DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 with traverse of group I (claims 1-3) in the reply filed on 9/22/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all of the groups are directed to the same inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because applicants have not addressed the reasons for distinctness set forth in the restriction on 7/30/26. Claims 4-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are pending with claims 1-3 being examined and claims 4-15 deemed withdrawn.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “pipeline”, “EP tube”, and “microporous structures” of claim 1, and the PDMS cavity comprising a “circle, an ellipse” of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, it is unclear how the features of the acoustic microfluidic system relate to each other. There is a signal generator and power amplifier, but it is unclear how these relate to the rest of the claims. Do these control the injection pump, or do they relate to the transducer? Additionally, there is an EP tube, but it is unclear where or how the EP tube relates to or is connected to the other structures both physically and functionally. It is also unclear what an “EP tube” is attempting to define as this is not a known structure. Additionally, it is unclear what the difference between an EP tube and a cell recovery container are. Based on the specification, the EP tube may be the cell recovery container, but there are no descriptions where both the recovery container and EP tube are simultaneously present. Therefore, because the EP tube and cell recovery container appear to be referencing the same structure it is unclear whether the narrow EP tube satisfies both limitations or whether the broad cell recovery containers satisfies both limitations. Since these are the same structures in the specification, then this limitation is unclear as to whether or not the narrower EP tube limitation is required or not and also unclear whether the narrower range is merely an example. See MPEP 2173.05(c) and 2173.05(d). The examiner will interpret the claims to cover either a recovery container or an EP tube in order to advance prosecution. Further still, there is a pipeline, and it is unclear where this pipeline is and how it relates to or is connected to the other structures both physically and functionally. Similarly, there is a cell recovery container, and it is unclear how it relates to or is connected to the other structures both physically and functionally. It is further unclear how the transducer, PDMS cavity, and pump relate to or are connected to the other structures both physically and functionally.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what a microporous structure is attempting to define. Based on the specification and figure 2 of the drawings, it appears as if the microporous structure of the claims is directed to a microstructure array branched off of a microfluidic channel. The specification describes the pores/micropores as cavities that are formed in the sidewall of the PDMS, and the microporous structures will be interpreted as microcavities or a microstructure array for purposes of examination.
Claims 2-3 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
As to claim 2, it is unclear what material is being used due to the term “preferably”. Specifically, the claim broadly recites a transparent material and then recites a narrower limitation of “preferably the transparent material comprises a glass slide, a cover slide or lithium niobate”. It is unclear whether or not the narrower limitation is required or not and also unclear whether the narrower range is merely an example. See MPEP 2173.05(c) and 2173.05(d).
As to claim 2, it is unclear what “clean” is attempting to define because it is a relative term and does not clearly define the transparent material.
As to claim 2, it is unclear what is being referred to by “one or more of said PDMS cavities are arranged in parallel” because previously only one singular PDMS cavity is described. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “said cavities”. It is also unclear how a singular cavity, as required by the claim, can be in parallel.
As to claim 3, it is unclear what input signal is being described and how it relates to the other features of the claim.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Zheng et al (US 20200338548; hereinafter “Zheng”).
As to claim 1, Zheng teaches an acoustic microfluidic system for cell fusion (Zheng; abstract, fig. 1, 2, 5, 6), wherein the acoustic microfluidic system comprises:
a signal generator (Zheng teaches a signal generator; [113-116], Fig. 6.), a power amplifier (Zheng teaches a power amplifier; [113-116], Fig. 6.), a PDMS cavity (Zheng teaches a PDMS cavity; [14, 71, 91-100, 113-116], Fig. 2.), a micro-injection pump (Zheng teaches a micro injection pump device; [18, 103, 106, 115]; Fig. 5, 6.), a pipeline (Zheng teaches a pipeline that connects the injection device and the recovery device to the PDMS cavity; [106, 112-115], Fig. 6.), an EP tube / cell recovery container (As best understood, Zheng teaches a cell recovery container; [25, 26, 111-113], Fig. 6.), and a bulk wave transducer/surface acoustic wave transducer (Zheng teaches a bulk wave and surface acoustic wave transducer; [15-16, 98-100, 113-115], Fig. 5-6.); wherein a side wall/bottom of the PDMS cavity is provided with identical microporous structures disposed in a staggered manner (As best understood, Zheng teaches a microporous structure as a hole/cavity branching off the inner wall of the PDMS cavity/channel; [9, 12, 73-74], Fig. 2).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”, “for…”, etc…). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Zheng teaches the acoustic microfluidic system for cell fusion according to claim 1, wherein the PDMS cavity is embedded on a clean transparent material, preferably the transparent material comprises a glass slide, a cover slide or lithium niobate, a shape of the microporous structures of the PDMS cavity comprises a circle, an ellipse or a rectangle, and one or more of said PDMS cavities are arranged in parallel (Zheng teaches a PDMS cavity on a transparent material; [14, 71, 84, 91-100, 113-116]. Zheng teaches the substrate is clean; [87, 93]. Zheng teaches a rectangular cavity arranged in parallel; Fig. 2. Zheng also teaches a bubble which has a radius of a circle; [76]).
As to claim 3, Zheng teaches the acoustic microfluidic system for cell fusion according to claim 1, wherein the cell fusion comprises homologous/non-homologous cell fusion, a number of cells comprises two or more, and the cell fusion is achieved by resonance of microbubble arrays or by controlling an energy of an input signal (Zheng teaches the microfluidic system structure above which provides cells and samples and also controls energy to resonate bubbles; see claim 1 and [10, 75-76, 99]. The examiner notes that the cell fusion is an intended use of the device, and the cells are not positively recited as part of the device structure and do not further limit the device).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Meng et al (Meng et al. Sonoporation of Cells by a Parallel Stable Cavitation Microbubble Array. Advanced Science, Biomedical Ultrasound Effects; 2019, 1900557, p. 1-11; already of record; hereinafter “Meng”) teaches microcavity structures in PDMS on glass; Fig. 1, 5, abstract, p. 1-5.
Ahmed et al (Ahmed et al, Rotational manipulation of single cells and organisms using acoustic waves; nature communications, published 2016, pages 1-11; hereinafter “Ahmed”) teaches a transducer for a device that is a PDMS channel on a glass slide, where there are microcavities/micropores on the sides and in which a transducer is controlled; Fig. 1, 3, page 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/Benjamin R Whatley/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
