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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/15/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 8-18 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 8 states “increased concentration of small molecules of a sample”. The term “small” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is 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. It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what particle size is to be considered “small”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “increased concentration of molecules of a sample”.
Claims 9-15 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 8.
Claim 9 has dependency on claim 8 and states “the first fraction outlet port”. However, claim 8 does not previously recite “a first fraction outlet port”; in fact, claim 8 states “a first outlet port”. It is unclear whether “the first fraction outlet port” of claim 9 is the same as the “a first outlet port” of claim 8 or a different port. For examination purpose, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “the first fraction outlet port”.
Claims 10-14 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 9.
Claim 16 states “increased concentration of small molecules of a sample”. The term “small” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is 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. It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what particle size is to be considered “small”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “increased concentration of molecules of a sample”.
Claims 17-18 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 16.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA (Applicant admitted prior art) in view of Wang et al. (CN 1345624; hereinafter “Wang”; English translation provided by the Examiner) in further view of Yamada (US 20210018474).
Regarding claim 1, AAPA teaches a method ([0028-0031]; Figure 1) comprising:
injecting a sample (120 and 130; [0028-0029]; Figure 1) in a flow into a sample inject port (104; [0027 and 0029]; Figure 1) of a field flow fractionator (100; Figure 1; [0027]);
injecting a continuous flow ([0027-0029]) of pure solvent ([0027-0029]) into a frit inlet port (102; Figure 1) of the field flow fractionator (100) sufficient to force the sample (120 and 130; [0029]) toward a membrane (150; Figure 1; [0028-0029]) of the field flow fractionator (100);
establishing an exponential concentration profile ([0030]; Figure 1) for a plurality of fractions or species of the sample ([0030]; Figure 1) with respect to a distance from the membrane ([0030]; Figure 1); and
controlling a first flow out of a first fraction outlet port (108; Figure 1; [0031]), wherein the first flow ([0031]) includes a portion of the sample ([0031]) having at least one of the plurality of fractions (particles 130 flow out of the port 108; [0029, 0031]).
AAPA teaches the method and a sample flow through the field flow fractionator but does not expressly teach a computer implemented method comprising executing, by a computer system, a set of logical operations to perform the method, the field flow fractionator being a continuous field flow fractionator and extracting a remainder of the sample from a second fraction outlet port of the continuous field flow fractionator.
However, Wang teaches the field flow fractionator being a continuous field flow fractionator ([0080, 0170]) and extracting a remainder of the sample ([0171-0172]) from a second fraction outlet port (870 or 880; Figure 10) of the continuous field flow fractionator ([0080, 0170]; Figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Wang’s second fraction outlet port and continuous operation implement and performed by AAPA field flow fractionator in order to make sure that the particles that are separated from each other through the continuous field flow fractionator are removed from the internal channel of the field flow fractionator; this aids in reducing any sort of membrane clogging within the field flow fractionator and permits the field flow fractionator to continue operation during a longer period of time.
The combination of AAPA and Wang teaches the method but does not expressly teach a computer implemented method comprising executing, by a computer system, a set of logical operations to perform the method.
However, Yamada teaches that it is known in the art to have a computer implemented method ([0043-0047, 0050-0053, 0058 and 0070]) comprising executing, by a computer system (31-33 and 14; Figures 1-2; [0043-0047, 0050-0053, 0058 and 0070]), a set of logical operations to perform the method ([0043-0047, 0050-0053, 0058 and 0070]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Yamada’s computer system implemented to perform AAPA and Wang’s method in order to control the flow rate through the system in a desired manner through automation, since it is known in the art that automation reduce human prone errors when performing a test or operating machinery, thus increasing the reliability, efficiency and the accuracy of the system.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of AAPA, Wang and Yamada teaches executing, by the computer system (31-33 and 14; Figures 1-2; [0043-0047, 0050-0053, 0058 and 0070]: Yamada), a set of logical operations ([0043-0047, 0050-0053, 0058 and 0070]: Yamada) applying an electric field ([0174, 0194]: Wang) to one or more zones within a channel of the continuous field flow fractionator ([0174, 0194]: Wang) by controlling at least one pair of electrodes ([0174, 0194]: Wang).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Wang and Yamada in further view of Welz et al. (US 20160238571; hereinafter “Welz”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of AAPA, Wang and Yamada teaches the continuous field flow fractionator and executing, by the computer system, a set of logical operations but does not expressly teach controlling a flow of sample-free solvent out of a third outlet port of the continuous field flow fractionator, wherein the third outlet port is located proximate the sample inject port relative to the first fraction outlet port and the second fraction outlet port.
However, Welz teaches controlling a flow of sample-free solvent ([0077-0079]) out of a third outlet port (3; Figure 1; [0077-0079]) of the field flow fractionator (Figure 1), wherein the third outlet port (3) is located proximate (Figure 1 demonstrates the outlet port 3 being proximate to the sample inject port 6) the sample inject port (6; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Welz’s third outlet port implemented in AAPA, Wang and Yamada continuous field flow fractionator in order to increase measuring sensitivity and lowering detection limits from the particles that are expelled from the channel of the continuous field flow fractionator (See Welz [0022-0023]).
Note: The combination of AAPA, Wang, Yamada and Welz will result in having the third outlet port located proximate to the sample inject port relative to the first fraction outlet port and the second fraction outlet port.
Claims 8-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Wang in further view of Welz.
Regarding claim 8, AAPA teaches a field flow fractionator (Figure 1) comprising:
a sample inject port (104; [0027 and 0029]; Figure 1);
a frit inlet port (102; Figure 1; [0027-0029]);
a second fraction outlet port (108; Figure 1; [0031]); and
wherein a second flow ([0031]) out of the second fraction outlet port (108; Figure 1; [0031]) is configured to extract an increased concentration of small molecules of a sample (particles 130 flow out of the port 108; [0029, 0031]).
AAPA teaches the field flow fractionator and the sample but does not expressly teach the field flow fractionator being a continuous field flow fractionator; a first outlet port; wherein a first flow out of the first outlet port is configured to extract a sample-free solvent, a third fraction outlet port, wherein a third flow out of the third faction port is configured to extract a remainder of the sample.
However, Wang teaches the field flow fractionator being a continuous field flow fractionator ([0080, 0170]); a third fraction outlet port (870 or 880; Figure 10), wherein a third flow out of the third faction port (870 or 880; Figure 10) is configured to extract a remainder of the sample ([0171-0172]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Wang’s third fraction outlet port and continuous operation implement and performed by AAPA field flow fractionator in order to make sure that the particles that are separated from each other through the continuous field flow fractionator are removed from the internal channel of the field flow fractionator; this aids in reducing any sort of membrane clogging within the field flow fractionator and permits the field flow fractionator to continue operation during a longer period of time.
The combination of AAPA and Wang teaches the field flow fractionator and the sample but does not expressly teach a first outlet port; wherein a first flow out of the first outlet port is configured to extract a sample-free solvent.
However, Welz teaches a first outlet port (3; Figure 1; [0077-0079]); wherein a first flow out of the first outlet port (3; Figure 1; [0077-0079]) is configured to extract a sample-free solvent ([0077-0079]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Welz’s first outlet port implemented in AAPA and Wang continuous field flow fractionator in order to increase measuring sensitivity and lowering detection limits from the particles that are expelled from the channel of the continuous field flow fractionator (See Welz [0022-0023]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of AAPA, Wang and Welz teaches a top portion (top portion of FFF 100; Figure 1: AAPA and top portion of the FFF: Welz), wherein the sample inject port (104: AAPA), the frit inlet port (102: AAPA), the first fraction outlet port (3; Figure 1: Welz), the second fraction outlet port (108: AAPA), and the third fraction outlet port (port 870: Figure 10: Wang) are located in the top portion (104 and 102 are located on the top portion: AAPA; port 3 is located on the top portion: Welz and port 870 is on the top portion: Wang); and a bottom portion (Bottom portion of the FFF 100; Figure 1: AAPA), wherein the top portion (top portion of FFF 100; Figure 1: AAPA) and the bottom portion define (Bottom portion of the FFF 100; Figure 1: AAPA) a channel (101; Figure 1: AAPA).
Regarding claim 10, AAPA teaches wherein the channel (101; Figure 1) defines a shape (Figure 1) that produces a uniform downstream field (Figure 1 demonstrates that the channel 101 produces a uniform downstream field at section 146).
Regarding claim 11, AAPA teaches wherein the channel (101; Figure 1) defines a shape (Figure 1) that produces a non-uniform downstream field (Figure 1 demonstrates that the channel 101 produces a non-uniform downstream field at section 148).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5-7 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.
In claim 3, the specific limitations of "executing, by the computer system, a set of logical operations recirculating a portion of the remainder sample from the second fraction outlet port back to the sample inject port" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 5, the specific limitations of "executing, by the computer system, a set of logical operations applying temperature gradient to one or more zones within a channel of the continuous field flow fractionator by controlling at least one of a heater and cooler attached to at least one of a top portion and a bottom portion of the continuous field flow fractionator" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 6, the specific limitations of "executing, by the computer system, a set of logical operations directing the first flow out of the first fraction outlet port to a sample inject port of a second continuous field flow fractionator" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claim 7 would also be allowed for depending on claim 6.
Claims 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In claim 12, the specific limitations of "wherein the top portion and the bottom portion define a channel having a plurality of zones, each of the plurality of zones applying a different electric field" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claim 13 would also be allowed for depending on claim 12.
In claim 14, the specific limitations of "wherein the top portion and the bottom portion define a channel having a plurality of zones, each of the plurality of zones applying a different temperature gradient" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 15, the specific limitations of "a recirculation loop configured to recirculate a portion of the third flow from the third fraction port back to the sample inject port" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Regarding claim 16, AAPA teaches a field flow fractionator (Figure 1) comprising:
a sample inject port (104; [0027 and 0029]; Figure 1);
a frit inlet port (102; Figure 1);
a second fraction outlet port (108; Figure 1; [0031]); and
wherein a second flow out ([0031]) of the second fraction outlet port (108) is configured to extract an increased concentration of small molecules of a sample (particles 130 flow out of the port 108; [0029, 0031]).
Welz teaches a first fraction outlet port (3; Figure 1; [0077-0079]); wherein a first flow out ([0077-0079]) of the first fraction outlet port (3; Figure 1; [0077-0079]) is configured to extract a sample-free solvent (3; Figure 1; [0077-0079]).
Wang teaches a continuous field flow fractionator ([0080, 0170]); a third fraction outlet port (870 or 880; Figure 10), wherein a third flow out of the third faction port (870 or 880; Figure 10) is configured to extract a remainder of the sample ([0171-0172]).
In claim 16, the specific limitations of "a continuous field flow fractionator system comprising: a plurality of continuous field flow fractionators connected together" and wherein each of the continuous field flow fractionators comprise the same structural components as stated above in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 17-18 would also be allowed for depending on claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES whose telephone number is (571)272-6456. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights