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
Claims 128-141 and 145-147 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 10, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 142-144, in the reply filed on March 10, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the elected apparatus claims of Group II and the non-elected methods claims of Group I share a common inventive concept, namely: a magnet assembly that may be selectively raised and lowered relative to a platform upon which a processing bag rests, such that the magnetic beans may be securely fixed in place and subsequently released depending on the location of the magnet assembly. This is not found persuasive because as discussed in the restriction requirement mailed December 10, 2025, unity of invention requires the application of prior art that discloses what the various groupings of claims have in common as a special technical feature, and how that makes a contribution over the prior art. It is noted that inventions listed as Groups I-III do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features as set forth in the previous Office Action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 10, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
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) 142 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (WO 2020/162431 A1) (reference will be made to US 2022/0119752 A1 for translation) in view of Guia et al (WO 2016/112349 A1).
With respect to claim 142 Tajima discloses a bead processing assembly (sample treatment device 1000, See Fig. 2 and Para. 0084) for use in attaching magnetic beads to biological cells and/or separating magnetic beads from biological cells, the bead processing assembly comprising:
a base assembly (treatment section 100, See Fig. 2 and Para. 0090) comprising:
a housing (frame 104);
a support panel (treating stage 110) disposed on the housing and having a front face (portion of the stage facing in the z direction);
a first pinch valve at least partially outwardly projecting from the front face of the support panel (See Fig. 1 of depiction of valves disposed on treatment section 100 that connect to the tubes from the solution supply section); and
a rocker assembly (described below) supported on the base assembly, the rocker assembly comprising:
a mount assembly (supports 720 and 730, See Figs. 2, 3, and 6 and Para. 0093) supported on the base assembly;
a platform assembly (first rotation shaft 810, See Fig. 6 and Para. 0085) pivotably secured to the mount assembly; and
a rocker driver (first motor 812, See Fig. 6 and Para. 0093) configured for rocking the platform assembly relative to the mount assembly.
Tajima fails to disclose the incorporation of a first pump at least partially outwardly projecting from the front face of the support panel.
Guia teaches an automated system with a filtration unit, wherein the filtration unit having a loading reservoir (510) connected through a valve (506) to a filtration chamber that comprises an antechamber (504) separated from a post-filtration subchamber (505) by a microfabricated filter (503). A wash pump (526) is connected to the lower chamber through a valve (508) for pumping wash buffer (524) through the lower subchamber. Another valve (507) leads to another negative pressure pump used to promote fluid flow through the filtration chamber and out through an exit conduit (530). A collection vessel (518) can reversibly engage the upper chamber (504). B) shows a blood sample (525) loaded into the loading reservoir (510). In C) the valve (507) that leads to a negative pressure pump used to promote fluid flow through the filtration chamber is open, and D) and E) show the blood sample being filtered through the chamber (See Para. 0082 and Figs. 15-16 for depiction of the system disposed on a planar platform). "Micro-scale structures" are structures integral to or attached on a chip, wafer, or chamber that have characteristic dimensions of scale for use in microfluidic applications ranging from about 0.1 micron to about 20 mm. Example of micro-scale structures that can be on chips of the present invention are wells, channels, dams, bricks, filters, scaffolds, electrodes, electromagnetic units, acoustic elements, or microfabricated pumps or valves (See Para. 0144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before eth effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a pump on the front face of the support panel of Tajima, as taught by Guia, to incorporate all pertinent features on the same plane, thus keeping the system compact (See Paras. 0082 and 0144 of Guia).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 143 and 144 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest cited prior art of reference fails to disclose or fairly teach that the platform assembly comprises a housing assembly bounding a compartment; a platform mounted to the housing assembly; a magnet assembly disposed between the housing assembly and the platform, the magnet assembly comprising: a top surface and an opposing bottom surface; and a lift configured for selectively raising and lowering the magnet assembly relative to the platform between an activation position and a deactivation position. Claim 144 is dependent upon claim 143 and inherits the same status.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY I FISHER whose telephone number is (469)295-9182. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRITTANY I FISHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1796 May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights