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 . This is action is in Response to Election/Restriction received on March 11, 2026. Claims 21-34 and 41-46 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 21-34) and Species D: Figures 19-21 in the reply filed on March 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, it appears “black flow” should read --back flow--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, it appears “black flow” should read --back flow--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 34 is 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 34 recites the limitation "the second portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claims 21-25, 27-29, 31, 33, 34, 42, 43, 45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rose et al. (US Publication 2014/0216992), hereinafter “Rose”.
Regarding claim 21, Rose discloses a filtration system (Figure 3A) for removing particles within a fluid, the filtration system comprising: a body (300, Figure 3A) having a plurality of inner surfaces (i.e. defined by the side-by-side down microfluidic separation channels) and an inlet (two inlets 302 and 310, Figure 3A), the inner surfaces capable of defining a first channel (304, Figure 3A) and a second channel (330, Figure 3A), wherein the first channel and second channel are oriented in a direction that enables filtration of the particles within the fluid [paragraph 0039]; and a transducer (314, Figure 3A) operatively coupled to the body, the transducer is capable of generating a pressure gradient within the body to promote a larger portion of the particles in the fluid to flow through the second channel of the body (i.e., the vibrations from the transducer permits separation of the particles wherein the larger particle of interest flows to a different channel [paragraphs 0013-0014]).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the transducer is an ultrasonic transducer [paragraph 0025].
Regarding claim 23, Rose discloses wherein the transducer is capable of generating a pressure wave in the fluid flow within the body, the pressure wave comprising an antinode (324a) and a node (324b), wherein the antinode is aligned with the first channel (i.e., 324a is aligned with channel 304) and the node (324b is aligned with 330) is aligned with the second channel (i.e., the transducer’s sound waves, antinodes, and nodes direct the fluid flow direction such that if the antinode is aligned with the first channel and the node is aligned with the second channel then separation of particles would occur between the first and second channels [paragraphs 0025 and 0028]).
Regarding claim 24, Rose discloses wherein a lower pressure area of the pressure gradient (i.e. created by node 324b) promotes the larger portion of the particles in the fluid to flow through the second channel, and a higher pressure area of the pressure gradient (i.e., created by node 324a [paragraph 0035]) promotes a smaller portion of the particles (i.e., none of the particles 318 or 326) in the fluid to flow through the first channel (i.e., the larger particle move towards the second channel with the node with the lower pressure gradient [paragraphs 0028 and 0035]).
Regarding claim 25, Rose discloses further comprising at least one of a filter (i.e. the device is an “H-filter” comprising a microfluidic separation channel, the separated sample fractions are collected at the two outlets [paragraph 0037]), heating chamber, collection tank, or combination thereof configured to collect the particles in the fluid flowing through the second channel.
Regarding claim 27, Rose discloses a filtration system (Figure 3A) for removing particles within a fluid, the filtration system comprising: a body (300, Figure 3A) having a plurality of inner surfaces (i.e. defined by the side-by-side down microfluidic separation channels) defining a first channel (304, Figure 3A) and a second channel (330, Figure 3A), an inlet (two inlets 302 and 310, Figure 3A) in fluid communication with the first channel and the second channel, a first outlet (opposite end of 302, Figure 3A) in fluid communication with the first channel, and a second outlet (end of 330, Figure 3A) in fluid communication with the second channel; at least one transducer (314, Figure 3A) coupled to the body and capable of generating a pressure wave within the body transverse to a flow of the fluid through the first and second channels of the body (i.e., the vibrations from the transducer permits separation of the particles wherein the larger particle of interest flows to a different channel [paragraphs 0013-0014]), wherein the pressure wave is capable of displacing at least some of the particles in the fluid flow such that a portion of the fluid flow channeled through the first channel has a lower percentage of the particles than a portion of the fluid flow channeled through the second channel(i.e., the vibrations from the transducer permits separation of the particles wherein the larger particle of interest flows to a different channel [paragraphs 0013-0014]).
Regarding claim 28, Rose discloses wherein the at least one transducer is an ultrasonic transducer[paragraph 0025].
Regarding claim 29, Rose discloses further comprising at least one of a filter (i.e. the device is an “H-filter” comprising a microfluidic separation channel, the separated sample fractions are collected at the two outlets [paragraph 0037]), heating chamber, collection tank, or combination thereof downstream of the second outlet to collect the particles in the fluid flow.
Regarding claim 31, Rose discloses wherein a higher pressure area of the pressure wave contains the lower percentage of the particles in the fluid flow channeled through the first channel (i.e., the pressure created by node 324a located in channel does not participate in the separation and thus no particles flow to the channel [paragraph 0041]), and a lower pressure area of the pressure wave contains the portion of the of the fluid flow channeled through the second channel containing a higher percentage of the particles (i.e. positioning the node 324b within the recovery fluid 308 allows the largest particles 326 to be carried out of the chip 316 with the recovery fluid, separating them from other sample components).
Regarding claim 33, Rose discloses wherein the at least one transducer is capable of generating a pressure wave in the fluid flow with at least one node (324b) and at least one antinode (324a), wherein the at least one node is aligned with the second channel (324b is aligned with 330) and the at least one antinode is aligned with the first channel(i.e., 324a is aligned with channel 304).
Regarding claim 34, Rose discloses wherein the particles are agglomerated from a second portion of the fluid by least one of filtering (i.e. recovery stream acts as a functional filter), thermal bonding, ultrasonic joining (i.e. the clustering of particles at the nodes provides ultrasonic aggregation), centrifugation, distillation, evaporation, static charging of the particles, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 42, Rose discloses wherein the fluid is a liquid (312 and 308, Figure 3A and paragraph 0037]).
Regarding claim 43, Rose discloses wherein the system is configured to be coupled to at least one of a heating system, ventilation system, air conditioning system, washing machine, effluent system (i.e. in a medical and biology separating particles from a liquid medium [paragraph 0013]), or combination thereof.
Regarding claim 45, Rose discloses wherein the fluid is a liquid (312 and 308, Figure 3A and paragraph 0037]).
Regarding claim 46, Rose discloses wherein the system is configured to be coupled to at least one of a heating system, ventilation system, air conditioning system, washing machine, effluent system (i.e. in a medical and biology separating particles from a liquid medium[paragraph 0013]), or combination thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al. (US Publication 2014/0216992), hereinafter “Rose” in view of Ball et. al (US Publication 2020/0038864).
Regarding claim 26, Rose fails to disclose a check valve system, the check valve system being configured to decrease black flow such that recontamination of the fluid is reduced.
Ball, however, teaches a microfluidic check valve within a fluidic cartridge capable of decreasing back [paragraph 0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Rose with a check valve system as taught by Ball in order to allow for unidirectional flow, in which the valve prevents reverse flow and avoids re-mixing of particles.
Regarding claim 30, Rose fails to disclose a check valve system, the check valve system being configured to decrease black flow such that recontamination of the fluid is reduced.
Ball, however, teaches a microfluidic check valve within a fluidic cartridge capable of decreasing back [paragraph 0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Rose with a check valve system as taught by Ball in order to allow for unidirectional flow, in which the valve prevents reverse flow and avoids re-mixing of particles.
Claims 41 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al. (US Publication 2014//0216992), hereinafter “Rose” in view of Billings et al. (US Publication 2018/0217029).
Regarding claim 41, Rose fails to disclose wherein the particles are microplastics.
However, Billings teaches remediation efforts to remove plastic debris and microplastic from an aquatic environment [paragraph 0064-0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the particles of Rose with microplastics as taught by Billings since microplastics are well known materials desired to be removed from a collection system.
Regarding claim 44, Rose fails to disclose wherein the particles are microplastics.
However, Billings teaches remediation efforts to remove plastic debris and microplastic from an aquatic environment [paragraph 0064-0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the particles of Rose with microplastics as taught by Billings since microplastics are well known materials desired to be removed from a collection system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA S JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-5963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8am to 4pm EST).
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/Diana Jones/Examiner, Art Unit 3775
/KEVIN T TRUONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights