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, 3, 5, 10, 12, 19, 23, 25, 32, 37 and 45, in the reply filed on 10 August 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 12 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:
In claim 12, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the aperture”.
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 (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 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, 3, 5, 10, 12, 25, 32, 37 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Guo (WO 2015/134831).
Regarding claim 1, Gou discloses an acoustofluidic contactless sample agitator comprising: a piezoelectric substrate (119) capable of propagating a surface acoustic wave; a chamber (115) configured to contain a volume of a liquid, the chamber comprising one or more walls (see Figs. 1, 2 and 21) forming the sides of the chamber and a bottom comprising an opening (see Fig. 21); at least two pairs of orthogonal interdigitated transducers (103, 107) deposited on a surface of the piezoelectric substrate; and wherein the piezoelectric substrate is coupled to the chamber such that the two pairs of orthogonal IDTs are arranged about the periphery of the opening on the bottom of the chamber such that each IDT in each IDT pair is opposite each other on different sides of the opening (see Figs. 1, 2, and 21), that the two IDT pairs are substantially perpendicular to each other about the periphery of the opening (see Figs. 1, 2 and 21), and that the opening is substantially centered between the two IDT pairs (see Figs. 1, 2 and 21), and wherein, together, the two pairs of IDTs are configured to produce tunable orthogonal surface acoustic waves in the piezoelectric substrate effective to produce acoustic streaming and/or acoustic radiation force within a liquid present in the chamber sufficient to mix the liquid present inside the chamber and/or agitate one or more particles, cells, and/or complexes thereof present in the liquid without trapping the one or more particles, cells, and/or complexes thereof within the liquid (see [0040], [0053], [0062], Figs. 27-31).
Regarding claim 3, the two pairs of orthogonal IDTs are arranged about the periphery of the opening such that they do not extend into the opening and do not contact a liquid present in the chamber (see Fig. 21).
Claim 5 does not further limit the alternative of the parent claim that is anticipated above.
Regarding claim 10, the pair of IDTs forming an x-axis pair of the two pairs of orthogonal IDTs has a different configuration than the pair of IDTs forming a y-axis pair of the two pairs of orthogonal IDTs (see claim 6 of Gou).
Regarding claim 12, the number of interleaving electrodes in each of the x-axis pair of IDTs is less than, is more than, or is equal to the number of interleaving electrodes in each of the y-axis pair of IDTs (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, frequency between 2 and 200 MHz is disclosed (see [0073] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 32, the IDTs are planar (see Fig. 1), the chamber is a microchannel or well (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 37, the chamber is configured to be coupled to a microchannel (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 45, surface acoustic waves are propagated (see [0065]).
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.
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.
Claim 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (WO 2015/134831) in view of Hartmann (US 4,353,046). The agitator of Guo was discussed above:
Regarding claim 19, a reflector grating is not explicitly disclosed by Guo. Hartmann teaches providing an IDT with a reflector grating (22). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a reflector grating as taught by Hartmann to better direct acoustic energy.
Regarding claim 23, Hartmann further teaches the reflector grating being deposits of material on the piezoelectric material (see col. 1, lines 56-58).
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