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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, each of “the first porous medium portion between the fluidic channel and a first auxiliary outlet” and “the second porous medium portion between the fluidic channel and a second auxiliary outlet” lack antecedent basis and are grammatically incomplete (insertion of “being” between “portion” and “between” in each of these claim clauses is suggested to resolve both issues).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hill et al PGPUBS Document US 2012/0103903 (Hill). Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Hill discloses a fluidic or microfluidic separator 900 (Abstract: “Device for separating fluids”, [0007], see also [0008 and 0064 referring to the separator having microfluidic features]), comprising (all as best shown in figure 9):
a fluidic channel 902 comprising an inlet 904 [0008, 0084];
a first porous medium portion defining at least a portion of a wall (top wall 910) of the fluidic channel (membrane porous medium 908), the first porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel 902 and a first auxiliary outlet 914 [0084]; and
a second porous medium portion defining at least a portion of a wall (bottom wall 916) of the fluidic channel (membrane porous medium 918), the second porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel
902 and a second auxiliary outlet 922 [0084].
Hill further discloses:
for claim 2, wherein the fluidic channel 902 comprises an outlet 906 (figure 9, [0084]);
for claim 3, wherein at least a portion of the 1st porous medium faces the 2nd porous medium (figure 9 illustrates all of 1st porous medium 908 facing all of 2nd porous medium 918);
for claim 5, wherein the 1st porous medium portion is or is part of a porous membrane (see also [0085 “wall filters or membranes on opposite walls of the microfluidic channel”]); and,
for claim 6, wherein the 2nd porous medium portion is or is part of a porous membrane (see also [0085 “wall filters or membranes on opposite walls of the microfluidic channel”]).
Claims 7, 8, 10, 13-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jovanovic et al PGPUBS Document US 2011/0253629 (Jovanovic). Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 7, Jovanovic discloses: a method, comprising:
presenting a combined flow comprising a first fluid phase and a second fluid phase to a separator comprising a first porous medium portion and a second porous medium portion (Abstract regarding fluid separation devices, [0079 regarding directing a combined flow of first fluid phase (blood) and second fluid phase (urea) to a separator unit], and [0010, 0064 and 0073 regarding the separator comprising dialyzers, hence dialysis porous membrane(s) with first hydrophilic regions or portions and second hydrophobic regions or portions], and see [0068-0069 regarding the dialyzers having a microchannel array 40 having a porous filter membrane 44 associated therewith] and [0073 regarding plural filter membranes in a multi-layered unit]), and wherein:
the first porous medium portion has a higher affinity for the first fluid phase than for the second fluid phase, such that the first fluid phase is preferentially transported through the first porous medium portion relative to the second fluid phase ([0073 and 0079 regarding the different porous dialysis membrane(s) having a first portion with a relatively higher hydrophobic affinity for a 1st blood cell fluid phase and separation of such blood cells and a second portion with a relatively higher hydrophilic affinity and resulting separation of a 2nd urea fluid phase, based on differences in blood flow repelling and rates of fluid dispersion in the regions or portions]), and
the second porous medium portion has a higher affinity for the second fluid phase than for the first fluid phase, such that the second fluid phase is preferentially transported through the second porous medium portion relative to the first fluid phase (again, see [0073 and 0079 regarding the different porous dialysis membrane(s) having a first portion with a relatively higher hydrophobic affinity for a 1st blood cell fluid phase and separation of such blood cells and a second portion with a relatively higher hydrophilic affinity and resulting separation of a 2nd urea fluid phase, based on differences in blood flow repelling and dispersions of the regions or portions]) .
Jovanovic further discloses:
for claim 8, wherein the combined flow further comprises a third fluid phase (see [0009 regarding separation devices for separating two or more fluids flowing through plural microchannels operative associated with the membrane]);
for claim 10, wherein the first fluid phase is a liquid phase, and the second fluid phase is a liquid phase [0009 separation devices for separating fluids where “fluids can both be liquids”];
for claim 13, wherein the first porous membrane portion is hydrophobic and the second porous membrane portion(s) with first hydrophilic regions or portions and second hydrophobic portions]; hydrophilic [0010, 0064 and 0073 regarding the separator comprising dialyzers, hence dialysis porous membrane regions or portions];
for claim 14, wherein the first fluid phase is an aqueous liquid phase, and the second fluid phase is a non-aqueous liquid phase [0126 regarding alternate device use for water purification with organic acids, inherently non-aqueous liquid phases, being separated];
for claim 15, wherein the third fluid phase is a gas phase (again see [0009 regarding two or more fluids being separated, including a gas or gases]);
for claim 17, wherein the first porous medium portion is or is part of a porous membrane [0068-0069 regarding the dialyzers having a microchannel array 40 having a porous filter membrane 44 associated therewith] and [0073 regarding plural filter membranes in a multi-layered unit]; and,
for claim 18, wherein the second porous medium portion is or is part of a porous membrane [0068-0069 regarding the dialyzers having a microchannel array 40 having a porous filter membrane 44 associated therewith] and [0073 regarding plural filter membranes in a multi-layered unit].
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al PGPUBS Document US 2012/0103903 (Hill) in view of Jovanovic et al PGPUBS Document US 2011/0253629 (Jovanovic). Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 4 differs from Hill by requiring wherein the 1st porous medium portion is hydrophobic and the 2nd porous medium portion is hydrophilic.
Jovanovic teaches a method, comprising:
presenting a combined flow comprising a first fluid phase and a second fluid phase to a separator comprising a first porous medium portion and a second porous medium portion (Abstract regarding fluid separation devices, [0079 regarding presenting a combined flow of first fluid phase (blood) and second fluid phase (urea) to a separator unit], and [0010, 0064 and 0073 regarding the separator comprising dialyzers, hence dialysis porous membrane(s) with first hydrophilic regions or portions and second hydrophobic regions or portions], and see [0068-0069 regarding the dialyzers having a microchannel array 40 having a porous filter membrane 44 associated therewith] and [0073 regarding plural filter membranes in a multi-layered unit]), and wherein:
the first porous medium portion has a higher affinity for the first fluid phase than for the second fluid phase, such that the first fluid phase is preferentially transported through the first porous medium portion relative to the second fluid phase ([0073 and 0079 regarding the different porous dialysis membrane(s) having a first portion with a relatively higher hydrophobic affinity for a 1st blood cell fluid phase and separation of such blood cells and a second portion with a relatively higher hydrophilic affinity and resulting separation of a 2nd urea fluid phase, based on differences in blood flow repelling and dispersions of the regions or portions]), and
the second porous medium portion has a higher affinity for the second fluid phase than for the first fluid phase, such that the second fluid phase is preferentially transported through the second porous medium portion relative to the first fluid phase (again, see ([0073 and 0079 regarding the different porous dialysis membrane(s) having a first portion with a relatively higher hydrophobic affinity for a 1st blood cell fluid phase and separation of such blood cells and a second portion with a relatively higher hydrophilic affinity and resulting separation of a 2nd urea fluid phase, based on differences in blood flow repelling and dispersions of the regions or portions]) .
Jovanovic in [0073] teaches that regions, i.e. portions, of dialyzer membrane surfaces can be made either hydrophobic or hydrophilic by surface modification.
Hence, Jovanovic is teaching that imparting a first membrane medium portion to be hydrophilic and a second membrane medium portion to be hydrophobic, enables separation of multiple liquid phases from a liquid mixture being provided to the separator fluidic channel, hence providing for more highly purified, or customized separate liquid products.
Thus, in summary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of designing fluidic separators, to have utilized surface modification, to have made the first medium portion hydrophilic and the second medium portion hydrophobic, as taught by Jovanovic, in order to enable separation of multiple liquid phases from a liquid mixture being provided to the separator fluidic channel, hence providing for more highly purified, or customized separate liquid products.
Claims 9, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic et al PGPUBS Document US 2011/0253629 (Jovanovic) in view of Hill et al PGPUBS Document US 2012/0103903 (Hill). Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 9 differs from Jovanovic by requiring wherein at least a portion of the first porous medium portion faces the second porous medium portion.
Hill discloses a fluidic or microfluidic separator 900 (Abstract: “Device for separating fluids”, [0007], see also [0008 and 0064 referring to the separator having microfluidic features]), comprising (all as best shown in figure 9):
a fluidic channel 902 comprising an inlet 904 [0008, 0084];
a first porous medium portion defining at least a portion of a wall (top wall 910) of the fluidic channel (membrane porous medium 908), the first porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel 902 and a first auxiliary outlet 914 [0084]; and,
a second porous medium portion defining at least a portion of a wall (bottom wall 916) of the fluidic channel (membrane porous medium 918), the second porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel 902 and a second auxiliary outlet 922 and facing the first porous medium portion in a cross-flow membrane filtration orientation [0084, 0085].
Hill teaches that such separation device design features provide sufficient transport of solid particles being separated from a fluid, while reducing or preventing negative trans-filter pressures which would otherwise induce some amount of buildup of particles on porous medium surfaces effected by undesirable reverse flow and shear [0064], and teaches that such separation device design also may render use of an extraction fluid as un-necessary [0084, 0085].
It would have hence been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separation utilizing fluidic separators to have modified the Jovanovic method, by arranging at least a portion of the porous medium membranes to face each-other, as taught by Hill, to provide sufficient transport of solid particles being separated from a fluid, while reducing or preventing negative trans-filter pressures which would otherwise induce some amount of buildup of particles on porous medium surfaces effected by undesirable reverse flow and shear [0064], and teaches that such separation device design also may render use of an extraction fluid as un-necessary.
Claim 16 differs from Jovanovic by requiring wherein the first porous medium portion defines at least a portion of a first side of a fluidic channel, and the second porous medium portion defines at least a portion of a second side of the fluidic channel facing the first side of the fluidic channel.
Hill discloses a fluidic or microfluidic separator 900 (Abstract: “Device for separating fluids”, [0007], see also [0008 and 0064 referring to the separator having microfluidic features]), comprising (all as best shown in figure 9):
a fluidic channel 902 comprising an inlet 904 [0008, 0084];
a first porous medium portion defining at least a portion of a wall (top wall 910) of the fluidic channel (membrane porous medium 908), the first porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel 902 and a first auxiliary outlet 914 [0084]; and,
a second porous medium portion defining at least a portion of a wall (bottom wall 916) of the fluidic channel (membrane porous medium 918), the second porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel 902 and a second auxiliary outlet 922 and facing the first porous medium portion in a cross-flow membrane filtration orientation [0084, 0085].
Hill as illustrated in figure 9 and described in [0084 and 0085], teaches the porous medium portions defining portions of opposite, facing first and second sides of fluidic channel 902.
Hill teaches that such separation device design features provide sufficient transport of solid particles being separated from a fluid, while reducing or preventing negative trans-filter pressures which would otherwise induce some amount of buildup of particles on porous medium surfaces effected by undesirable reverse flow and shear [0064], and teaches that such separation device design also may render use of an extraction fluid as un-necessary [0084, 0085].
It would have hence been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separation utilizing fluidic separators to have modified the Jovanovic method, by arranging at least a portion of the porous medium membranes to define portions of opposite, facing first and second sides of a fluidic channel, as taught by Hill, to provide sufficient transport of solid particles being separated from a fluid, while reducing or preventing negative trans-filter pressures which would otherwise induce some amount of buildup of particles on porous medium surfaces effected by undesirable reverse flow and shear [0064], and teaches that such separation device design also may render use of an extraction fluid as un-necessary.
Claim 19 differs from Jovanovic by requiring the method as further comprising transporting a portion of the combined flow out of the separator and recycling at least a portion of the combined flow that is transported out of the separator back into the separator.
Hill discloses a fluidic or microfluidic separator 900 (Abstract: “Device for separating fluids”, [0007], see also [0008 and 0064 referring to the separator having microfluidic features]), comprising (all as best shown in figure 9):
a fluidic channel 902 comprising an inlet 904 [0008, 0084];
a first porous medium portion defining at least a portion of a wall (top wall 910) of the fluidic channel (membrane porous medium 908), the first porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel 902 and a first auxiliary outlet 914 [0084]; and,
a second porous medium portion defining at least a portion of a wall (bottom wall 916) of the fluidic channel (membrane porous medium 918), the second porous medium portion being between the fluidic channel 902 and a second auxiliary outlet 922 and facing the first porous medium portion in a cross-flow membrane filtration orientation [0084, 0085].
Hill as described in [0051], teaches returning a portion of the combined flow out of the separator in a recycling flow back to the channel having the porous medium portions. Such recycling flow would inherently enable repeated passes of a fluid mixture being purified through the channel resulting in a more highly purified fluid product, free of undesirable particles or other material.
It would have hence been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of separation utilizing fluidic separators to have modified the Jovanovic method, by arranging for such fluid flow transporting and recycling flow, taught by Hill, in order to provide a more highly purified fluid product, free of undesirable particles or other material.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic et al PGPUBS Document US 2011/0253629 (Jovanovic). Referenced paragraph numbers of the applied PGPUBS Document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claims 20 and 21 respectively differ from what is explicitly disclosed in Jovanovic by requiring wherein the volumetric flux of the first fluid phase through the first porous medium portion is at least 1.5 times greater than the volumetric flux of the second fluid phase through the first porous medium portion, or alternately wherein the volumetric flux of the second fluid phase through the second porous medium portion is at least 1.5 times greater than the volumetric flux of the first fluid phase through the second porous medium portion.
Jovanovic discloses utilizing the disclosed separation device or devices to separate any of a plurality of fluid phases from each other, including blood fluid phases and urea fluid phase [0073 and 0079] or separating gases from liquid blood or natural gas, and separating organic acids from water [0126]. Hence the properties of the fluid phases such as density and viscosity being separated would obviously and necessarily differ substantially, thus the volumetric flux of the phases through the porous medium regions would also obviously vary substantially and inherently be more than a factor of 1.5.
Jovanovic also discloses that diffusion channels associated with the device can have different microchannel configurations [0069, 0076], and can microlaminated with a wide variety of materials [0086], hence also affecting volumetric flux of phases.
Thus, in summary, the recited volumetric flux of the phases of the liquid mixture being separated, is deemed to be a results-effective variable, for which it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize flux and separation efficiency of the phases by selection of particular fluid mixtures for separation and by these channel design changes.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure in Section 2144.05, parts I and II contains court decisions that have established precedence that particular parameter values or ranges may be insufficient to patentably distinguish where the prior art concerns overlapping, approaching and similar ranges and amounts of such parameters, absent a finding of criticality or unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 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.
Claims 11 and 12 would respectively distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of wherein the first porous medium portion and second porous medium portion are both hydrophilic with the first porous membrane portion being more hydrophilic than the second porous medium portion, or alternately where both medium portions are hydrophobic with the first portion being more hydrophobic than the second portion.
Jovanovic only teaches first membrane portions being hydrophilic and second membrane portions being hydrophobic, rather than both being hydrophilic to different degrees or hydrophobic to different degrees. Jovanovic teaches only wherein the first porous membrane portion is hydrophobic and the second porous membrane portion(s) with first hydrophilic regions or portions and second hydrophobic portions]; hydrophilic [0010, 0064 and 0073 regarding the separator comprising dialyzers, hence dialysis porous membrane regions or portions];
Jablonski et al PGPUBS Document US 2012/0298579 similarly teaches constructing a fluidic separator of a mixture of hydrophobic and hydrophilic materials, however does not suggest employing first and second membrane or other porous medium portions of different degrees of hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art is cited regarding fluidic, microfluidic and field flow fractionation devices and methods employing porous membrane filter members in combination with other gradients to effect separation of liquid phases from tangential liquid flows across the members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 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 are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The formal facsimile phone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
01/08/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773