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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 7/9/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 and 19-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the non-final Office Action mailed 5/4/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2014/0174994, hereinafter Bemate.
Regarding claim 1, Bemate teaches a microfluidic device (figure 7), comprising a body structure (item 102) having a droplet compression chamber (item 104) that is structured to at least partially and simultaneously contain a plurality of droplets (paragraph [0108]), at least one sieve structure (item 105) in fluid communication with the droplet compression chamber (figure 7), which sieve structure comprises an array of protrusions (item 105) that extend from at least one surface of the body structure and define at least a portion of one or more fluidic circuits (figures 5 and 7), and at least one port (item 101) at least partially disposed in the body structure (figure 7), which port is in fluid communication with the droplet compression chamber and/or the fluidic circuits (figure 7), wherein the droplet compression chamber and sieve structure compress and selectively immobilize the plurality of droplets and permit selective removal of carrier fluid from the droplet compression chamber through the fluidic circuits (item 104 would be capable of compressing and selectively immobilizes droplets, paragraphs [0069]-[0070]), when the plurality of droplets are disposed in the droplet chamber and positioned substantially above the fluidic circuits proximal to the array of protrusions (figure 8), wherein the droplet compression chamber has a ceiling having a height less than a spherical height of the droplets such that the droplets are compressed between the ceiling and the sieve structure (functional limitation MPEP § 2114, the spherical droplet is not positively recited in the claim and therefore the size of the spherical droplet could be large enough that it would be compressed between the ceiling sieve structure, thereby achieving the specified height).
Regarding claim 2, Bemate teaches wherein the body structure comprises a first layer (the layer where item 102 is) defining at least the portion of the droplet compression chamber that is structured to at least partially and simultaneously contain the plurality of droplets (figure 7), and a second layer (the protrusions as seen in figure 5) operably connected to the first layer (figure 5), which second layer comprises the at least one sieve structure in fluid communication with the droplet compression chamber (figures 5 and 7), wherein the at least one port is at least partially disposed in the first and/or second layer (figure 7).
Regarding claim 3, Bemate teaches comprising one or more gaps (item 110) within and/or proximal to the array of protrusions, which gaps substantially lack protrusions (figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, Bemate teaches comprising the plurality of droplets (paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claim 5, Bemate teaches wherein the plurality of droplets comprises a partitioned sample (paragraphs [0108] and [0115]).
Regarding claim 6, Bemate teaches wherein the sample comprises one or more cells and/or biomolecules (paragraphs [0108] and [0115]).
Regarding claim 7, Bemate teaches wherein at least a portion of one or more of the protrusions comprise at least one cross-sectional shape selected from the group consisting of: a square, a rectangle (figures 5 and 7), an oval, a trapezoid, a circle, an irregular n-sided polygon, and a regular n-sided polygon.
Regarding claim 8, Bemate teaches wherein the droplet compression chamber is structured to at least partially and simultaneously contain the plurality of droplets at a density of at least about 110,000 droplets per square inch of at least one surface of the droplet compression chamber (functional limitations MPEP § 2114 and item 104 would be able to hold droplets at a density of about 110,000 droplets per square inch depending upon the size of the droplets).
Regarding claim 9, Bemate teaches comprising a second port (item 103) at least partially disposed in the body structure (figure 7) and in fluid communication with the droplet compression chamber and/or the fluidic circuits (figure 7), wherein at least a first port (item 101) is configured to flow droplets into the droplet compression chamber (figure 7) and at least a second port (item 103) is configured to flow carrier fluid out of the droplet compression chamber through the fluidic circuits (figure 7).
Regarding claim 10, Bemate teaches a kit comprising the microfluidic device of claim 1 (see supra).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Bemate does not disclose or suggest a droplet compression chamber having a celling height of reduced height that compresses the droplets, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, droplet is not positively recited and therefore the size and the shape of the droplet is not positively recited either. As such, the height of the droplet compression chamber would be able to have a height which is less than a spherical height of the droplet depending upon the size of the droplet. A droplet which is large enough would be able to be present in the device such that the spherical height of the droplet would be smaller than the ceiling height of the compression chamber.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the droplets are restricted to the upper compartment above the posts while the carrier phase fluid … flow below the droplets, through the bottoms around the posts and exit via the outlet) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant’s argument that anticipation requires that the prior art reference much teach each and every limitation of the claim, explicitly or inherently, with the elements arranged as in the claims and that Bermate’s structure lacks the compression ceiling and the resulting surface-tension-based immobilization above a pseudo-sieve floor is not persuasive. As described above these limitations are regarded as functional/intended use limitations and Bermate would be capable of operating as specified depending upon the size of the water droplets utilized. As such, Bermate anticipates each and every limitation of the claim, explicitly or inherently, with the elements arranged as in the claims.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 2 in that Bermate does not teach the specified layered construction with the sieve in the second layer operably connected as claimed is not found persuasive. As described in the rejection of claim 2 above, the first layer is considered to be the layer where item 102 is and the second layer is the layer where the protrusions are located. These two are the layers described in the claim and are connected as described as well.
In response to applicant's argument that the gaps (item 110) do not serve the same function in a compression chamber context, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Bemate does not teach or suggest this density and that the Examiner’s functional imitation analysis is inapposite because the density is a result of the specific non-obvious structural features is not persuasive. Currently the claim as written does not result in a structural different than the prior art. The device of Bermate would be capable of having the density of droplets specified. The ceiling height and post array gaps would not directly affect the density of droplets present in the device, as it would be possible to put the specified density of droplets in a device without regard to the ceiling height and post array gaps.
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights