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 01/05/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/20/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant states that Okubo, Gentalen or Moon does not each the claim limitation directed to “a channel space engraved on the channel block” and “wherein the channel space is formed by carving an inside of the channel block”. MPEP 2113 states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In the instant case, Okubo not need teach the engraving/carving process in order to achieve the channel of claim 1 since it hold no patentable weight. Furthermore, Gentalen teaches that per the material of the main body of the device, the inlet ports, the outlet ports and the channels can be created through at least CNC machining, chemical etching or laser photoablation (See Gentalen [0191]). These manufacturing techniques will engrave/carve the material in order to create said channel. Therefore, the 102/103 rejection of claim 1 is deemed proper.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (“Flow Field-Flow Fractionation with a Thickness-Tapered Channel”; hereinafter “Kim”; Published October 4, 2022; cited in the IDS filed on 01/05/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a flow field-flow fractionation channel block (Figures 1a-1b) without a separate channel spacer (Figures 1a-1b demonstrates that a spacer is not present), the channel block comprising:
an inlet (Vin; Figures 1a-1b; Pages 14461-14462) through which a fluid is introduced (Pages 14461-14462);
an outlet (Vout; Figures 1a-1b; Pages 14461-14462) through which the fluid is discharged (Pages 14461-14462); and
a channel (channel within channel block; Figures 1a-1b; Pages 14461-14462) connecting the inlet and the outlet (See Figures 1a-B), the channel comprising a channel space engraved on the channel block (Page 14462),
wherein the channel space (channel space of channel within channel block; Figures 1a-1b; Pages 14461-14462) is formed by carving (Pages 14461-14462) an inside of the channel block (Pages 14461-14462) such that the channel is provided to have a thickness decreasing at least in part along a direction from the inlet to the outlet (See Figures 1a-1b; Pages 14461-14462).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches wherein the channel (channel within channel block; Figures 1a-1b; Pages 14461-14462) is provided to have a breadth decreasing at least in part along the direction from the inlet to the outlet (the width of the channel decreased along the direction from the inlet Vin to Vout; See Figures 1a-1b).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the channel includes a first region having a breadth increasing at least in part along the direction from the inlet to the outlet (Figures 1a-1b demonstrate the left portion of the channel increasing in width along the direction from the Vin to the Vout), and a second region connected to the first region and having a decreasing breadth (Figures 1a-1b demonstrate the middle portion of the channel decreasing in width along the direction from the Vin to the Vout).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches wherein the second region is provided so that the breadth linearly decreases (Figures 1a-1b shows the middle region linearly decreasing in width).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches wherein the channel further includes a third region connecting the second region and the outlet (right portion of the channel that connects the middle portion and Vout; See Figures 1a-1b) and provided to have a breadth decreasing rate greater than a breadth decreasing rate of the second region (the third region decreases in width greater than the decreasing of width of the middle portion; See Figures 1a-1b).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches wherein the channel is provided so that the thickness linearly decreases (Figures 1a-1b demonstrates that the channel within the channel block decreases linearly in thickness).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches wherein the channel block is made of polycarbonate (Page 14462).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Okubo (JP 2008000724; English translation previously provided by the Examiner; previously relied upon by the Examiner) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gentalen et al. (US 20190234961; hereinafter “Gentalen”; previously relied upon by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Okubo teaches a flow field-flow fractionation channel block (50; Figure 4; [0027]) without a separate channel spacer (Figure 4 demonstrates that the apparatus does not contain a channel spacer or any other structure that is considered a spacer) comprising:
an inlet (inlet of channel 50 to which tubing 15 is connected; See Figure 4) through which a fluid is introduced ([0025]; See Figure 4);
an outlet (outlet of channel 50 to which tubing 16 is connected; See Figure 4) through which the fluid is discharged ([0025]; See Figure 4); and
a channel (created by elements 11-14; See Figure 4) connecting the inlet and the outlet (See Figure 4), the channel (created by elements 11-14; See Figure 4) comprising a channel space (channel space through which fluid passes through; Figure 4) engraved (the limitation of engraving is a product-by-process claim limitation that holds no patentable weight since patentability is based on the product itself, where the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production; See MPEP 2113) on the channel block (See Figure 4),
wherein the channel space (channel space through which fluid passes through; Figure 4) is formed by carving (the limitation of carving is a product-by-process claim limitation that holds no patentable weight since patentability is based on the product itself, where the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production; See MPEP 2113) an inside of the channel block (See Figure 4) such that the channel (created by elements 11-14; See Figure 4) is provided to have a thickness ([0027]; Figure 4) decreasing at least in part along a direction from the inlet to the outlet (Figure 4 demonstrates the thickness H decreasing in the direction from the inlet to the outlet; [0027]).
However, in the alternative, Gentalen teaches that is known in the art to engraving a channel space on a channel block ([0191]) and carving an inside of a channel block in order to form the channel space ([0191]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Gentalen engraving/carving step implemented to form Okubo’s channel space in order to form the channel from a single piece of material, this increases the structural integrity of the channel block.
Regarding claim 2, Okubo teaches wherein the channel (created by elements 11-14; See Figure 4) is provided to have a breadth (width ‘W’; Figure 4) decreasing at least in part along the direction from the inlet to the outlet (Figure 4 demonstrates the width ‘W’ decreasing in the direction from the inlet to the outlet; [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Okubo teaches wherein the channel (created by elements 11-14; See Figure 4) includes a first region (X; See annotated Figure 4) having a breadth increasing at least in part along the direction from the inlet to the outlet (Figure 4 demonstrates the region X increasing in width in the direction from the inlet to the outlet; Figure 4), and a second region (Y; See annotated Figure 4) connected to the first region (region Y is connected to the region X; See annotated Figure 4) and having a decreasing breadth (region Y has a width that decreases; See annotated Figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Okubo teaches wherein the second region (Y; See annotated Figure 4) is provided so that the breadth linearly decreases (the width of region Y linearly decreases; See annotated Figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Okubo teaches wherein the channel (created by elements 11-14; See Figure 4) further includes a third region (Z; See annotated Figure 4) connecting the second region (Y; annotated Figure 4) and the outlet (outlet of channel 50 to which tubing 16 is connected; See Figure 4) and provided to have a breadth (See annotated Figure 4) decreasing rate greater than a breadth decreasing rate of the second region (the decreasing breadth rate of region Z is greater than the decreasing breadth rate of region Y; See annotated Figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Okubo teaches wherein the channel (created by elements 11-14; See Figure 4) is provided so that the thickness linearly decreases (Figure 4 demonstrates that the thickness H of the channel decreases linearly).
Regarding claim 7, Okubo teaches the channel but does not expressly teach the channel being made of polycarbonate.
However, Gentalen teaches that it is known in the art for a flow field-flow fractionation channel (116; [0119, 0191]; Figure 1) being made of polycarbonate ([0119, 0191]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Gentalen’s polycarbonate material as the material used for Okubo’s channel in order to use a material that is easy to manufacture while at the same time has high temperature stability and lightweight.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo in view of Moon et al. (US 20110253535; hereinafter “Moon”; previously relied upon by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 8, Okubo teaches a flow field-flow fractionation device (Figure 4) comprising:
an injection hole (15; Figure 4) and a discharge hole (16; Figure 4);
the flow field-flow fractionation channel block of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above) and includes a channel (created by elements 11-14; See Figure 4) for transferring a fluid introduced through the injection hole to the discharge hole ([0003-0004, 0025]).
Okubo teaches the injection hole and the discharge hole but does not expressly teach a housing having the injection hole and the discharge hole; the flow field-flow fractionation channel block disposed within the housing; and a membrane disposed within the housing and disposed to allow fluid movement with the channel of the flow field-flow fractionation channel block.
However, Moon teaches a housing (Depletion wall and accumulation wall; Figure 1) having the injection hole (hole connected to injector; Figure 1) and the discharge hole (hole connected to UV analyzer; Figure 1); the flow field-flow fractionation channel block (spacer; Figure 1) disposed within the housing (See Figure 1); and a membrane (membrane; Figure 1) disposed within the housing (See Figure 1) and disposed to allow fluid movement with the channel of the flow field-flow fractionation channel block ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Moon’s housing and associated structure along with Okubo’s flow field-flow fractionation channel block in order to provide structure that will protect said channel from external forces, thus reducing any sort of damage that could be experienced by the channel.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Moon.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a flow field-flow fractionation device (Figures 1a1-1b) comprising:
an injection hole (hole of Vin; Figures 1a-1b) and a discharge hole (hole of Vout; Figures 1a-1b; Figure 4);
the flow field-flow fractionation channel block of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above) and includes a channel (channel within channel block; Figures 1a-1b; Pages 14461-14462) for transferring a fluid introduced through the injection hole to the discharge hole (Pages 14461-14462).
Okubo teaches the injection hole and the discharge hole but does not expressly teach a housing having the injection hole and the discharge hole; the flow field-flow fractionation channel block disposed within the housing; and a membrane disposed within the housing and disposed to allow fluid movement with the channel of the flow field-flow fractionation channel block.
However, Moon teaches a housing (Depletion wall and accumulation wall; Figure 1) having the injection hole (hole connected to injector; Figure 1) and the discharge hole (hole connected to UV analyzer; Figure 1); the flow field-flow fractionation channel block (spacer; Figure 1) disposed within the housing (See Figure 1); and a membrane (membrane; Figure 1) disposed within the housing (See Figure 1) and disposed to allow fluid movement with the channel of the flow field-flow fractionation channel block ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Moon’s housing and associated structure along with Kim’s flow field-flow fractionation channel block in order to provide structure that will protect said channel from external forces, thus reducing any sort of damage that could be experienced by the channel.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/SPE, Art Unit 2855