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 .
Detailed Action
Summary
This is the Non-Final Office Action based on application 17/624793 RCE filed 02/24/2026.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claims 16-30 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-15 have been elected, examined, and fully considered.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/24/2026 has been entered.
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 1-6 & 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by BAROUD in US 20170252744 in view of CRUINAIRE in US 20110151573.
With respect to Claim 1, BAROUD teaches of a microfluidic device having a microfluidic channel, which a trap 12 is formed in. Micro-drops are confined in the channel containing trap 12 (paragraph 0092-0093). BAROUD further teaches that the trap can be a capillary trap, in which microdroplets are trapped in and are portion of the oil which surround them is gelled, which facilitates sorting by enhancing the strength of trapping of the microdroplets in the traps (paragraph 0012) and of at least partially gelling the trapped microdrops (abstract).
Further- gelling makes it possible to prevent the microdroplets of interest being lost (paragraph 0012).
BAROUD does not teach of the gel being a sol-gel matrix.
Further-though process steps are not limiting in device claims--- since sol gel is a particular material with particular properties, in case the properties/obtaining of the claim material by the claimed process for the claimed sol-gel product is not clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, CRUNAIRE is used to remedy this.
CRUNAIRE teaches of millifluidic device including a sol-gel, and a method of using it to trap monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (abstract).
CRUNAIRE further teaches that the device has a block of sol-gel material inserted in the millifluidic system (paragraph 0107). The millifluidic system is within a microfluidic system, and the fluid flows through a circuit 1 through a narrowing 3, wherein the narrowing at 3 is 1mm. The sol-gel is installed just before the narrowing 3 at 4 (paragraph 0153 and Figure 2 below).
Because of the size of the narrowing at 3 on Figure 2 of 1 mm, and the fact that CRUINAIRE teaches that the narrowing of the circuit, “allows for good maintenance of the sol-gel disk,” at this narrowing it can be considered a trap, and also can be considered a capillary trap as it uses capillary forces of fluid flow through small channel to prevent or “trap,” monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (which can be considered microdrops) which are found in fluids/gas (abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
168
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
More specifically with respect to the claimed process of obtaining the sol-gel, CRUINAIRE further teaches that the sol-gel material is a material obtained via a sol-gel process that consists in using as precursors alkoxides of formula M(OR).sub.n in which M is a metal, especially silicon, and R is an alkyl group, and in hydrolyzing them. In the presence of water, the hydrolysis of the alkoxy groups (OR) takes place, forming small particles generally less than 1 nanometer in size. These particles aggregate and form lumps that remain in suspension without precipitating, and form a sol. Increasing the lumps increases the viscosity of the medium which gels. A sol-gel material is obtained by drying the gel, by removing the solvent from the polymer network formed (paragraph 0032). Therefore, microdrop/nandrop (nanodrops are also considered microdrops) are included in the sol-gel through broadest reasonable interpretation. And further—the microdrop (or nanodrop)/sol gel combination is trapped in a capillary trap as shown above through broadest reasonable interpretation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to make the sol-gel ( or that the sol-gel is made) and trap compounds/droplets as is done by the process in CRUINAIRE in the method of BAROUD due to the advantage forming sol-gels this way offers in forming a polymer network and due the advantageous properties sol-gel materials that are formed this way have for trapping a large variety of solvents and hydrocarbons (droplets) and due to other advantageous properties such as being UV-transparent (CRUINAIRE, paragraph 0032 & 0056-0057).
With respect to Claim to Claim 2, BAROUD teaches of trapping microdroplets--- each and a plurality of microdroplets in traps which can be capillary traps and then gelling and that the traps where the microdrops reside are “spaced apart,” from each other (paragraph 0012, Figure 2). See CRUINAIRE for the teaching of a sol-gel as instantly claimed, and Claim 1 rejection.
PNG
media_image2.png
250
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 3, BAROUD teaches that the microdrops are trapped in multiple traps and specifically that microdrops are trapped in 22 places in Figure 2 (Figure 2 & paragraph 0061). This reads on the instant claiming of “number of capillary traps are greater than or equal to 10.”
With respect to Claim 4, BAROUD teaches that the capillary traps form a cavity in the wall of the microfluidic device (See figure 2--- there is a cavity through broadest reasonable interpretation around each microdroplet where the microdroplet resides).
With respect to Claim 5, BAROUD teaches of a microfluidic device (abstract, paragraph 0001, figure 2) comprising: - at least one capillary trap (paragraph 0012, figure 2 -surface tension traps 12, paragraphs 0034-0042 & 0093-0096), and - at least one microdrop (microdrops 14) (paragraphs 0093-0096) comprising a sol-gel matrix (paragraph 0001, 0053 “hydrogel microdrops”—can be considered a sol-gel matrix’), the microdrop (figures 2-14) being trapped in the capillary trap (12).
BAROUD further teaches of the capillary traps (12) forming a cavity in the wall of the microfluidic device-see in particular figures 7 and 9 (and 1-3 & 7-11) & (paragraphs 0093-0096) (Particularly Figures 7-9 show the claimed size dimensions for Claim 5).
BAROUD further teaches of the trap shown in Figure 9, having a size for which the hear h of the channel and p of the additional trap corresponding to the distance between the wall in which the cavity is formed and the opposite wall at the edge of the capillary trap, is less than or equal to the smallest dimension of the or or each trapped microdrop (including sol gel taught by CRUINIARE) (see figures 7 &9).
PNG
media_image3.png
178
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
186
154
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 6, BAROUD teaches of the gel as shown above, but does not teach of the specific claimed process of formation for forming a sol-gel of it.
CRUINAIRE is used to remedy this and teaches that the sol-gel material is a material obtained via a sol-gel process that consists in using as precursors alkoxides of formula M(OR).sub.n in which M is a metal, especially silicon, and R is an alkyl group, and in hydrolyzing them. In the presence of water, the hydrolysis of the alkoxy groups (OR) takes place, forming small particles generally less than 1 nanometer in size. These particles aggregate and form lumps that remain in suspension without precipitating, and form a sol. Increasing the lumps increases the viscosity of the medium which gels. A sol-gel material is obtained by drying the gel, by removing the solvent from the polymer network formed (paragraph 0032). See reason for combination from Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 7, BAROUD teaches of a microfluidic device (abstract, paragraph 0001, figure 2) comprising: - at least one capillary trap (paragraph 0012, figure 2 -surface tension traps 12, paragraphs 0034-0042 & 0093-0096), and - at least one/just one microdrop (microdrops 14) (paragraphs 0093-0096) comprising a sol-gel matrix (paragraph 0001, 0053). Further—only one drop is trapped per capillary trap as shown in Figure 2. BAROUD does not teach of the sol-gel part, however see CRUINAIRE for the teaching of the sol-gel and drop and instantly claimed and reason for combination in Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 8, BAROUD teaches of the system having a plurality of droplets which can be in gel (see Claim 1 rejection and Figure 2). BAROUD does not teach of the sol-gel, but CRUINAIRE is used to remedy this and teaches of the sol-gel as shown above for Claim 1. See reason for combination from Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 9, BAROUD teaches of the system having a plurality of droplets which can be in gel (see Claim 1 rejection and Figure 2). As shown on Figure 2, all of the droplets are “substantially identical,” as is the matrix around them. BAROUD does not teach of the sol-gel, but CRUINAIRE is used to remedy this and teaches of the sol-gel as shown above for Claim 1. See reason for combination from Claim 1.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by BAROUD in US 20170252744 in view of CRUINAIRE in US 20110151573 and further in view of PAOLACCI in US 20080220534.
With respect to Claim 10, BAROUD in view of CRUINAIRE teach of the instant invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the micro-drops also including a molecular sensor for detection of target analyte.
PAOLACCI is used to remedy this. PAOLACCI teaches of a device and method which incorporate sensors in to materials such as sol-gel matrix (abstract). PAOLACCI further teaches of incorporating sol-gels into the sensors (abstract), and even further of using metal oxide sol-gels for trapping aldehydes (paragraph 0028, 0063).
PAOLACCI further teaches of using the sol-gel for incorporation into an optical ( a type of molecular) sensor (paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and one would have had reasonable expectation of success to use a sol-gel as an optical sensor as is done in PAOLACCI in the device of BAROUD, due to it’s advantages in that this kind of device can be exploited for determining environmental aldehydes and enabling pollution control (PAOLACCI, paragraph 0004).
With respect to Claim 11, BAROUD in view of CRUINAIRE teach of the instant invention as shown above for Claim 1 and 10. They do not teach of the micro-drops also including a molecular sensor for detection of target analyte.
PAOLACCI is used to remedy this. PAOLACCI teaches of a device and method which incorporate sensors (abstract). PAOLACCI further teaches of incorporating sol-gels into the sensors (abstract), and even further of using metal oxide sol-gels for trapping aldehydes (paragraph 0028, 0063).
PAOLACCI further teaches of using the sol-gel for incorporation into an optical sensor (paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and one would have had reasonable expectation of success to use a sol-gel as an optical sensor as is done in PAOLACCI in the device of BAROUD, due to it’s advantages in that this kind of device can be exploited for determining environmental aldehydes and enabling pollution control (PAOLACCI, paragraph 0004).
With respect to Claims 12-15, BAROUD in view of CRUINAIRE teach of the instant invention as shown above for Claim 1 and 10. They do not teach of the micro-drops also including a molecular sensor for detection of target analyte. They do not call that out multiple sensors though- PAOLACCI is used to remedy this.
PAOLACCI further teaches of using the sol-gel for incorporation into an optical sensor (paragraph 0004) or a plurality of sensors (paragraph 0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and one would have had reasonable expectation of success to use a sol-gel as a sensor/s as is done in PAOLACCI, due to it’s advantages in that this kind of device can be exploited for determining environmental aldehydes and enabling pollution control (PAOLACCI, paragraph 0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, applicant focuses their arguments on the GUAN reference, which is no longer relied upon in the rejections above, due to amendments made 02/24/2026.
Applicant also argues about the CRUNAIRE reference, however this is only used as a secondary reference as shown above.
With respect to the CRUNAIRE reference, applicant argues that the sol-gel process in CRUNAIRE reference is made ex situ, as opposed to the one from claim 1, which is made in situ in the capillary traps. The examiner disagrees with this, and notes that there is nothing in Claim 1 which requires the sol-gel process to be performed in the capillary traps. All that is actually claimed is that the microdrop includes a sol-gel matrix, and that it is trapped in the capillary trap. Further- no process is claimed nor would it be limiting for Claim 1, which is a device and not a method claim. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
With respect to this—the examiner notes that instant withdrawn claims 16-30 are in fact drawn towards a process, however these claims were not elected and are therefore not examined even though applicant has amended them to be dependent on Claim 1 as a restriction (which was already made) would still apply and election has already been made. Claims 16-30 have not been examined, since are withdrawn, however it is further noted that even these claims do not require in situ formation of the sol-gel, nor does it really claim any positive method steps other than one trapping and one formation step.
Further with respect to CRUNAIRE, applicant argues that that the manipulation of liquids in CRUNAIRE is in the milliliter world while the claims are directed to micro world. With respect to this, the examiner notes that the BAROUD reference teaches of microdrops (abstract), and that a 103 rejection was made.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Even further, applicant argues that the CRUNAIRE reference that the sol-gel matrix is a sol-gel block to trap other components and therefore does not trap microdrops of sol-gel matrix like in claim 1, and even further that CRUNAIRE’s teaching of a trap cannot be a capillary trap. With respect to this, again the examiner notes that 103 rejection is made and BAROUD teaches of trapping micro drops in a capillary trap as claimed, wherein the microdrops can be a gel. Therefore, the combination of references as shown in the rejection above reads on the instant claims, and CRUNAIRE is not relied on for the teachings argued here.
All claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GUAN in Intact- protein trapping columns for proteomic analysis in capillary high-performance liquid chromatography and further in view
GUAN teaches of columns for proteomic analysis in capillary high-performance liquid chromatography (title).
GUAN teaches of a channel, which is the 260/75 um capillary on Figure 1, which has a trapping column on it’s end, which is a 5 mm x 320 um column (See Figure 1). GUAN further teaches that both the trapping column and the capillary column are inserted into a 3 cm by 500 um sleeve (Page 6877, 2.4, paragraph 1).
GUAN teaches that the capillary is packed with C8 bonded particles/beads/droplets using a flow pump. Then, a thin-layer sol-gel coating method is performed, which includes flushing the capillary column with a sol solution which first results in gel coating of the particles in the capillary column, which is then dried in an oven (Page 6876, 2.3 & Page 6877 column 1, paragraph 1). Specifically, GUAN teaches of the particles being coated completely by a sol- gel (reads on the claimed “sol-gel matrix,”) and wherein there the particles/micro-drops are trapped in the capillary trap (Page 6877, column 2, 3.2, paragraph 3, lines 2-9).
GUAN teaches that the capillary/capillary trapping column is within an HPLC device equipped with an analytical column (see Figure 2), and the overall device can be considered to be the claimed microfluidic device (Page 6866, column 1, last paragraph).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
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 on 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.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights