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 1-11, in the reply filed on 11 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant should correct the misspelling “megnetic” in the title.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (US 2021/0154631), which is the publication of the parent application of the instant CIP, in view of Liu (US 2015/0085599). None of the instant claims is afforded the filing date of the parent applicant because all the claims require turbulence and the parent application does not describe turbulence:
Regarding claim 1, Su discloses “A method for mixing magnetic particles with a liquid medium in a reaction chamber, comprising: simultaneously providing a magnetic field to the reaction chamber, thereby causing the magnetic particles to move in the liquid medium substantially on a plane crossing the reaction chamber; and controlling such that the magnetic particles have a relative reciprocating movement with respect to, and along a direction that has an angle to, the plane, wherein the angle is not zero.” (quoting claim 1 of Su). However, Su does not disclose creating turbulence in the liquid. Liu teaches moving magnetic particles to create turbulence in a liquid (see abstract, [0020], [0026]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have created turbulence by the movement of the magnetic particles as taught by Liu to improve mixing.
Regarding claim 2, Su discloses the “method of claim 1, wherein the magnetic field is generated from a magnet array comprising at least one magnet, wherein each of the at least one magnet in the magnet array is a permanent magnet or an electromagnet” (quoting claim 2 of Su).
Regarding claim 3, Su discloses the “method of claim 2, wherein the providing a magnetic field to the reaction chamber comprises at least one of: rotating the magnet array around the reaction chamber; spinning the reaction chamber; driving the magnet array to reciprocatingly move; or driving the reaction chamber to reciprocatingly move” (quoting claim 3 of Su).
Regarding claim 4, Su discloses the “method of claim 3, wherein the providing a magnetic field to the reaction chamber comprises: rotating the magnet array around the reaction chamber” (quoting claim 4 of Su).
Regarding claim 5, Su discloses the “method of claim 1, wherein the magnetic field is generated from an electromagnet array comprising at least two electromagnets, wherein the providing a magnetic field to the reaction chamber comprises: coordinately providing electrical signals to the at least two electromagnets in the electromagnet array, thereby forming the magnetic field.” (quoting claim 5 of Su).
Regarding claim 6, Su discloses the “method of claim 5, wherein the coordinately providing electrical signals to the at least two electromagnets in the electromagnet array comprises: alternately providing electrical signals to the at least two electromagnets in the electromagnet array” (quoting claim 6 of Su).
Regarding claim 7, Su discloses the “method of claim 1, wherein the controlling such that the magnetic particles have a relative reciprocating movement with respect to, and along a direction that has an angle to, the plane comprises: driving the reaction chamber to move reciprocatingly.” (quoting claim 7 of Su).
Regarding claim 8, Su discloses the “method of claim 1, wherein the magnetic field is generated by a magnet array or an electromagnet array, wherein the controlling such that the magnetic particles have a relative reciprocating movement with respect to, and along a direction that has an angle to, the plane comprises: driving the magnet array or the electromagnet array to move reciprocatingly.” (quoting claim 8 of Su).
Regarding claim 9, Su discloses a “method for mixing magnetic particles with a liquid medium in a reaction chamber, comprising: providing at least two magnetic fields to the reaction chamber, each capable of, upon activation, causing the magnetic particles to move in the liquid medium substantially on a plane crossing the reaction chamber corresponding thereto, wherein planes corresponding to the at least two magnetic fields on which the magnetic particles move are not on a same plane; controlling the at least two magnetic fields such that only one different magnetic field is alternately activated at a different timepoint.” (quoting claim 9 of Su). However, Su does not disclose creating turbulence in the liquid. Liu teaches moving magnetic particles to create turbulence in a liquid (see abstract, [0020], [0026]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have created turbulence by the movement of the magnetic particles as taught by Liu to improve mixing.
Regarding claim 10, Su discloses the “method of claim 9, wherein: the providing at least two magnetic fields to the reaction chamber comprises: providing at least two electromagnet arrays in a proximity of the reaction chamber, wherein each of the at least two electromagnet arrays comprises at least two electromagnets; and the controlling the at least two magnetic fields comprises: coordinately providing electrical signals to all electromagnets in the at least two electromagnet arrays” (quoting claim 10 of Su).
Regarding claim 11, Su discloses the “method of claim 10, wherein the coordinately providing electrical signals to all electromagnets in the at least two electromagnet arrays, thereby forming the at least two magnetic fields comprises: alternately providing electrical signals to the at least two electromagnets of the each of the at least two electromagnet arrays” (quoting claim 11 of Su).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights