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 .
Status of Claims
The claim set submitted on 11 JUNE 2026 is acknowledged and considered.
In the claim set, Claims 1, 20, 22 and 38 are ‘Currently Amended’; Claims 2-7, 9-16, 21, 23-34 , 37 and 39 are ‘Original’ or ‘Previously Presented’ ; and Claims 8, 17, 18 and 35-36 are ‘Cancelled’.
Current pending claims are Claims 1-7, 9-16, 19-34 and 37-39 are considered on the merits below.
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 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 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12-16, 19, 22, 23, 25-28 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable LU, A microfluidic electroporation device for cell lysis, Lab Chip, 2005, 5, 23–29, in view of WURM, Lab Chip, 2012,12, 1071.
Applicant’s invention is drawn towards a device, a microfluidic device.
Regarding Claim 1, the LU reference discloses a continuous flow microfluidic device for lysing cells, Figure 3 and 6, abstract, page 25, Section 3.2.1, the microfluidic device comprising: one or more microfluidic channels, Figure 3 and 7, each channel comprising more than one constricted regions, Figure 3 and 6, see annotated Figure 3 below, constricted regions is considered to be the areas of the SAW-tooth where the points are the closest indicated by dotted rectangle, and non-constricted regions in series, such that the non-constricted regions separating are between the constricted regions, Figure 3 and 6, see annotated Figure 3 below, non-constricted regions is considered to be the areas of the SAW-tooth where the points are the furthest indicated by solid ovals, the non-constricted regions being shaped to converge at the ends into the constricted regions, Figure 3, 6 and 7, see annotated Figure 3 below, wherein each of the constricted regions have a width in the range of mm such that the constricted regions, Figure 3, are configured to disrupt the cellular membranes of the cells in fluid flowing through the one or more microfluidic channels, abstract, page 27 and 28, Table 1, page 26, Section 3.3.
Annotated Figure 3 of LU.
PNG
media_image1.png
128
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LU discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to the width of the constricted regions and the specific energy dissipation rate (EDR).
The WURM reference discloses a microfluidic device for lysing cells, abstract, lab-on-a-chip/microfluidic system, lysis of mammalian cells, the microfluidic device comprising: a substrate, Figure 1, page 1074, Section 2.3, comprising one or more microfluidic channels, Figure 1, white arrow ‘Fluid flow’, or any other black space between nozzles, each channel comprising more than one constricted region[[s]], Figure 1, page 1072, medium gray labeled with ‘Cell compression in 3 mm wide gap’, or Figure 1 narrowed space between nozzles, and non-constricted regions separating the constricted regions, Figure 1, before and after locations of the ‘Cell compression’ area, the non- constricted regions being shaped to converge at the ends into the constricted regions, Figure 1 and 2, wherein each of the constricted regions have a width of 2.5-10 mm, 3mm gap, Section 3.2, such that the constricted regions are configured to disrupt the cellular membranes of 85-100% of cells in fluid flowing through the one or more microfluidic channels, Figure 5, page 1075; and
wherein an energy dissipation rate (EDR) is highest at an entrance to the constricted regions , page 1076-1077, Figure 5a, 6, Section 3.4, ‘Critical energy dissipation rate’ , as seen from Figures 5a and 6, as it relates to the % of cell disruption (i.e. fraction of disrupted cells) and the energy dissipation rate, EDR, it is highest at the entrance of the constricted region , and the EDR is substantially decreased at a position one constriction width upstream of the constriction region entrance, Figure 5a.
Below is the characterization of Figure 1 as it applies to the instant claim language.
PNG
media_image2.png
539
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The disclosure of WURM uses the term ‘nozzle’ and ‘micronozzles’ interchangeably, see Figure 1, Section 2.3. In the rejection below the terms ‘nozzle’ and ‘micronozzles’ are referring to the same thing and are interchangeable.
WURM teaches that not only is the size of the gap important in lysing cells, but also the cell diameter and the flow rate through the constriction. It can be seen in Figure 5, at a 3 mm gap at least 85-100 % at 40 mL min-1, cells are disrupted, Section 3.1.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the LU reference with the constricted regions to have a width between 2.5-10 mm, so that a cell of a critical diameter is able to lysed, WURM Section 3.2, 3.3, Figure 4 and 5.
Examiner’s Note: As seen in Figures 5a and 6 of WURM, it can be seen from the figures and tables and discussion in Section 3.4 energy dissipation rate, EDR, can be calculated from the
velocity vector field and correlated to cell disruption. The energy dissipation rate in any non-constricted/constricted configuration is an inherent property of the orientation of the described microchannel. While WURM teaches the desired structural orientation of the microchannel, constricted and non-constricted regions, the energy dissipation rate, EDR is an inherent property. Since the structure, as annotated above of Figure 1 of WURM anticipates the microfluidic channel, the property of an energy dissipation rate (EDR) is highest at an entrance to the constricted regions and the EDR is substantially decreased at a position one constriction width upstream of the constriction region entrance is inherent and knowing/determining the EDR give a more dynamic picture of the disruption process. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977).
Additional Disclosures Included by the combination are: Claim 2: wherein the device of claim 1, wherein the two or more microfluidic channels are parallel to each other, LU, Figure 3 and 7, page 044101-2, WURM, Figure 1.; Claim 6: wherein the device of claim 1, wherein there are 1-40 microfluidic channels, LU, Figure 3 and 7, WURM Figure 2, array of nozzles.; Claim 7: wherein the device of claim 1, wherein each microfluidic channel comprises 3- 15 constricted regions, LU, Figure 3, 6 and 7.; Claim 10: wherein the device of claim 1, wherein each microfluidic channel comprises 10 constricted regions, LU, Figure 3, 6 and 7; Claim 12: wherein the device of claim 1, wherein each of the each constricted region has a width of 2.5-4.5mm, WURM Figure 1, 3mm gap, Section 3.2.; Claim 13: wherein the device of claim 1, is suggested by the combination including wherein each of the microfluidic channels has 4 constricted regions, LU, Figure 3, 6 and 7 and WURM further discloses in Figure 2, two consecutive nozzle arrays were manufactured, page 1074, Figure 2, where each constricted region has a width of 3 mm. WURM further teaches that consecutive nozzle orientation is sufficient for a complete cell disruption, page 1074, Section 3.1. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have each microfluidic channel comprises 4 constricted regions to have a higher percentage of lysed cells in the sample, Section 3.1, and to have tunable operating conditions for speed and selectivity of the lysis, LU, page 23, Introduction.; Claim 14: wherein the device of claim 1, wherein there are 20 microfluidic channels, LU, Figure 7, WURM Figure 2, there are at least 20 micronozzles in the array.; Claim 15; wherein the device of claim 1, wherein there are 40 microfluidic channels, LU, Figure 7, WURM, Figure 2 there are at least 40 micronozzles in the array.; Claim 16: wherein the device of claim 1, wherein the microfluidic channels are configured to support a flow rate from about 20 mL/min to about 2000 mL/min, LU, page 23, Introduction, page 28, optimal lysis can be achieved by fine tuning flow rate of cell suspension, selectivity of speed of lysis, WURM, Figure 5, page 1075-1076, Section 3.3.; and Claim 19: wherein the device of claim 1, wherein the microfluidic device is configured to withstand high fluid pressure without deformation of the constricted regions, LU, page 23, Introduction, page 28, optimal lysis can be achieved by fine tuning flow rate of cell suspension , WURM, page 1074, Section 2.2.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination above discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein each of the non-constricted regions has a width of 40-100 m.
The LU reference teaches the width of the non-constricted regions have a width of 130 mm, Figure 3.
In Figure 1 of WURM, there is a scale in the lower right corner of the darkened lower Figure. Based on the scale of Figure 1, the non-constricted region appears to have a width of 40 m.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the width of the non-constricted region to be 40-100 m, to allow a flow of cells at a desired flow rate and since the LU reference channel is subjected to SU-8 developer to create width, it would be obvious to modify the non-constricted region to be 40-100 m as a matter of design choice based on the size of the cell to be lysed. In addition it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the width of the non-constricted regions has a width of 40-100 m in WURM to prevent any channel clogging before the constricted regions, abstract, page1074.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination above discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards wherein each of the non-constricted regions has a length of 60- 120 m, and each of the constricted regions has a length of 10-20 m.
The CHURH reference discloses the constricted region has a length of 200 m and the length of the entire channel is 1 cm. The length of the non-constricted region is 1 cm minus the length of the constricted region, page 004410-2, Figure 1. LU further teaches each of the non-constricted regions has a length of 60- 120 m, Figure 3, 90 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the length of the non-constricted region with a length of 60- 120 m, and each of the constricted regions has a length of 10-20 m to continuous operation and tunable operating conditions for speed and selectivity of the lysis, LU, Introduction, page 23.
Applicant’s invention is drawn towards a method.
Regarding Claim 22, the LU reference discloses a method for continuous flow cell lysis in a microfluidic device, page 23, Introduction, the method comprising: providing a microfluidic device, Figure 3, 6 and 7, wherein the continuous flow microfluidic device for lysing cells, Figure 3 and 6, abstract, page 25, Section 3.2.1, comprising: one or more microfluidic channels, Figure 3 and 7, each channel comprising more than one constricted regions, Figure 3 and 6, see annotated Figure 3 below, constricted regions is considered to be the areas of the SAW-tooth where the points are the closest indicated by dotted rectangle, and non-constricted regions in series, such that the non-constricted regions separating are between the constricted regions, Figure 3 and 6, see annotated Figure 3 below, non-constricted regions is considered to be the areas of the SAW-tooth where the points are the furthest indicated by solid ovals, the non-constricted regions being shaped to converge at the ends into the constricted regions, Figure 3, 6 and 7, see annotated Figure 3 below, wherein each of the constricted regions have a width in the range of mm such that the constricted regions, Figure 3, are configured to disrupt the cellular membranes of the cells in fluid flowing through the one or more microfluidic channels, abstract, page 27 and 28, Table 1, page 26, Section 3.3, continuously flow fluid through the microfluidic device, page 23, Introduction, page 25, Section 3.2.1, page 25, Section 2.3, dispense cells by a syringe pump, lysing the cells in the fluid by passing cells through the constricted regions, page 25, Section 3.1 and 3.2, Figure 12, wherein the constricted regions are configured to disrupt the cellular membranes of the cells in fluid flowing through the one or more microfluidic channels, abstract, page 27 and 28, Table 1, page 26, Section 3.3, Figure 12.
Annotated Figure 3 of LU.
PNG
media_image1.png
128
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LU discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to the width of the constricted regions and the energy dissipation rate.
The WURM reference discloses a method for continuous flow cell lysis in a microfluidic device, abstract, the method comprising: providing a microfluidic device, abstract, lab-on-a-chip/microfluidic system, lysis of mammalian cells, the microfluidic device comprises one or more microfluidic channels, Figure 1, white arrow ‘Fluid flow’, each channel comprising more than one constricted regions, Figure 1, page 1072, medium gray labeled with ‘Cell compression in 3 mm wide gap’ and all of narrowed black spaces between nozzles, and non-constricted regions separating the constricted regions, Figure 1, before and after locations of the ‘Cell compression’ area and before and after nozzles, the non- constricted regions being shaped to converge at the ends into the constricted regions, Figure 1 and 2, wherein each of the constricted regions have a width of 2.5-10 mm, 3mm gap, Section 3.2, flowing the fluid through the microfluidic device, Figure 1, ‘Fluid flow’, and, lysing the cells in the fluid by passing the cells through the constricted regions, wherein the constricted regions are configured to disrupt the cellular membranes of 85-100% of cells in fluid flowing through the one or more microfluidic channels, Figure 5, page 1075, and
wherein an energy dissipation rate (EDR) is highest at an entrance to the constricted regions , page 1076-1077, Figure 5a, 6, Section 3.4, ‘Critical energy dissipation rate’ , as seen from Figures 5a and 6, as it relates to the % of cell disruption (i.e. fraction of disrupted cells) and the energy dissipation rate, EDR it is highest at the entrance of the constricted region , and the EDR is substantially decreased at a position one constriction width upstream of the constriction region entrance, Figure 5a.
Below is the characterization of Figure 1 as it applies to the instant claim language.
PNG
media_image2.png
539
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The disclosure of WURM uses the term ‘nozzle’ and ‘micronozzles’ interchangeably, see Figure 1, Section 2.3. In the rejection below the terms ‘nozzle’ and ‘micronozzles’ are referring to the same thing and are interchangeable.
WURM teaches that not only is the size of the gap important in lysing cells, but also the cell diameter and the flow rate through the constriction. It can be seen in Figure 5, at a 3 mm gap at least 85-100 % at 40 mL min-1, cells are disrupted, Section 3.1.
Examiner’s Note: As seen in Figures 5a and 6 of WURM, it can be seen from the figures and tables and discussion in Section 3.4 energy dissipation rate, EDR, can be calculated from the
velocity vector field and correlated to cell disruption. The energy dissipation rate in any non-constrict/constricted configuration is an inherent property of the orientation of the described microchannel. While WURM teaches the desired structural orientation of the microchannel, constricted and non-constricted regions, the energy dissipation rate, EDR is an inherent property. Since the structure, as annotated above of Figure 1of WURM anticipates the microfluidic channel, the property of an energy dissipation rate (EDR) is highest at an entrance to the constricted regions and the EDR is substantially decreased at a position one constriction width upstream of the constriction region entrance is inherent and knowing/determining the EDR give a more dynamic picture of the disruption process. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977).
Additional Disclosures Included by the combination are: Claim 23: wherein the device of claim 22, wherein the two or more microfluidic channels are parallel to each other, Figure 1, page 044101-2, LU Figure 3, 6 and 7, WURM see nozzles are parallel to each other Figure 1 and 2.; Claim 27: wherein the device of claim 1, wherein there are 1-40 microfluidic channels, Figure 1, page 044101-2, LU, Figure 3, 6 and 7, WURM, Figure 1 and 2, array of nozzles.; Claim 28: wherein the method of claim 22, is wherein each microfluidic channel comprises 3- 15 constricted regions, LU , Figure 3, 6 and 7.; Claim 30: wherein the method of claim 22, wherein each of the each constricted region has a width of 2.5-4.5 mm, WURM Figure 1, 3mm gap, Section 3.2.; Claim 31: wherein the method of claim 22, wherein each of the microfluidic channels has 4 constricted regions, LU Figure 3, 6 and 7 and WURM further discloses in Figure 2, two consecutive nozzle arrays were manufactured, page 1074, Figure 2, where each constricted region has a width of 3 mm. WURM further teaches that consecutive nozzle orientation is sufficient for a complete cell disruption, page 1074, Section 3.1. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have each microfluidic channel comprises 4 constricted regions to have a higher percentage of lysed cells in the sample, Section 3.1, and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).; Claim 32: wherein the method of claim 22, wherein there are 20 microfluidic channels, WURM Figure 1 and 2, there are at least 20 nozzles in the array, LU Figure 7.; Claim 33: wherein the method of claim 22, wherein there are 40 microfluidic channels, WURM, Figure 1 and 2, there are at least 40 nozzles in the array, LU Figure 7.; and Claim 34: wherein the method of claim 22, wherein the microfluidic channels are configured to support a flow rate from about 20 mL/min to about 2000 mL/min, LU, page 23, Introduction, WURM, Figure 5, page 1075-1076, Section 3.3.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination above discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein each of the non-constricted regions has a width of 40-100 m.
The LU reference teaches the width of the non-constricted regions have a width of 130 mm, Figure 3.
In Figure 1 of WURM, there is a scale in the lower right corner of the darkened lower Figure. Based on the scale of Figure 1, the non-constricted region appears to have a width of 40 m.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the width of the non-constricted region to be 40-100 m, to allow a flow of cells at a desired flow rate and since the LU reference channel is subjected to SU-8 developer to create width, it would be obvious to modify the non-constricted region to be 40-100 m as a matter of design choice based on the size of the cell to be lysed. In addition it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the width of the non-constricted regions has a width of 40-100 m in WURM to prevent any channel clogging before the constricted regions, abstract, page1074.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination above discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards wherein each of the non-constricted regions has a length of 60- 120 m, and each of the constricted regions has a length of 10-20 m.
The CHURH reference discloses the constricted region has a length of 200 m and the length of the entire channel is 1 cm. The length of the non-constricted region is 1 cm minus the length of the constricted region, page 004410-2, Figure 1. LU further teaches each of the non-constricted regions has a length of 60- 120 m, Figure 3, 90 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the length of the non-constricted region with a length of 60- 120 m, and each of the constricted regions has a length of 10-20 m to continuous operation and tunable operating conditions for speed and selectivity of the lysis, LU, Introduction, page 23.
Claims 3, 9, 11, 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU, A microfluidic electroporation device for cell lysis, Lab Chip, 2005, 5, 23–29, in view of WURM, Lab Chip, 2012, 12, 1071, and further in view of HONG, US Publication No. 2005/0053952 A1, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 09 JANUARY 2019; Non-Patent Literature Documents Cite No. 8.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination above discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the non-constricted regions are arranged in a honeycomb- like pattern.
The HONG reference discloses a microfluidic device, abstract, for lysing cells, abstract, the microfluidic device comprising: one or more microfluidic channels, Figure 16 and 17B, each channel comprising constricted regions and non-constricted regions separating the constricted regions, Figure 16 and 17B, [0191, 0194], wherein the non-constricted regions are arranged in a honeycomb-like pattern and where there are 10 constricted regions, Figure 16 and 17B, and have more than 20 or 40 microfluidic channels, [0194].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the microfluidic channel so that the non-constricted regions are arranged in a honeycomb-like pattern and have more than 10 constricted regions and have more than 20 or 40 microfluidic channels to performing multiple lysing in parallel and simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination above discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein each microfluidic channel comprises a first segment of constricted regions along a fluid flow path having a width of 6-8 m and a second segment of constricted regions along a fluid flow path having a width of 4-6 m.
The HONG reference discloses a plurality of microfluidic channels, Figure 16 and 17B, 32A-D, [0190-0191], which comprises a first segment of constricted regions along a flow path of a first width and a second segment of constricted regions along a flow path of a second width, Figure 16, 32A -32D, each constricted regions are of different widths based on applications of utilizing the channels, [0109], and control the actuation of fluid occurring in the narrow portions, [0161].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the microfluidic channel such that a first segment of constricted regions along a fluid flow path having a width of 6-8 m and a second segment of constricted regions along a fluid flow path having a width of 4-6 m based on the application of the flow channel, [0109], and to control the actuation and pressure of fluid through the channel, [0161], ], for cell disruption based on cell diameter.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination above discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein for each channel, the first five constricted regions along a fluid flow path have a width of 6.5 m, and the last five constricted regions along the fluid flow path have a width of 5 m.
The HONG reference discloses a plurality of microfluidic channels, Figure 16 and 17B, 32A-D, [0190-0191], which comprises a first segment of constricted regions along a flow path of a first width and a second segment of constricted regions along a flow path of a second width, Figure 16, 32A -32D, each constricted regions are of different widths based on applications of utilizing the channels, [0109], and control the actuation of fluid occurring in the narrow portions, [0161].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the microfluidic channel such that the first five constricted regions along a fluid flow path have a width of 6.5 m, and the last five constricted regions along the fluid flow path have a width of 5 m, based on the application of the flow channel, [0109], and to control the actuation and pressure of fluid through the channel, [0161], for cell disruption based on cell diameter.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination above discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the non-constricted regions are arranged in a honeycomb- like pattern.
The HONG reference discloses a microfluidic device, abstract, for lysing cells, abstract, the microfluidic device comprising: one or more microfluidic channels, Figure 16 and 17B, each channel comprising constricted regions and non-constricted regions separating the constricted regions, Figure 16 and 17B, [0191, 0194], wherein the non-constricted regions are arranged in a honeycomb-like pattern and where there are 10 constricted regions, Figure 16 and 17B, and have more than 20 or 40 microfluidic channels, [0194].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the microfluidic channel so that the non-constricted regions are arranged in a honeycomb-like pattern and have more than 10 constricted regions and have more than 20 or 40 microfluidic channels to performing multiple lysing in parallel and simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination above discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein each microfluidic channel comprises a first segment of constricted regions along a fluid flow path having a width of 6-8 m and a second segment of constricted regions along a fluid flow path having a width of 4-6 m.
The HONG reference discloses a plurality of microfluidic channels, Figure 16 and 17B, 32A-D, [0190-0191], which comprises a first segment of constricted regions along a flow path of a first width and a second segment of constricted regions along a flow path of a second width, Figure 16, 32A -32D, each constricted regions are of different widths based on applications of utilizing the channels, [0109], and control the actuation of fluid occurring in the narrow portions, [0161].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the microfluidic channel such that a first segment of constricted regions along a fluid flow path having a width of 6-8 m and a second segment of constricted regions along a fluid flow path having a width of 4-6 m based on the application of the flow channel, [0109], and to control the actuation and pressure of fluid through the channel, [0161], ], for cell disruption based on cell diameter.
Claims 20-21and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU, A microfluidic electroporation device for cell lysis, Lab Chip, 2005, 5, 23–29, in view of WURM, Lab Chip,2012,12,1071, and further in view of CARLBORG, US Publication No. 2013/0331528 A1, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 09 JANAURY 2019; U. S. Patent Application Publications Cite No. 2.
Regarding Claims 20-21, the combination above suggests the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the microfluidic device is comprised of an off-stoichiometry thiol-ene (OSTE) polymer.
The CARLBORG reference discloses a microfluidic device, [0016], comprises an off-stoichiometry thiol-ene (OSTE) polymer, [0016-0018], which is known in the art to withstand high fluid pressure without deformation, [0089, 0093, 0097]. The OSTE polymer is made from an OSTE prepolymer having an excess of allyl groups, [0073], Claim 19.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the microfluidic device to comprises an off-stoichiometry thiol-ene (OSTE) polymer so that reactive groups present on the surface of the polymer can directly react with many common bio-linker molecules and their residues and can be temperature tuned in a narrow interval, [0016-0018].
Regarding Claims 37-39, the combination above suggests the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the microfluidic device is comprised an off-stoichiometry thiol-ene (OSTE) polymer.
The CARLBORG reference discloses a microfluidic device, [0016], comprises an off-stoichiometry thiol-ene (OSTE) polymer, [0016-0018], which is known in the art to withstand high fluid pressure without deformation, [0089, 0093, 0097]. The OSTE polymer is made from an OSTE prepolymer having an excess of allyl groups, [0073], Claim 19.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the microfluidic device to comprises an off-stoichiometry thiol-ene (OSTE) polymer so that reactive groups present on the surface of the polymer can directly react with many common bio-linker molecules and their residues and can be temperature tuned in a narrow interval, [0016-0018].
Conclusion
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 CHRISTINE T MUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3243. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 -15:30 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, LYLE ALEXANDER can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
CTM
/CHRISTINE T MUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights