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 .
Drawings
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 pressure chamber from 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 § 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.
Claim 1, 5-10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Scherr (US 20210187508 A1).
Scherr teaches a system for particulate encapsulation comprising:
a particle detection unit that detects microparticles in a first liquid flowing through a main flow path (shown in Figure 2D);
a collection flow path that collects an emulsion in which a sorting-target microparticle among the microparticles and the first liquid are contained in a second liquid immiscible with the first liquid (described in paragraph 0104 and as immiscible in paragraph 0073, wherein the emulsion is the droplet conglomeration of the oil drop containing cells, detection reagent and hydrogel beads shown in Figure 5);
an emulsion detection unit that detects light from the emulsion collected and/or microparticles contained in the emulsion by using different optical detection systems (described in paragraph 0078 and shown in Figure 5, wherein the first liquid is the liquid the cells are flowing in and the second liquid is the oil drops that contain the liquid and/or cells and the light detection using different optical detection systems comprises the focused laser beam, photosensor and photosignal processor unit);
and a control unit that controls collection of the emulsion into the collection flow path on a basis of information detected by the emulsion detection unit (shown in Figure 5 and described in paragraphs 0099 and 0104).
Regarding Claim 5, Scherr further teaches wherein in the emulsion detection unit, at least one of the different optical detection systems detects scattered light (described in paragraph 0119, wherein the photosensor from Figure 5 would also have to detect scattered light from the gel beads and/or droplet).
Regarding Claim 6, Scherr further teaches wherein the scattered light is any of forward- scattered light, back-scattered light, or side-scattered light (Figure 5 shows the photosensor being in the direction of the laser, which would detect forward-scattered light from the gel beads and/or droplet).
Regarding Claim 7, Scherr further teaches wherein in the emulsion detection unit, at least one of the different optical detection systems detects fluorescence (Figure 5 shows a photosensor, which is commonly known to detect fluorescence).
Regarding Claim 8, Scherr further teaches wherein a plurality of pieces of the fluorescence detected by the optical detection systems has an identical or a plurality of wavelengths (described in paragraph 0125).
Regarding Claim 9, Scherr further teaches wherein the emulsion detection unit detects information regarding the emulsion on a basis of forward-scattered light (described in paragraph 0119, Figure 5 shows the photosensor being in the direction of the laser, which would detect forward-scattered light from the gel beads and/or droplet).
Regarding Claim 10, Scherr further teaches wherein the emulsion detection unit detects information regarding presence or absence of a microparticle in the emulsion on a basis of at least one of fluorescence, back-scattered light, or side-scattered light (the photosensor described in paragraph 0106 detects the contents of each droplet based on fluorescence, there is no distinction of this photosensor from the one used in Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Scherr further teaches an information processing unit that integrates information regarding the microparticles detected by the particle detection unit and information regarding microparticles in the emulsion detected by the emulsion detection unit (Figures 2D and 3A show the photosensors used for particle detection and emulsion detection are connected to the same computer, or information processor).
Regarding Claim 18, Scherr further teaches a method of particulate encapsulation comprising:
a particle detection step of detecting microparticles in a first liquid flowing through a main flow path (described in paragraph 0119);
a collection step of collecting an emulsion in which a sorting-target microparticle among the microparticles and the first liquid are contained in a second liquid immiscible with the first liquid (described in paragraph 0124, shown in Figure 5);
an emulsion detection step of detecting light from the emulsion collected and/or microparticles contained in the emulsion by using different optical detection systems (shown in Figure 5, described in paragraph 0125);
and a control step of controlling collection of the emulsion in the collection step on a basis of information detected in the emulsion detection step (wherein the controlled collection comprises sorting them into different reservoirs shown in Figure 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 11-16 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 or if the allowable subject matter is incorporated into an existing independent claim. The closest prior art: the system of Scherr (US 20210187508 A1) does not teach a pressure chamber provided in a midway of the collection flow path; and an actuator that operates at a time of sorting the microparticles and increases a volume of the pressure chamber by a certain amount.
Claim 19 is allowed.
None of the prior art discloses or renders obvious a microparticle sorting method comprising all of the steps and/or elements of Claim 19. The closest prior art: the method of Scherr (US 20210187508 A1) does not teach “a suction force determination step of determining a suction force for sucking the first liquid into the collection flow path on a basis of the signal intensity acquired or the number of emulsions generated;…and a step of determining a time at which suction is to be performed, on a basis of the number of the sorting- target microparticles counted, the step determining an elapsed time from passage through a predetermined position of the main flow path, the elapsed time being a time with which suction by the collection flow path is to be performed.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is 571-272-9330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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.
/M.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights