out a different type of cell. [0025] describes where a dielectrophoretic field can be applied to impart a separating influence on cells flowing through the sorter and/or to impart a transport movement of the cells to travel through the fluid flow path. See Figure 1 where there are cell sorters 20A-C in series.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the HOAPES of Jiang such that there are multiple sorters in series as taught by Childers because Childers teaches that a series of cell sorters using different sorting frequencies enable enhanced sorting of target cells from non-target cells, and allows for more precise sorting in faster time periods (Childers; [0076]).
One skilled in the art would recognize that it would be desirable to repeat the hydrophoretic module to separate the incoming fluid flow from the first dielectrophoretic module such that the stream is similarly split into two streams before being fed into the next dielectrophoretic module. There will be a single inlet where the sample is initially input, then at least 2 hydrophoretic modules, and at least 2 dielectrophoretic modules. It is understood that the next hydrophoretic module may be connected to the inner channel of the preceding dielectrophoretic module. Each sorter will therefore have its own set of outer channels and inner channel for a total of at least 2 inner outlets and at least 4 outer outlets.
Other References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harwood (US-2016/0199853-A1) teaches where a device for dielectrophoretic manipulation of objects, where a PDMS layer has inlet and outlet reservoirs with a diameter of 3 mm punched through the PDMS layer (Harwood; abstract, [0194]).
Takaya (JP-2009/031126-A) teaches where the diameter of through-holes that function as inlet and outlet ports is typically 0.5 to 2 mm, taking into consideration the size of microbeads, etc. (Takaya; [0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights