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 .
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.
Claims 1-13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 1 last 2 lines recites “to transport the offspring of said grand-mother cell trapping chamber” and is unclear, because the chamber cannot have any offspring. Furthermore, the limitation “the offspring” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “to transport a cell in said grand-mother cell trapping chamber”. Claims 2-13, 15-17 dependent on claim 1 are also rejected for said dependency.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (US20110143964A1 published 06/16/2011; hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a microfluidic unit for isolating and culturing yeast cells (“for isolating and culturing yeast cells” is an intended use of the device and deemed to read on a device capable of processing yeast cells), comprising:
a medium inlet (an inlet of the inlet distribution channel 471 – Fig. 4A and paragraph 116), a medium outlet (an outlet of an outlet distribution channel 472 – Fig. 4A and paragraph 116), and a passage interconnecting said medium inlet and said medium outlet (a passage between the inlet and outlet formed by the inlet distribution channel 471, transport channels 430, 432, 434, 436, and the outlet distribution channel 472 – Fig. 4A);
a single cell trapping chamber in the passage (an upper portion of the transport channel 434 – Fig. 4A; hereinafter referred to chamber M), said single cell trapping chamber being a mother cell trapping chamber (chamber M is a mother cell trapping chamber – Fig. 4A), wherein the microfluidic unit further comprises:
a daughter cells trapping chamber in the passage (a lower portion of the transport channel 434 – Fig. 4A; hereinafter referred to chamber D), downstream of the single cell trapping chamber (the chamber D is downstream of the chamber M – Fig. 4A), and configured to retain daughter cells of a single cell (“daughter cells” and “a single cell” are materials worked upon by the apparatus and deemed to read on chambers capable of holding cells; see MPEP 2115) trapped in the single cell trapping chamber while allowing offspring of said daughter cells to escape with a flow of a medium in said passage (the chamber D is capable of retaining daughter cells and allowing offspring of said daughter cells to escape – Fig. 4A); and
[AltContent: textbox (chamber D)][AltContent: arrow]a grand-mother cell trapping chamber in the passage (an upper portion of the inlet distribution channel 471 – Fig. 4A; hereinafter chamber GM), upstream and in line with said mother cell trapping chamber (chamber GM is upstream and in line with the chamber M – see annotated Fig. 4A) and connected to the medium inlet by a channel (chamber GM is connected to the inlet by the inlet distribution channel 471 – Fig. 4A), the grand-mother cell trapping chamber including a first grand-mother cell outlet (a first GM outlet – Annotated Fig. 4A) and a second grand-mother cell outlet (a second GM outlet – Annotated Fig. 4A), wherein the first grand-mother cell outlet directly connects the grand-mother cell trapping chamber to the medium outlet (the first GM outlet connects the chamber GM directly to the outlet – Annotated Fig. 4A) and the second grand-mother cell outlet connects the grand-mother cell trapping chamber to the single cell trapping chamber (the second GM outlet connects the chamber GM to the chamber M – Annotated Fig. 4A), and
wherein the first grand-mother cell outlet is configured to transport the offspring of said grand-mother cell trapping chamber out of the microfluidic unit (the first GM outlet is capable of transporting a cell in the chamber GM out of the fluidic device – Annotated Fig. 4A; see 112b rejection).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 1, wherein the daughter cells trapping chamber comprises a plurality of daughter cell sub-chambers (chamber D comprises a plurality of chambers 420 – Fig. 4A) and the passage comprises selective sub-passages each individually connecting one of said plurality of daughter cell sub-chambers with the single cell trapping chamber (the transport channel 434 comprises a plurality of sub-passages each individually connecting one of plurality of the chambers 420 – annotated Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 2, wherein the selective sub-passages connect with the single cell trapping chamber at distinct locations arranged side-by-side (the sub-passages are at distinct locations and arranged side-by-side – Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 1, wherein the daughter cells trapping chamber forms a screen with openings (chamber D comprises a plurality of chambers 420 – Fig. 4A) (openings to the chambers 420 connected to chamber D forms a screen – annotated Fig. 4A and Figs. 1A, 2A, 3), each opening being configured for retaining a daughter cell so that said daughter cells trapping chamber is disposed to trap a plurality of daughter cells (each opening to a chamber 420 is capable of trapping a plurality of daughter cells – annotated Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 7, ,wherein the openings of the daughter cells trapping chamber are more than 80 (another preferred number of chambers in each device is above 100; therefore, there are also more than 100 openings because each chamber has one inlet and one outlet – paragraph 134).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 7, wherein the screen of the daughter cells trapping chamber extends along a main direction (the openings to the chambers 420 extend along a main direction – annotated Fig. 4A), the openings of said daughter cells trapping chamber being arranged in two parallel rows along said main direction (the openings to the chambers 420 are arranged in two parallel rows along a main direction – annotated Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 7, wherein the openings of the daughter cells trapping chamber are formed by pillars parallel to each other and extending between two substrates (the chambers 420 are formed on pillars formed by raised sections of the device (see isometric views in Figs. 2A-3) and extending between upper and lower substrates – annotated Fig. 4A and Figs. 1D and 6A).
Regarding claim 15, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 1, wherein the passage comprises a drain by-pass (a chamber stream 463 – annotated Fig. 4A) fluidly connecting the second grand-mother cell outlet of the grandmother cell trapping chamber to the medium outlet (chamber stream 463 connects the second GM outlet to a transport channel 433 leading to the outlet – annotated Fig. 4A).
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.
Claims 4-6, 9, 12-13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou.
Regarding claim 4, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 2, wherein each of the selective sub-passages has a diameter or width greater than or equal to 2μm and/or less than or equal to 5μm (there is no fundamental limitation on the size of the fluidic structures of the present invention – paragraph 134) (the center to center distance between adjacent chambers is in the range of 1 to 5,000 μm; therefore the diameter or width of each sub-passage formed between the chambers must also be between the size of 1 to 5,000 μm – paragraph 134).
The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected width or diameter 1 to 5,000 μm in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 4, wherein the passage comprises exit sub-passages each individually connecting one of said plurality of daughter cell sub-chambers downstream with the medium outlet (the transport channel 434 comprises exit passages each individually connecting one of plurality of the chambers 420 to the outlet of the outlet distribution channel 472 – Fig. 4A), each of said exit sub-passages having a diameter greater than 5μm (there is no fundamental limitation on the size of the fluidic structures of the present invention – paragraph 134) (the center to center distance between adjacent chambers is in the range of 1 to 5,000 μm; therefore the diameter or width of each exit sub-passages formed between chambers must also be between the size of 1 to 5,000 μm – paragraph 134).
The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected width or diameter 1 to 5,000 μm in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 5, wherein the selective sub-passages extend parallel to each other along a main direction of the microfluidic unit (the sub-passages are parallel each other and extend in a main direction of the device – annotated Fig. 4A), the exit sub-passages extending at least partially transversely to said main direction (the exit passages extend partially into the transport channel 437 that is transverse to the main direction of the device – annotated Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 7, wherein the openings of the daughter cells trapping chamber have, each, a diameter or width greater than or equal to 2μm and/or less than or equal to 5μm (there is no fundamental limitation on the size of the fluidic structures of the present invention – paragraph 134) (the center to center distance between adjacent chambers is in the range of 1 to 5,000 μm; therefore the opening of each chamber must also be between the size of 1 to 5,000 μm – paragraph 134).
The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected width or diameter 1 to 5,000 μm in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I)
Regarding claim 12, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 7, wherein the single cell trapping chamber has an exit towards the daughter cells trapping chamber with a passage diameter or width greater than or equal to 2μm and/or less than or equal to 5μm (there is no fundamental limitation on the size of the fluidic structures of the present invention – paragraph 134) (the center to center distance between adjacent chambers is in the range of 1 to 5,000 μm; therefore the opening of each chamber 420 must also be between the size of 1 to 5,000 μm – paragraph 134).
The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected width or diameter 1 to 5,000 μm in the range that corresponds to the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 12, wherein the passage between the single cell trapping chamber and the daughter cells trapping chamber forms at least one meander (a meander in the transport channel 436 between the chamber M and chamber D – annotate Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 16, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 15, wherein the drain bypass (the chamber stream 463 passes through a chamber 420 – Fig. 4A) has a diameter that is greater than 5µm (there is no fundamental limitation on the size of the fluidic structures of the present invention – paragraph 134) (the center to center distance between adjacent chambers is in the range of 1 to 5,000 μm; therefore the opening of a chamber 420 must also be between the size of 1 to 5,000 μm – paragraph 134).
The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected width or diameter 1 to 5,000 μm in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I)
Regarding claim 17, Zhou teaches the microfluidic unit according to claim 1, wherein the passage between the grand-mother cell trapping chamber and the mother cell trapping chamber (the passage having a portion of the flow through the chambers 420 with chamber stream 465 – Fig. 4A) has a diameter or width that is greater than or equal to 2μm and/or less than or equal to 5μm (there is no fundamental limitation on the size of the fluidic structures of the present invention – paragraph 134) (the center to center distance between adjacent chambers is in the range of 1 to 5,000 μm; therefore the portion of the passage at the opening of a chamber 420 must also be between the size of 1 to 5,000 μm – paragraph 134).
The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected width or diameter 1 to 5,000 μm in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s addition arguments with respect to the 102/103 rejections of the claims have been considered, and a new prior art rejection has been made in order to address the amended claim language.
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 TINGCHEN SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at 5712727129. 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.
/T.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796