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 of claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 4/29/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 22, 57 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/29/26.
Claim Interpretation
Patent eligible subject matter includes "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter," see MPEP 201. The examiner has interpreted the terms “device” and “system” as referring to a machine or apparatus.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 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.
The term “at least one fourth tubular member” creates an ambiguity is the third tubular member is required by the claim or not, as claim 11 is not a dependent on claim 10.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 fails to further limit claim 1 as the term comprising is not exclusive of other elements, see MPEP 2111.03, and claim 1 already requires at least 1 second lumen and at least 1 second tubular member. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bibette (US 2012/0003285).
As to claim 1, Carreras teaches a device for generating substantially uniform core-shell particles, comprising: a first tubular member (98) having a first end and a second end, the first tubular member having a first lumen and at least one second lumen, where the first lumen extends from the first end to the second end, and where each second lumen extends from an external surface of the first tubular member, through a sidewall of the first tubular member (hole created by 32), to connect to the first lumen at a location a distance in an axial direction from the first end (98); at least one second tubular member (42) having a first end positioned external to the first tubular member and a second end within the first lumen and directed towards one of the at least one second lumen, the at least one second tubular member extending through the sidewall of the first tubular member [Fig 1, 3, 4].
As to claim 7, Bibette teaches a single second lumen and a single second tubular member as explained above. While Bibette may teach additional tubular members, that is not precluded by the claim.
As to claim 8, Bibette teaches a device comprises a plurality of second lumen (hole that connects to 32) and a plurality of second tubular members (42), each directed towards one of the plurality of second lumen [Fig 4].
As to claim 9, Bibette teaches comprising at least one third tubular member (the outer tube 32) having an inner diameter larger than an outer diameter of the first tubular member, the first tubular member and the at least one third tubular member being concentrically positioned, and configured to generate core-shell particles having multiple shells around a core [Fig 3 or 4].
As to claim 10, Bibette teaches the at least one third tubular member has at least one third lumen that is positioned such that particles exiting the at least one second lumen will also pass through the at least one third lumen [Fig 3 or 4].
As to claim 11, Bibette teaches comprising at least one fourth tubular member having an inner diameter larger than an outer diameter of the at least one second tubular member, the at least one second tubular member and the at least one fourth tubular member being concentrically positioned, and configured to generate a core comprising multiple materials [Fig 1, 3, 4].
Note, the examiner has assumed that claim 11 does NOT require the third tubular member as it does not depend from claim 10.
As to claim 12, Bibette teaches a system, comprising :a device of claim 1; a first fluid source operably coupled to the first end of the first tubular member, the first fluid source configured to provide a first fluid 130; and a second fluid source operably coupled to the first end of the at least one second tubular member, the second fluid source configured to provide a second fluid [0115, 0067, 0069, Fig 1, 3, 4].
As to claims 13-15, Bibette teaches these claims are directed to material or article worked upon by the apparatus which does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115. As the claims do not impart any additional structural limitations they would be disclosed by Bibette.
As to claim 16, Bibette teaches a container to collect core-shell particles travelling in a path extending away from the at least one second lumen [Fig 1, 0068].
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carreras (US 2014/0011033).
As to claim 1, Carreras teaches a device for generating substantially uniform core-shell particles, comprising: a first tubular member (either 50, 52, 70) having a first end and a second end, the first tubular member having a first lumen and at least one second lumen, where the first lumen extends from the first end to the second end, and where each second lumen extends from an external surface of the first tubular member, through a sidewall of the first tubular member (ie either of the exits of 50, 52, 70), to connect to the first lumen at a location a distance in an axial direction from the first end (the intersection of the empty space of 50, 52, 72 and the empty space that leads to 44, 46, or inlet 72); at least one second tubular member (one of 34,52, or 72) having a first end positioned external to the first tubular member and a second end within the first lumen and directed towards one of the at least one second lumen, the at least one second tubular member extending through the sidewall of the first tubular member [Fig 1-5].
As to claim 2, Carreras teaches connectors (the portions near 34A or 98 connected to the ends of the tubular members and coupled to the material sources) [Fig 4, 6].
As to claim 7, Carreras teaches a single second lumen and a single second tubular member as explained above. While Carreras may teach additional tubular members, that is not precluded by the claim.
As to claim 9, Carreras teaches comprising at least one third tubular member (the outer tube) having an inner diameter larger than an outer diameter of the first tubular member, the first tubular member and the at least one third tubular member being concentrically positioned, and configured to generate core-shell particles having multiple shells around a core [Fig 1-5, Abstract].
As to claim 10, Carreras teaches the at least one third tubular member has at least one third lumen that is positioned such that particles exiting the at least one second lumen will also pass through the at least one third lumen [Fig 1-5].
As to claim 11, Carreras teaches comprising at least one fourth tubular member having an inner diameter larger than an outer diameter of the at least one second tubular member, the at least one second tubular member and the at least one fourth tubular member being concentrically positioned, and configured to generate a core comprising multiple materials [Fig 2, 3].
As to claim 12, Carreras teaches a system, comprising: a device of claim 1; a first fluid source (46, 44, either source of 72)operably coupled to the first end of the first tubular member, the first fluid source configured to provide a first fluid 130; and a second fluid source (either the source of 72, 46, 48) operably coupled to the first end of the at least one second tubular member, the second fluid source configured to provide a second fluid [0130].
As to claims 13-15, these claims are directed to material or article worked upon by the apparatus which does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115. As the claims do not impart any additional structural limitations they would be disclosed by Carreras.
As to claim 16, Carreras teaches a container to collect core-shell particles travelling in a path extending away from the at least one second lumen [Fig 1-4].
As to claim 17, Carreras teaches comprising at least one controller configured to control a flow of fluids through the device to allow a core-shell particle to be formed and directed out of the at least one second lumen phrased as “the controlling system” [0130].
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibette (US 2012/0003285) in view of Carreras (US 2014/0011033).
As to claim 2, Bibette does not explicitly state at least one connector, each connector operably coupled to the first end of the first tubular member, the second end of the first tubular member, or the first end of one of the at least one second tubular member.
Carreras teaches a method of making capsules [Abstract] wherein multiple connectors attached to a first end of the first tubular member, a second end of the first tubular member, and an end of the 2nd tubular member (the portions near 34A, 88B, 98 connected to the ends of the tubular members and coupled to the material sources) [Fig 4, 6]. This allows for connection to material sources for varying concentration or dilution [0182-0185, 0178]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Bibette and included connectors, as suggested by Carreras, in order to allow for further concentration/dilation. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable results and/or applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143 A and D.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibette (US 2012/0003285) in view of Takei (US 8070466).
As to claims 3 and 4, Bibette does not explicitly state the first tubular member comprises an elastic material and the one second lumen opens or expands when a pressurized liquid is provided into the first lumen.
Takei teaches a method of capsule manufacturing [Abstract] wherein flexible tubes [0089] supply the materials to make capsules from pumps without transmitting vibration noise and providing seamless capsules [0091, 0092, 0106]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Bibette and made the first tubular member comprise flexible material, as suggested by Takei, in order to avoid transmitting vibration noise and produce seamless capsules
As Takei teaches an elastic/flexible tube it would be capable of having the second lumen opens or expands when a pressurized liquid is provided into the first lumen dependent on the flow rate and pressure. Hence, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
As to claim 5, Bibette teaches a second tubular member comprises a rigid material as its never mentioned to flexible or elastic and is not depicted as readily deformable [Fig 4].
As to claim 6, Bibette teaches the at least one second tubular member 120 has an inner diameter D that is 10 um < D < 1 mm [0071] and since the outer tube may be as little as .2 mm bigger in diameter than the second tubular member, the second tubular member would have a wall thickness T that overlaps 10 um < T < .2 mm [0072].
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibette (US 2012/0003285) in view of Ye (US 2019/0291067).
As to claims 17 and 18, Bibette teaches controlling a flow of fluids through the device to allow a core-shell particle to be formed and directed out of the at least one second lumen [Fig 1, 3, 4], but does not teach the use of a controller to do so. Bibette also notes a drying means [0111] but does not explicitly state a drying means, a photopolymerization means, or a pyrolysis means coupled to the at least one controller and configured to transform at least one layer of the core-shell particle formed by the device from a liquid to a solid.
Ye teaches a method of making core shell particles phrased as multilayered particles [Abstract] wherein a first source of material (112b), a second source of material (114b) and a hardening or photopolymerization means is provided means (phrased as UV curing system, 122b) all of which are controlled by a computer control system (118)[0049,0062, 0094, Fig 1A-2C]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Bibette utilized a controller system coupled to the various material sources and the hardening means, as suggested bv Ye, as this had proven successful at providing a predictable core-shell particle/capsule fabrication. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable results and/or applying a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2143 A and C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights