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 action is in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed on August 5, 2026. Claims 21-34 and 41-47 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-34 and 41-46 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 21-25, 27-29, 31, 33, 34, 42, 43, 45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al. (US Publication 2014/0216992), hereinafter “Rose” in view of Sun et al. (US Patent 10,099,002), hereinafter “Sun”.
Regarding claim 21, Rose discloses a filtration system (Figure 3A) for removing particles within a fluid flow, 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), 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 flow entering the body; [paragraph 0039]; and a transducer (314, Figure 3A) operatively coupled to the body, the transducer is capable of generating a pressure gradient within the fluid flow to promote a larger portion of the particles in the fluid 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]).
Rose fails to disclose a single inlet.
Sun, however, teaches a microfluidic separation system (200, Figure 2A) with a body (201, Figure 2A) having a plurality of inner surfaces (202, Figure 2A) and a single inlet (205, Figure 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the body of Rose, with a single inlet as taught by Sun in order to further control flow of fluid into the filtration system.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Rose’s filtration system discloses wherein the transducer is an ultrasonic transducer [paragraph 0025 of Rose].
Regarding claim 23, the modified Rose’s filtration system 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] of Rose).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Rose’s filtration system 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 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] of Rose).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Rose’s filtration system discloses further comprising at least one of a secondary filter, heating chamber, collection tank (i.e., the filtered fluid can be directed from the outlet and further collected [Col.14, lines 30-34 of Sun], or combination thereof configured to collect the particles in the fluid flow downstream of the second channel.
Regarding claim 27, the modified Rose’s filtration system discloses a filtration system (Figure 3A) for removing particles within a fluid flow, 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) 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 the fluid flow entering 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]).
Rose fails to disclose a single inlet.
Sun, however, teaches a microfluidic separation system (200, Figure 2A) with a body (201, Figure 2A) having a plurality of inner surfaces (202, Figure 2A) and a single inlet (205, Figure 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the body of Rose, with a single inlet as taught by Sun in order to further control flow of fluid into the filtration system.
Regarding claim 28, the modified Rose’s filtration system discloses wherein the at least one transducer is an ultrasonic transducer[paragraph 0025 of Rose].
Regarding claim 29, the modified Rose’s filtration system discloses further comprising at least one of a secondary filter, heating chamber, collection tank (i.e., the filtered fluid can be directed from the outlet and further collected [Col.14, lines 30-34 of Sun], or combination thereof configured to collect the particles in the fluid flow downstream of the second channel.
Regarding claim 31, the modified Rose’s filtration system 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] of Rose), 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 of Rose).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Rose’s filtration system 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 of Rose).
Regarding claim 34, the modified Rose’s filtration system discloses wherein the particles are agglomerated from the fluid flow through the second channel by at 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 of Rose), centrifugation, distillation, evaporation, static charging of the particles, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 42, the modified Rose’s filtration system discloses wherein the fluid is a liquid (312 and 308, Figure 3A and paragraph 0037]).
Regarding claim 43, the modified Rose’s filtration system 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] of Rose), or combination thereof.
Regarding claim 45, the modified Rose’s filtration system discloses wherein the fluid is a liquid (312 and 308, Figure 3A and paragraph 0037] of Rose).
Regarding claim 46, the modified Rose’s filtration system 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] of Rose), 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” and Sun et al. (US Patent 10,099,002), hereinafter “Sun; and further in view of Ball et. al (US Publication 2020/0038864).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Rose’s filtration system fails to disclose a check valve system, the check valve system being configured to decrease back flow such that recontamination of the fluid flow 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 modified Rose’s filtration system 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, the modified Rose’s filtration system fails to disclose a check valve system, the check valve system being configured to decrease back flow such that recontamination of the fluid flow 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 modified Rose’s filtration system 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” and Sun et al. (US Patent 10,099,002), hereinafter “Sun; and further in view of Billings et al. (US Publication 2018/0217029).
Regarding claim 41, the modified Rose’s filtration system 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 the modified Rose’s filtration system with microplastics as taught by Billings since microplastics are well known materials desired to be removed from a collection system.
Regarding claim 44, the modified Rose’s filtration system 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 the modified Rose’s filtration system 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 and claim 47 is allowable. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a filtration system further comprising an ultraviolet system configured to identify the particles in the fluid flow and activate the at least one transducer. The cited prior art neither discloses nor renders obvious this feature, and there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, the claim is considered allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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