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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2021-0047258 04/12/2021 and KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2022-0044922 04/12/2022) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements dated 9/8/2023 and 3/22/2024 have been considered and made of record.
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, 2 and 6-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng et al. (Nano Letters (2018))(attached PTO-892).
With respect to claim 1, the reference of Deng et al. discloses:
An intracellular material delivery platform (Fig. 1, S1 and S3, page S8), comprising:
a first channel (microchannel)(page S8) through which a fluid containing cells and a delivery material flows while having a flow (Fig. 1); and
a second channel and a third channel (T-junction) (Fig. 1)(page S8) which are connected to the first channel at an angle so that the fluid containing the cells and the delivery material flows while having a flow;
wherein the fluid forms at least one of a collision region and a vortex region of the fluid in at least one of the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel (Fig. 1)(page 2706).
With respect to claim 2, the microchannel has a width of 80 µm and a height of 40 µm.
With respect to claim 6, the structure disclosed by the reference of Deng et al. is structurally capable of providing the flow required of claim 6 (Fig. 1)(page 2706).
With respect to claim 7, the structure disclosed by the reference of Deng et al. is structurally capable of delivering the materials listed in claim 7 (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 8, the second channel and the third channel are formed symmetrically with respect to the first channel (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 9, the angle between the second and third channels and the first channel is a right angle (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 10, the cross section of at least one of the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel has a rectangular shape having a long axis and a short axis, the long axis is provided as a horizontal plane, the short axis is provided as a vertical plane, long axis has a width of 80 µm and the short axis has a height of 40 µm (page S8).
With respect to claims 11-15, the structure disclosed by the reference of Deng et al. is structurally capable of providing the Reynolds number and having the hydraulic diameters required of claims 11-15 (pages 2706 and S8).
With respect to claims 16-22, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the structure disclosed by the reference of Deng et al. is considered structurally capable of providing the vortex conditions required of claims 16-22. Note, these conditions would also be dependent upon operating conditions which do not further limit the structure of the device.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (ASC Nano (2020)(Attached PTO-892).
With respect to claim 1, the reference of Kang et al. discloses:
An intracellular material delivery platform (Fig. 1C), comprising:
a first channel through which a fluid containing cells and a delivery material flows while having a flow (Fig. 1C); and
a second channel and a third channel (T-junction) (Figs. 1C and 1D2) which are connected to the first channel at an angle so that the fluid containing the cells and the delivery material flows while having a flow;
wherein the fluid forms at least one of a collision region and a vortex region of the fluid in at least one of the first channel, the second channel, and the third channel (Fig. 1)(pages 3049-3050, “Design and Operating Principles”).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, the reference of Kang et al. discloses that the intracellular material delivery platform includes a first supply part supplying a first supply fluid containing at least one of cells and a delivery material; and a second supply part supplying a second supply fluid, wherein the first supply fluid is supplied to the first channel through a first supply part channel, the second supply fluid is supplied to the first channel through second supply part channels, one or more of the second supply part channels are formed, and the second supply part channels supply the second fluid from both sides of the first supply part channel (Fig. 1C reproduced above).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the configuration disclosed by the reference of Kang et al. is structurally capable of providing the Reynolds numbers required of claim 4 and flow conditions of claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, the structure disclosed by the reference of Kang et al. is structurally capable of providing the flow required of claim 6 (Fig. 1)(pages 3049-3050, “Design and Operating Principles”).
With respect to claim 7, the structure disclosed by the reference of Kang et al. is structurally capable of delivering the materials listed in claim 7 (Fig. 1)(pages 3049-3050, “Design and Operating Principles”).
With respect to claim 8, the second channel and the third channel are formed symmetrically with respect to the first channel (Fig. 1D2).
With respect to claim 9, the angle between the second and third channels and the first channel is a right angle (Fig. 1D2).
With respect to claims 16-22, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the structure disclosed by the reference of Kang et al. is considered structurally capable of providing the vortex conditions required of claims 16-22. Note, these conditions would also be dependent upon operating conditions which do not further limit the structure of the device.
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (Nano Letters (2018))(attached PTO-892) in view of Kang et al. (ASC Nano (2020)(Attached PTO-892).
The reference of Deng et al. has been discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 3 differs by requiring that the device includes:
A first supply part supplying a first supply fluid containing at least one of cells and a delivery material; and a second supply part supplying a second supply fluid, wherein the first supply fluid is supplied to the first channel through a first supply part channel, the second supply fluid is supplied to the first channel through second supply part channels, one or more of the second supply part channels are formed, and the second supply part channels supply the second fluid from both sides of the first supply part channel.
The reference of Kang et al. discloses that it is known in the art to provide an intracellular material delivery platform with a first supply part supplying a first supply fluid containing at least one of cells and a delivery material; and a second supply part supplying a second supply fluid, wherein the first supply fluid is supplied to the first channel through a first supply part channel, the second supply fluid is supplied to the first channel through second supply part channels, one or more of the second supply part channels are formed, and the second supply part channels supply the second fluid from both sides of the first supply part channel (Fig. 1C reproduced above).
In view of this teaching and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the platform of the primary reference with the cell and target supply structure of the reference of Kang et al. for the known and expected result of providing an art recognized means for providing the supply of cells and target to the T-junction of the primary reference while providing the benefits associated with the use of the cell and target supply of the reference of Kang et al. which generates a spiral flow.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the configuration disclosed by the reference of Kang et al. is structurally capable of providing the Reynolds numbers required of claim 4 and flow conditions of claim 5. Additionally, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal flow conditions through routine experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 23-26 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest an intracellular material delivery platform, in the claimed environment or scope of claim, the includes a protruding groove formed between the second channel and the third channel as required of claim 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference of Deng et al. (Small)(2017)(Attached PTO-892) is cited as prior art which pertains to an intracellular material delivery platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H BEISNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1269. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/William H. Beisner/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1799
WHB
Prosecution Insights