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 .
Applicant previously canceled claims 2-4, 17-23, and 28-71. Claims 1, 5-16 and 24-27 are currently pending and under examination.
Any objection or rejection of record in the previous Office Action, which is not addressed in this action has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments. This action is Final.
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.
(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 1, 5-9, 11-12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hindson et al. (U.S Patent Application Publication US 2014/0378322 A1, published December 25, 2014), previously cited in the November 06, 2025 Office Action. This rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Hindson teaches a method of barcoding nucleic acids of a particle (Page 30, [0245]-[0246], Page 1, [0006] and Page 56, [0429]). Hindson teaches combining a fluid sample with a magnetic capture bead (Page 29, [0238], Page 21, [0188] and Page 28, [0232]). Hindson teaches a capture moiety for the particle of the sample and a barcode nucleic acid comprising a target binding region to produce a captured sample (Page 29, [0241], Page 30, [0245]-[0246] and Page 22, [0194]). Hindson teaches partitioning captured particles of the captured sample into microwells, using an applied magnetic field mediated partitioning protocol to produce partitioned captured particles (Page 20, [0180], Page 23, [0198], Page 28, [0232], Page 29, [0238], Page 29, [0240], Page 54, [0413]). Hindson teaches lysing the partitioned captured particles so that nucleic acids released therefrom bind to the target binding regions of the bead bound barcode nucleic acids to produce captured nucleic acids (Page 30, [0246] and Page 56, [0429]).
Regarding claim 5, Hindson teaches the capture moiety comprises a specific binding member (Page 29, [0241] and Page 30, [0246]).
Regarding claim 6, Hindson teaches the specific binding member comprises an antibody or binding fragment thereof (Page 29, [0241] and Page 30, [0246]).
Regarding claim 7, Hindson teaches the bead bound barcode nucleic acids further comprise a cell label domain (Page 18, [0167], Page 30, [0246] and Page 56, [0430]).
Regarding claim 8, Hindson teaches the bead bound barcode nucleic acids further comprise a unique molecular index domain (Page 18, [0163], Page 18, [0167] and Page 58, [0439]).
Regarding claim 9, Hindson teaches the bead bound barcode nucleic acids further comprise a universal primer binding domain (Page 3, [0017], Pages 15-16, [0148]-[0151] and Page 29, [0235]).
Regarding claim 11, Hindson teaches the target binding region comprises a gene specific domain or a random sequence domain (Page 2, [0013], Page 3, [0023], Page 8, [0096], Page 47, [0358]-[0359], Page 48, [0364] and Page 49, [0368]).
Regarding claim 12, Hindson teaches the particle comprises a sub-cellular sized particle (Page 30, [0245], Pages 31-32, [0252] and Page 56, [0429]).
Regarding claim 14, Hindson teaches the particle comprises a cell (Page 10, [0102], Page 30, [0246] and Page 56, [0429]-[0430]).
Regarding claim 16, Hindson teaches the separating comprises employing an applied magnetic field (Page 20, [0180], Page 23, [0198], Page 28, [0232] and Page 29, [0238]).
Hindson teaches each and every limitation of claims 1, 5-9, 11-12, 14 and 16, and therefore, Hindson anticipates claims 1, 5-9, 11-12, 14 and 16.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 24-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Salathia et al. (U.S Patent Application Publication US 2016/0053253 A1, published February 25, 2016), cited on the IDS filed October 05, 2023. This rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Salathia teaches a method of barcoding nucleic acids of a particle (Page 1, [0007], Page 3, [0045], Page 4, [0062] and Page 5, [0070] and [0072]). Salathia teaches combining a fluid sample with a magnetic capture bead (Page 2, [0017], Page 8, [0093], Pages 8-10, [0095], Pages 10-12, [0097]-[0099], Page 12-13, [0101]-[0103] and [0105] and Pages 14-15, [0114]). Salathia teaches a capture moiety for the particle of the sample (Page 2, [0015], Page 3, [0032]-[0033], Pages 10-11, [0097] and Pages 11-12, [0099]). Salathia teaches a barcode nucleic acid comprising a target binding region to produce a captured sample (Page 6, [0076], Page 1, [0008]-[0010], Page 3, [0032]-[0033], [0037] and [0039], and Page 4, [0064]). Salathia teaches partitioning captured particles of the captured sample into microwells using an applied magnetic field mediated partitioning protocol to produce partitioned captured particles (Pages 8-10, [0095] and Pages 10-11, [0097] and Page 12-13, [0101]-[0103] and [0105]). Salathia teaches lysing the partitioned captured particles so that nucleic acids released therefrom bind to the target binding regions of the bead bound barcode nucleic acids to produce captured nucleic acids (Page 5, [0072], Page 8, [0093] and Page 14, [0110]).
Regarding claim 5, Salathia teaches the capture moiety comprises a specific binding member (Page 2, [0015], Page 3, [0032]-[0033], Pages 10-11, [0097] and Pages 11-12, [0099]).
Regarding claim 6, Salathia teaches the specific binding member comprises an antibody or binding fragment thereof (Page 2, [0015], Page 3, [0032]-[0033], Pages 10-11, [0097] and Pages 11-12, [0099]).
Regarding claim 8, Salathia teaches the bead bound barcode nucleic acids further comprise a unique molecular index domain (Page 1, [0008], Page 2, [0012] and [0019] and Page 3, [0037] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Salathia teaches the bead bound barcode nucleic acids further comprise a universal primer binding domain (Page 1, [0008] and Pages 7-8, [0092]).
Regarding claim 11, Salathia teaches the target binding region comprises an oligo dT domain, a gene specific domain or a random sequence domain (Page 5, [0072], Page 8, [0093] and Page 14, [0110]).
Regarding claim 12, Salathia teaches the particle comprises a sub- cellular sized particle (Page 1, [0007] and [0009], Page 2, [0013] and Pages 11-12, [0099]).
Regarding claim 14, Salathia teaches the particle comprises a cell (Page 1, [0007], Page 3, [0045], Page 4, [0062] and Page 5, [0070] and [0072]).
Regarding claim 15, Salathia teaches the method further comprises separating captured nucleic acids from other constituents of the partitioned captured particles (Page 1, [0010] and Page 3, [0032]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Salathia teaches the separating comprises employing an applied magnetic field (Page 1, [0010], Page 3, [0032]-[0034], Pages 8-10, [0095] and Pages 10-11, [0097]).
Regarding claim 24, Salathia teaches a method of sequencing nucleic acids of a particle (Page 1, [0007] and Page 2, [0013]). Salathia teaches combining a fluid sample containing the particle with a magnetic capture bead (Page 2, [0017], Page 8, [0093], Pages 8-10, [0095], Pages 10-12, [0097]-[0099], Page 12-13, [0101]-[0103] and [0105] and Pages 14-15, [0114]). Salathia teaches barcode nucleic acids comprising a target binding region (Page 6, [0076], Page 1, [0008]-[0010], Page 3, [0032]-[0033], [0037] and [0039], and Page 4, [0064]). Salathia teaches a capture moiety that specifically binds to the particle to produce a captured sample (Page 2, [0015], Page 3, [0032]-[0033], Pages 10-11, [0097] and Pages 11-12, [0099]). Salathia teaches partitioning captured particles of the captured sample into microwells using an applied magnetic field mediated partitioning protocol to produce partitioned captured particles (Pages 8-10, [0095] and Pages 10-11, [0097] and Page 12-13, [0101]-[0103] and [0105]). Salathia teaches lysing the partitioned captured particles so that nucleic acids released therefrom bind to target binding regions of the barcode nucleic acids to produce captured nucleic acids (Page 5, [0072], Page 8, [0093] and Page 14, [0110]). Salathia teaches subjecting the captured nucleic acids to cDNA synthesis reaction conditions to produce first strand cDNA domain comprising capture nucleic acids (Page 1, [0009]-[0010], Page 2, [0012]-[0014] and [0017] and Page 4, [0059], [0061] and [0066], ). Salathia teaches producing a NGS library from the first strand cDNA domain comprising capture nucleic acids (Page 1, [0005] and [0009]-[0010], Page 2, [0012]-[0014] and [0017], Page 4, [0061]-[0063] and Claim 1). Salathia teaches sequencing the Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) library to sequence nucleic acids of the target particle (Page 1, [0005] and [0009]-[0010], Page 2, [0012]-[0014] and [0017] and Page 4, [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 25, Salathia teaches the particle comprises a sub-cellular sized particle (Page 1, [0007] and [0009], Page 2, [0013] and Pages 11-12, [0099]).
Regarding claim 27, Salathia teaches the particle comprises a cell (Page 1, [0007], Page 3, [0045], Page 4, [0062] and Page 5, [0070] and [0072]).
Salathia teaches each and every claim limitation of claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12 and 14-16, therefore Salathia anticipates claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 24-25 and 27
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.
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 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hindson et al. (U.S Patent Application Publication US 2014/0378322 A1, published December 25, 2014), as applied to claims 1, 5-9, 11-12, 14 and 16 above, in view of Betts et al. (U.S Patent Application Publication US 2017/0073730 A1, published March 16, 2017), previously cited in the Office action filed November 15, 2024. This rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 10, Hindson teaches the bead bound barcodes as discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, Hindson teaches the partitioned captured particles as discussed above.
Hindson does not expressly teach or suggest the bead bound barcode nucleic acids comprise the following structure: bead-5'-universal primer binding domain-cell label domain-unique molecular index domain-target binding region-3'. Hindson does not teach or suggest separating captured nucleic acids from other constituents of the partitioned captured particles.
Betts teaches barcoding and capturing nucleic acids (Fig. 2). Betts teaches the bead bound barcode nucleic acids comprise the following structure: bead-5'-universal primer binding domain-cell label domain-unique molecular index domain-target binding region-3' (Fig. 2). Betts teaches separating captured nucleic acids from other constituents of the partitioned captured cells (Page 11, [0069] and [0078], and Page 22, [0168]). Betts teaches that using the exemplary embodiment of the stochastic barcoding method (specific structure: bead-5'-universal primer binding domain-cell label domain-unique molecular index domain-target binding region-3') allows for indexing of individual nucleic acid molecules with unique barcodes so that molecules of specific targets can be tracked and/or counted (Page 21, [0159]-[0160] and Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hindson with the teachings of Betts to include separating captured nucleic acids from other constituents of the partitioned captured cells as well as use the specific structure bead-5'-universal primer binding domain-cell label domain-unique molecular index domain-target binding region-3'. This would allow for indexing of individual nucleic acid molecules with unique barcodes so that molecules of specific targets can be tracked and/or counted, as taught by Betts (Page 21, [0159]-[0160] and Fig. 2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hindson et al. (U.S Patent Application Publication US 2014/0378322 A1, published December 25, 2014), as applied to claims 1, 5-9, 11-12, 14 and 16 above, in view of Routenberg et al. (WIPO International Patent Application Publication WO 2019/222708 A2, published November 21, 2019). This rejection is maintained.
Regarding claims 13, Hindson teaches the particle as discussed above.
Hindson does not teach or suggest the sub-cellular sized particle is specifically a vesicle.
Routenberg teaches capturing nucleic acids isolated in extracellular vesicles (EV) (Page 4, [0011]). Routenberg teaches using magnetic beads and allowing for collection of particles using an applied magnetic field (Page 31, [00127], Page 45, [00145]). Routenberg teaches capturing EVs with a capture moiety on the surface of a magnetic bead (i.e., capturing a particle that is sub-cellular as well as a vesicle, Page 45 [00415] and Figs. 32-33). Routenberg teaches the magnetic bead may have an additional barcode sequence separate from the capture moiety (Fig. 32-33). Routenberg teaches using these methods allows for highly specific isolation and analysis of extracellular vesicles (EVs) as well performing multiplexed methods of comparing different EVs in the same sample, reducing the amount of sample required and decrease sample-to-sample variability (Abstract and Page 58, [00227]-[00228]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Hindson with the teachings of Routenberg using a particle comprises a sub-cellular sized particle, specifically a vesicle. This would allow for highly specific isolation and analysis of extracellular vesicles (EVs) as well performing multiplexed methods of comparing different EVs in the same sample, reducing the amount of sample required and decrease sample-to-sample variability as taught by Routenberg (Abstract and Page 58, [00227]-[00228]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salathia et al. (U.S Patent Application Publication US 2016/0053253 A1, published February 25, 2016), cited on the IDS filed October 05, 2023, as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 24-25 and 27 above, in view of Routenberg et al. (WIPO International Patent Application Publication WO 2019/222708 A2, published November 21, 2019), previously cited in the November 06, 2025 Office Action. This rejection is maintained.
Regarding claims 26, Salathia teaches the sub-cellular sized particle as discussed above.
Salathia does not teach or suggest the sub-cellular sized particle is specifically a vesicle.
Routenberg teaches capturing nucleic acids isolated in extracellular vesicles (EV) (Page 4, [0011]). Routenberg teaches using magnetic beads and allowing for collection of particles using an applied magnetic field (Page 31, [00127], Page 45, [00145]). Routenberg teaches capturing EVs with a capture moiety on the surface of a magnetic bead (i.e., capturing a particle that is sub-cellular as well as a vesicle, Page 45 [00415] and Figs. 32-33). Routenberg teaches the magnetic bead may have an additional barcode sequence separate from the capture moiety (Fig. 32-33). Routenberg teaches using these methods allows for highly specific isolation and analysis of extracellular vesicles (EVs) as well performing multiplexed methods of comparing different EVs in the same sample, reducing the amount of sample required and decrease sample-to-sample variability (Abstract and Page 58, [00227]-[00228]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Salathia with the teachings of Routenberg using a particle comprises a sub-cellular sized particle, specifically a vesicle. This would allow for highly specific isolation and analysis of extracellular vesicles (EVs) as well performing multiplexed methods of comparing different EVs in the same sample, reducing the amount of sample required and decrease sample-to-sample variability as taught by Routenberg (Abstract and Page 58, [00227]-[00228]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed June 02, 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed June 02, 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 24-25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed June 02, 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed June 02, 2026 regarding the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed June 02, 2026 regarding the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts “Paragraph [0180] describes that after amplifying template oligonucleotides in partitions, the contents of the partitions may be pooled into a common vessel such as a tube or a well. Pooling (i.e., the act of combining a plurality of things into a single common vessel) is not the same thing as partitioning (i.e., the act of dividing an entity into a plurality of parts). Accordingly, "partitions may be pooled into a common vessel (e.g., a tube, a well, etc.)" cannot be interpreted as the instantly claimed limitation of partitioning captured particles into microwells. As such, contrary to the Office's assertion, paragraph [0180] fails to teach partitioning captured particles into microwells using an applied magnetic field mediated partitioning protocol”.
As discussed above, Hindson discloses that partitioning into partitions may specifically mean droplets, wells or microwells (Page 8, [0096] and Page 51, [0390]) and “that reactions volumes may include any of variety of different types of vessels or partitions … such as… microwells” (Page 54, [0413]). Hindson further discloses on page 23, [0198], “beads may be pooled into a common vessel [or partition]…[by] magnetic separation” and page 28, [0232],“barcoded beads suspended in aqueous solution may be sorted by magnetic separation” as well as page 29, [0238], “bead complexes may then be separated from other components of the mixture using any suitable means, including, for example centrifugation and magnetic separation (e.g., including cases where the capture bead is a magnetic bead)”, i.e., the act of dividing an entity, bead complexes in droplets pooled, into a plurality of parts, such as microwells as described in [0096]. In Hindson [0180] "partitions may be pooled into a common vessel (e.g., a tube, a well, etc.)" is discussing partitions, or droplets, may be further partitioned, or pooled, into a common vessel (or as described above, partition) such as a microwell as described in [0096], and therefore pooling may be considered partitioning captured particles into microwells. While it acknowledged that one example of capture moiety disclosed by Hindson is biotin, page 29, [0240] of Hindson additionally discloses that the “ Magnetic beads may also be coated with other linking entities [(i.e., moieties)] besides streptavidin, [such as]… other ligands for separation”, therefore reading on a capture moiety may be a ligand. Hindson further discloses “In other cases, capture moieties may include a specific tag that recognizes a specific sequence or protein or antibody that may be added to the bead population independently. In some embodiments, the capture moieties may be pre-linked to a sorting bead, such as a magnetic bead. In some cases, the capture moiety may be a fluorescent label, which may enable sorting via fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS)” (Page 29, [0241]). Moreover, Hindson discloses “a bead may comprise one or more capture ligands each capable of capturing a particular type of sample component, including components that may comprise nucleic acid. For example, a bead may comprise a capture ligand capable of capturing a cell from a sample. The capture ligand may be, for example, an antibody, antibody fragment, receptor, protein, peptide, small molecule or any other species targeted toward a species unique to and/or over-expressed on the surface of a particular cell. Via interactions with the cell target, the particular cell type can be captured from a sample such that it remains bound to the bead” (Page 30, [0246]). It additionally noted that the instant specification discloses on page 40, lines 25-26, a capture moiety may also be a ligand. Therefore Hindson does indeed disclose a capture moiety capturing particles of a sample with a magnetic capture bead and partitioning the captured particles into microwells using an applied magnetic field and this rejection is maintained as set forth above.
Applicant additionally asserts Hindson fails to teach or suggest “partitioning captured particles of the captured sample into microwells using an applied magnetic field mediated partitioning protocol … [and] Betts fails to make up for the deficiencies in Hindson”. As discussed above, Hindson does in fact disclose this feature and the rejection is maintained as set forth above.
Applicant additionally asserts “Hindson fails to teach or suggest the element of partitioning captured particles of the captured sample into microwells using an applied magnetic field mediated partitioning protocol … [and] Routenberg fails to make up for the deficiencies in Hindson”. As discussed above, Hindson does in fact disclose this feature and the rejection is maintained as set forth above. Additionally, as discussed above Routenberg discloses partitioning using magnetic beads and allowing for collection of particles using an applied magnetic field in microwells (Page 31, [00127], Page 45, [00144]-[00145] and Page 55, [0218]).
Applicant asserts “Salathia solely mentions magnetic beads in the context of a droplet actuator. Paragraph [0097], as cited by the Office, which is a paragraph directed to the use of beads in Salathia's method, defines beads by reciting: ""Bead," with respect to beads on a droplet actuator, means any bead or particle that is capable of interacting with a droplet on or in proximity with a droplet actuator" (Salathia, paragraph [0097]).”, as well as “at best, Salathia describes a bead comprising an antibody that binds to an organelle …[and] Salathia is silent on said beads being magnetic beads and said beads comprising a capture moiety and a barcode nucleic acid”.
As discussed above, additionally in [0097], Salathia further discloses “In some cases, beads are magnetically responsive… For magnetically responsive beads, the magnetically responsive material may constitute substantially all of a bead, a portion of a bead, or only one component of a bead. The remainder of the bead may include, among other things, polymeric material, coatings, and moieties which permit attachment of an assay reagent… Beads may be pre-coupled with a biomolecule or other substance that is able to bind to and form a complex with a biomolecule. Beads may be pre-coupled with an antibody, protein or antigen, DNA/RNA probe or any other molecule with an affinity for a desired target.”, therefore reading on a magnetic bead comprising a capture moiety to capture particles of the sample. As discussed above [0015] discloses “In one embodiment, the organelles such as nuclei, mitochondria, ribosomes are spatially separated by fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) and each organelle is sorted into a spatial compartment, e.g., single microwell on a Fluidigm C1 chip. In some embodiments, each organelle is spatially separated into a spatial compartment by being immobilized on a solid surface. For example, through an antibody, wherein the antibody specifically binds to the organelle and the antibody is immobilized on a solid surface. In some embodiments, the solid surface is a flow cell or a bead”. Salathia additionally discloses on Page 1, [0008], “methods and compositions include the use of droplets and/or beads bearing unique barcodes” as well as [0010] “each nucleus is from a single cell ..[t]he nuclei are spatially separated from each other such that one nucleus is present at a spatial compartment…[such as] microwells”. It is further noted that the instant specification discloses that a particle may be “a sub-cellular sized particle” (i.e., an organelle; Page 3, Line 9, Page 39, Lines 1-2) and that a capture moiety may be an antibody, small molecule or binding fragment thereof (in at least Page 3, Lines 2-3, Page 4, Lines 18 and 29, Page 5, Lines 11 and 23 and Page 40, Lines 25-31). Therefore the applicant acknowledges Salathia discloses a bead (magnetic bead comprising barcodes as discussed above) comprising an antibody (capture moiety as defined by the instant specification) that binds to an organelle (particle as defined by the instant specification) and reading on a magnetic capture beads comprising a capture moiety and a barcode nucleic acid.
Applicant asserts “Further, paragraph [0105], as cited by the Office, which describes the use of magnetic fields in Salathia's method, defines: ""Transporting into the magnetic field of a magnet," "transporting towards a magnet, "and the like, as used herein to refer to droplets and/or magnetically responsive beads within droplets, is intended to refer to transporting into a region of a magnetic field capable of substantially attracting magnetically responsive beads in the droplet" (Salathia, paragraph [0105])”; which does in fact describe a magnetic field moving a magnetic bead.
As discussed above, Salathia, Page 13, [0105], additionally discloses “the droplet or magnetically responsive beads is/are situated in a desired region of the magnetic field, in each case where the magnetic field in the desired region is capable of substantially attracting any magnetically responsive beads in the droplet… In various aspects of the present disclosure, a system, a droplet actuator, or another component of a system may include a magnet, such as one or more permanent magnets (e.g., a single cylindrical or bar magnet or an array of such magnets, such as a Halbach array) or an electromagnet or array of electromagnets, to form a magnetic field for interacting with magnetically responsive beads… Such interactions may, for example, include … flow of magnetically responsive beads”, further describing disclosing a magnetic field moving a magnetic bead to a desired region such as a microwell as disclosed by Salathia above. Additionally Salathia discloses using a multi well plates and that reactions “may take place in any single or multi-well vessel”(i.e., microwell plate; Page 5, [0070]). Therefore Salathia additionally discloses a capture moiety capturing particles of a sample with a magnetic capture bead and partitioning the captured particles into microwells using an applied magnetic field and the rejection is maintained as set forth above.
Applicant additionally asserts, “there is no suggestion in Salathia of partitioning captured particles of the captured sample into microwells using an applied magnetic field mediated partitioning protocol. As Routenberg is cited merely for the element of a vesicle, Routenberg fails to make up for the deficiencies in Salathia.
However, as discussed above, Salathia does in fact disclose this feature and the rejection is maintained as set forth above.
Therefore, for all these reasons and those listed above, Hindson, Salathia, Hindson in view of Betts, Hindson in view of Routenberg, and Salathia in view of Routenberg are deemed to render the instant invention anticipated/obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA DANIELLE PARISI whose telephone number is (571)272-8025. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 7:30-5:00 Eastern with alternate Fridays off.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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.
/JESSICA D PARISI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1684
/HEATHER CALAMITA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights