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 .
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: As to claim 9, replace “the sample-fluid source” with - - sample fluid-delivery device - - .1 Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-11,16,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claims 1,10,16,20, the cross-sectional view 400 of Figure 4 is insufficient to describe how to make and/or use circular flow. It is not explained what view 400 of Figure 4 is actually a cross section of with respected to mixing component 117. It is not explained where inlet(s?) and outlet(s?) of component 117 are in the view 400 that provide for such illustrated flows of Figure 4. It’s not explained how anything of component 117 causes 2 opposing flows meet, and calmly make a 90 degree turn.
PNG
media_image1.png
91
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
262
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Please look at the junction immediately below. There are two inlets and 1 outlet. Then, look at the flows in the flows of Figure 4, which flows are those withing the junction. The flows on Figure 4 illustrate 4 different circles that show 4 circular loops, each loop of which has no beginning and no ending. What structure provides for such flows, and thus mixing can not be accounted for.
PNG
media_image3.png
288
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Also, each loop (shown below) includes arrows that show 4 distinctly different loops. Each half of Figure 4 shows a smaller circular loop within another indicative of concentric flows in each half. However, there is no strucuture that explains how the fluid enters, no structure that accounts for the concentric-like loops, ends, and no structure that accounts for how the fluids are isolated on opposite sides of the axis 203.
PNG
media_image4.png
244
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Both halves show 2 largers loops that somehow manage to not collide at the top, and flow downward along the axis 403. The axis 402 separate one half from the other. No strucutre accounts for such, no mixing is apparent.
PNG
media_image5.png
288
362
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As show below, fluid frm the smaller loops do not pass though (and mix) with fluid from the larger loops. Now structure is apparent that accounts for such.
PNG
media_image6.png
288
367
media_image6.png
Greyscale
There are no examples of strucuture that provides for such, no reference provides for such, no maner of experimentation is apparent.
Claims 10,16,20 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.
As to claims 10,16,20; where are there “circular” flows in the drawings. Are the non-circular flows of Figure 4, or maybe non-circular flows of a coil intended to be such? If not, what might the flows refer to in the specification/drawing?
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shin et al ‘652.
Shine teaches a method for testing particle instruments 217, the method comprising: receiving a sample fluid by at least one particle instrument under test 217 from an outlet of a junction component (211; outlet from 211 to 217); loading a sample loop 203/204 with the sample fluid (from container 201) by controlling an injection valve 204; directing a first fluid from a first supply 216 to a primary inlet of the junction component 211; directing the sample fluid from the sample loop to a secondary inlet (note fluid travels from valve 210 to junction 211) on the junction component; and directing a mixture of the first fluid and the sample fluid to the at least one particle instrument under test 217.
Shine et al WO 2021113652 teach (Fig. 2A) also teaches in “another embodiment fixed panicles of known size can be added to a diluent, for calibration and/or with each test, to ensure accurate cell size measurements. As particles, such as latex microspheres, do not change parameters with changing environmental conditions, they are a good way to calibrate sensors during a test” (Para 359)
As to claims 12,14, either the container 201 is employed to provide standard test particles to the system (of Figure 2) sensor 217 under test, or it would have been obvious to do so because Shin teaches use of such to test a particle sensing instrument. Such container 20 is the first supply.
As to claim 13, the diluent 206 is water.
As to claim 15, the tester inspects cell, suggestive of employ a similar particle.
As to claim 16, the loop has a circle.
As to claims 17-20, the reference teaches automating the system by way of computer
(“Preferably, dilution of biological samples and/or flow' of samples to and/or through a sensor is earned out by an automated process using £28 controlled, digital syringe pumps. Among other benefits, use of digital syringe pumps allows for highly accurate, automated dilutions of biological samples. Moreover, digital syringe pumps are dynamically adjustable in terms of their flow rates and/or delivery volumes. Hits flexibility allow for highly customizable dilutions of biological samples and preci se control over sample environment.”)
As such, either the reference either teaches employing computer instructions to control the system, or one of ordinary skill would immediately recognize the benefit of such control in place of employing personal.
As to REMARKS:
As to the first full paragraph of p. 11; Shine’s sensor apparatus 216 that senses properties of cells passing through the call is as much a “particle instrument” (line 4, p. 11) as is claimed. Also, recognize that the rejection employs Shines calibration panicles as that which testes the instrument under test.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. 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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Claim 1 states that the sample-fluid source is one of “a sample fluid-delivery device” and “a sample-fluid reservoir”. The specification includes reservoir 524 (Figure 5) which is not a “a syringe pump”. The “syringe pump” qualifies as a “sample fluid-delivery device” (claim 1). Tagging the sample-fluid source as “a syringe pump” makes is seem that the reservoir 524 selection is a pump, when it is not.