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 claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 21 JULY 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 23-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 JULY 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 7 is missing 68.
Fig. 18 is missing 140
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Interpretation
Instant claim 3 states, “another series lateral of the one series”, claim 8 states “at least one intermediate series” and claim 10 states “multiple intermediate series”. There is no description for what “another series”, “at least one intermediate series”, and “multiple intermediate series” means, compared to the description of the “at least one series of members” which indicates that the series comprises members in series. As the “another series”, “at least one intermediate series”, and “multiple intermediate series” terms are unclear, the Examiner will interpret these terms to be “another series of members”, “at least one intermediate series of members”, and “multiple intermediate series of members” as the instant specification and instant drawings appear to describe and demonstrate.
Furthermore, instant claims 8 and 10 require “another series” for antecedent basis, which is introduced in instant claim 3, yet these claims depend upon instant claim 2. The Examiner will interpret these claims as depending upon instant claim 3 for purposes of compact prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 2-23, the claims are all missing a comma after “The system of claim X,” for grammatical correctness.
In Claim 2, “the one series of members” in lines 1-2 of the claim should read “one series of members of the at least one series of members”.
In Claim 2, “the posts” in line 2 of the claim should read “the plurality of posts”.
In Claim 2, “opposing sidewalls” in line 3 of the claim should read “the opposing sidewalls”.
In Claim 2, “the conduit” in line 3 of the claim should read “the conduit system”.
In Claim 3, “another series lateral of the one series” in line 2 of the claim should read “another series of members lateral of the one series of members”.
In Claim 4, “wherein spacing between” in line 1 of the claim should read “wherein the spacing between”.
In Claim 4, “the posts of the one series” in line 2 of the claim should read “the plurality of posts of the one series of members”.
In Claim 5, “wherein spacing between” in line 1 of the claim should read “wherein the spacing between”.
In Claim 5, “the posts of the one series” in line 2 of the claim should read “the plurality of posts of the one series of members”.
In Claim 6, “wherein spacing between” in line 1 of the claim should read “wherein the spacing between”.
In Claim 6, “the posts of the one series” in line 2 of the claim should read “the plurality of posts of the other series of members”.
In Claim 7, “the posts of the one series and the other series” in line 2 of the claim should read “the plurality of posts of the one series of members and the other series of members”.
In Claim 8, “The system of claim 2” in line 1 of the claim should read “The system of claim 3”.
In Claim 8, “at least one intermediate series between the one and the other series” in lines 1-2 of the claim should read “at least one intermediate series of members between the one series of members and the other series of members”.
In Claim 9, “wherein spacing of the one intermediate series is equal to the one or the other series” in lines 1-2 of the claim should read “wherein the spacing of the at least one intermediate series of members is equal to the spacing of the one series of members or the other series of members”.
In Claim 10, “The system of claim 2” in line 1 of the claim should read “The system of claim 3”.
In Claim 10, “multiple intermediate series between the one and the other series” in lines 1-2 of the claim should read “multiple intermediate series of members between the one series of members and the other series of members”.
In Claim 11, “wherein spacing of at least one of the multiple intermediate series is equal to the spacing of the one series” in lines 1-3 of the claim should read “wherein the spacing of at least one of the multiple intermediate series of members is equal to the spacing of the one series of members”.
In Claim 12, “wherein spacing of at least one of the multiple intermediate series is equal to the spacing of the other series” in lines 1-3 of the claim should read “wherein the spacing of at least one of the multiple intermediate series of members is equal to the spacing of the other series of members”.
In Claim 13, “the length of sidewalls” in line 3 of the claim should read “the length of the opposing sidewalls”.
In Claim 14, “the length of sidewalls” in line 3 of the claim should read “the length of the opposing sidewalls”.
In Claim 15, “the posts” in line 2 of the claim should read “the plurality of posts”.
In Claim 16, “the sidewalls” in line 2 of the claim should read “the opposing sidewalls”.
In Claim 17, “the series” in line 1 of the claim should read “the at least one series of members”.
In Claim 19, “the length of opposing sidewalls” in line 3 of the claim should read “the length of the opposing sidewalls”.
In Claim 20, “the one series of members” in lines 1-2 of the claim should read “the at least one series of members”.
In Claim 20, “the series” in line 3 of the claim should read “the at least one series of members”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4-12, 15, and 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 4 recites the limitation "the posts of the other series" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-7 are rejected because of their dependence upon claim 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the other series" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing the dependency of claim 8 from claim 2 to claim 3.
Claim 9 is rejected because of its dependence upon claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the other series" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing the dependency of claim 10 from claim 2 to claim 3.
Claims 11-12 and 15 are rejected because of their dependence upon claim 10.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the sidewall" in line 2 of the claim. There are multiple sidewalls introduced in claim 1 with “opposing sidewalls” and “one sidewall” and it is unclear if one sidewall is being referenced or if the other sidewall is being referenced. The Examiner recommends changing the term to “the one sidewall”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pease et al, US Patent Application No. US 20200306798 A1 (hereinafter Pease).
Regarding Claim 1, Pease teaches mesofluidic separator assemblies (i.e., a system for separating components of a mixture, the system comprising; Abstract),
wherein the assembly is shown as a straight tube (i.e., a conduit system comprising at least one linear section, the at least one linear section comprising a length of opposing sidewalls defining a volume; Fig. 7, #70) wherein fluid with particles migrates through the assembly (i.e., configured to receive a flow of mixed materials entering along a proximate end of the length and exiting along a distal end of the length; See marked up Fig. 7 below; Paragraph 0065),
with sets of members (Fig. 7, #12) that are shown to be in the volume and create a path that migrates larger particles to one side and small particles to the other side of the separator (i.e., a tortured path within the volume of the at least one linear section, the tortured path comprising at least one series of members; Paragraph 0065) wherein a set of members extends at an angle from one sidewall and not normal to the sidewall (See marked up Fig. 7 below) and described to be aligned along an axis that is neither normal to nor parallel with the pressure differential access in Figs. 3A-3C and Paragraph 0062 (i.e., extending in line across the volume from one sidewall of the volume and inwardly toward the distal end defining an angle other than normal from the one sidewall).
PNG
media_image1.png
802
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
786
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Pease further teaches that Fig. 7 shows a cross sectional of the separator and the sets of members, shown to be in the shape of posts, are shown extending between opposing sidewalls of the separator (i.e., wherein one series of members of the at least one series of members comprises a plurality of posts, individual ones of the plurality of posts extending between the opposing sidewalls of the conduit system and defining individual cross sections, each of the cross sections being in line across the volume; Fig. 7, Paragraph 0065).
Regarding Claim 3, Pease further teaches in Fig. 7 multiple sets of members extending laterally (i.e., further comprising another series of members lateral of the one series of members; Fig. 7, #12; Paragraph 0065).
Regarding Claim 4, Pease further teaches that pin-to-pin distance and/or row-to-row distance are known to be optimized based on the sizes of particles that are desired to be separated (Paragraph 0063) and a possible relationship between two sets of members where a set of members (Fig. 6, #12-1A to 12-1D) have a larger spacing and another set of members (Fig. 6, #12-2A to 12-2C) have a smaller spacing (i.e., wherein the spacing between the plurality of posts of the one series of members is larger than the spacing between the posts of the other series of members; Fig. 6; Paragraph 0064).
Regarding Claim 7, Pease further teaches that separate sections of modules (Fig. 20, #112, 114, 116) may be configured to separate particles according to different size exclusion parameters with the distal modules having a size exclusion for particles sizes smaller than the size exclusion of the previous module (Paragraph 0072), which includes the spacing of pin-to-pin and row-to-row distances (Paragraph 0063), with an explicit spacing of 300 μm between members taught (Paragraph 0084), and Fig. 20 showing 300 μm in module 112, 50 μm in module 114, and 4-10 μm in module 116, which is assumed to refer to the progressively smaller spacing to separate smaller particles (i.e., wherein a ratio of the spacing between the plurality of posts of the one series of members and the other series of members is at least 2:1; Fig. 20).
Regarding Claim 8, Pease further teaches many sets of members in Fig. 7, see the marked-up figure below for examples (i.e., further comprising at least one intermediate series of members between the one series of members and the other series of members; Paragraph 0065).
PNG
media_image3.png
299
782
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Pease further teaches equal spacing between all members in Fig. 7 (i.e. wherein the spacing of the at least one intermediate series of members is equal to the one series of members of the other series of members; Fig. 7, Paragraph 0065).
Regarding Claim 10, Pease further teaches many sets of members in Fig. 7, see the marked-up figure below for examples (i.e., further comprising multiple intermediate series of members between the one series of members and the other series of members; Paragraph 0065).
PNG
media_image3.png
299
782
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Pease further teaches equal spacing between all members in Fig. 7 (i.e. wherein the spacing of at least one of the multiple intermediate series of members is equal to the spacing of the one series of members; Fig. 7, Paragraph 0065).
Regarding Claim 12, Pease further teaches equal spacing between all members in Fig. 7 (i.e. wherein the spacing of at least one of the multiple intermediate series of members is equal to the spacing of the other series of members; Fig. 7, Paragraph 0065).
Regarding Claim 13, Pease further teaches an embodiment of the separator assembly (Fig. 8A, #80) can include an open portion considered to be an express way (i.e., further comprising a turbulence reduction section; Fig. 8A, #88) which can be seen to extend the length of the separator from the proximate end to the distal end (i.e., operatively aligned with the proximate end of the length of the opposing sidewalls; Figs 8A-8C, Paragraph 0066). The open section would necessarily reduce turbulence as compared to the posts located in the other portion of the pathway. Pease also teaches in Fig. 20 the inclusion of open sections of piping at the inlet before the in-line grate (i.e., further comprising a turbulence reduction section operatively aligned with the proximate end of the length of the opposing sidewalls; Fig. 20, #122) and after the last module (Fig. 20, #116) at the different outlets (Fig. 20, #132, 134).
Regarding Claim 14, Pease further teaches an embodiment of the separator assembly (Fig. 8A, #80) can include an open portion considered to be an express way (i.e., further comprising a turbulence reduction section; Fig. 8A, #88) which can be seen to extend the length of the separator from the proximate end to the distal end (i.e., operatively aligned with the distal end of the length of the opposing sidewalls; Figs 8A-8C, Paragraph 0066). The open section would necessarily reduce turbulence as compared to the posts located in the other portion of the pathway. Pease also teaches in Fig. 20 the inclusion of open sections of piping at the inlet before the in-line grate (Fig. 20, #122) and after the last module (Fig. 20, #116) at the different outlets (i.e., further comprising a turbulence reduction section operatively aligned with the distal end of the length of the opposing sidewalls; Fig. 20, #132, 134).
Regarding Claim 15, Pease further teaches that the plurality of members can be arranged between supports (i.e., further comprising support members; Fig. 8A, #72), which are shown to be normal to the members (i.e., normal to the plurality of posts; Figs. 8A-8C).
Regarding Claim 16, Pease further teaches an embodiment of the separator assembly (Fig. 8A, #80) can include an open portion considered to be an express way (i.e., further comprising an expressway; Fig. 8A, #88) which can be seen to extend the length of the separator from the proximate end to the distal end (i.e., defined by at least a portion of the opposing sidewalls; Figs 8A-8C, Paragraph 0066).
Regarding Claim 17, Pease further teaches that the separator assembly occupies a portion (Fig. 8A, #86) of the assembly with another portion open to flow (i.e., wherein the at least one series terminates at the expressway; Fig. 8A, #88; Paragraph 0066).
Regarding Claim 18, Pease further teaches an embodiment of the separator assembly (Fig. 8A, #80) can include an open portion considered to be an express way (Fig. 8A, #88) which can be seen to extend the length of the separator from the proximate end to the distal end (i.e., wherein at least a portion of the one sidewall defines an opening; Figs 8A-8C, Paragraph 0066).
Regarding Claim 19, Pease further teaches that multiple modules may exist in series (i.e., further comprising additional mesofluidic separation sections operably coupled to the distal end of the length of the opposing sidewalls; Fig. 13, Paragraph 0072).
Regarding Claim 20, Pease further teaches wherein the assembly can include a pre-separator (Fig. 20, #122; Paragraph 0078) which has a series of slats and arranged at an angle that is not normal to the axis (i.e., wherein the at least one series of members comprises a plurality of linear members defining a grate, individual ones of the linear members extending in line as the at least one series of members; Fig. 14, #10; Paragraph 0073).
Regarding Claim 21, Pease further teaches that the series of slats pushes larger particles in the opening area (i.e., further comprising an expressway; Fig. 14, #88).
Regarding Claim 22, Pease further teaches that the plurality of members can be arranged between supports (i.e., further comprising cross members; Fig. 8A, #72).
Claims 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pease as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Balvin, Manuel et al, “Directional Locking and the Role of Irreversible Interactions in Deterministic Hydrodynamics Separations in Microfluidic Devices”, Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 103, Issue 7, 11 AUGUST 2009, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.078301, (hereinafter Balvin).
Regarding Claim 5, Pease further teaches that pin-to-pin distance and/or row-to-row distance are known to be optimized based on the sizes of particles that are desired to be separated (Paragraph 0063) and a possible relationship between two sets of members where a set of members (Fig. 6, #12-1A to 12-1D) have a larger spacing and another set of members (Fig. 6, #12-2A to 12-2C) have a smaller spacing (Fig. 6; Paragraph 0064).
Pease does not explicitly teach wherein the spacing between the plurality of posts of the one series of members is at least 1000 μm.
However, Balvin teaches that macroscopic experiments of spheres through arrays of obstacles highlight the deterministic nature of the lateral displacements that lead to particle separation in microfluidic systems (Abstract) with examples of spheres of radius of 1.5 mm to 3.55 mm being separated via pegs on LEGO® boards, with a lattice spacing of 16 mm, tilted at an angle that are immersed in glycerol using gravity as the driving force (i.e., wherein the spacing between the plurality of posts of the one series of members is at least 1000 μm; Page 078301-1). A prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Balvin is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to macroscale deterministic lateral displacement arrays (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the post spacing of the post series as taught by Pease with the larger post spacing as taught by Balvin because the post spacing needs to be optimized based on the particles to be filtered.
Regarding Claim 6, Pease further teaches a spacing of 300 μm between members (i.e., wherein the spacing between the plurality of posts of the other series of members is less than 1000 μm; Paragraph 0084).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
