DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the apparatus claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 14, 17 and 19 made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/17/2025, has been acknowledged. The method claims 21-25, 29, 32, 34-36, 38, 39, 43, 46, 48, 52 and 53 have been canceled by the applicants as being drawn to the non-elected inventions.
Claim Objections
. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 14, 17 and 19 are objected to as being in improper format. In particular, while the claims recite many structural elements, no line indentations are provided in the text, which creates additional difficulties for proper understanding of the claimed invention. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate sub-combinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p). Correction is required.
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, 2, 5-7, 11, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear from the claim language how the sizes of the microgrooves or microtubes can be defined relative to a microorganism [i.e., cell] or a group of microorganisms, whose sizes are not defined by the claim language [see also claim 11]. It is further unclear from the claim language what structural features must define the chambers as part of the microtubes or microgrooves. Further, in the ‘wherein’ clauses, ‘the microgroove or microtube’ lacks antecedency. It is further unclear how the ‘constricted’ end must be structurally inter-related with the first and second end(s) recited in the preceding lines. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by analyzing more than one cell as a single cell, as intended. .
In claim 2, the ‘at least one of the diameter of the target cell’ is unclear in the given context.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear how the origin of the target cells can further limit the claimed structure. Also note that the materials and/or articles to be worked upon do not have patentable moment in the claims to apparatus.
In claim 11, the claim language is convoluted and very unclear. It is further unclear whether or not the recitations of the first and second ‘planes’ imply that the substrate must be planar, or flat. It is also unclear how the first and second ‘planes’ must be structurally inter-related with the surfaces of the substrate. Additionally, ‘height depth of the microgroove’ lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 14, it is not clear what structural features must provide for the intended functionality as recited.
In claim 17, it is unclear from the claim language what is meant by a pillar gap and how it must be structurally inter-related to the components set forth in claim 1, as well as what structural features must adjust it for the intended functions as recited.
Note that it is applicants’ responsibility to locate and correct all instances of the raised issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blankenstein et al., [US 20050026346].
With respect to claims 1-2, 5 , 11, 14 and 19, Blankenstein discloses a microfluidic device comprising, as shown in Figures 3, 4, 6, substrate 1; at least one microgroove or microtube with chamber 4 and at least two narrowing [‘constricted’ ends; micro-structured protrusions B, D [‘ micropillars’] that bifurcate a fluid flow; fluid input 3, 3a, 3b, disposed within the substrate in fluid communication with the first end of the one or more microgrooves or microtube; and fluid output 5, 5a, 5b, disposed within the substrate in fluid communication with the second end of the one or more microgrooves or microtube, capable to function as recited. Regarding claim 6, Blankenstein describes an optical scanner [‘imaging device’] in paragraph [0067]. Regarding claim 7, the substrate can be made of glass [see paragraph [0016]]. Regarding claim 17, pillar gaps between protruding sub-structures B or D, are clearly capable to function as recited. As to claim 19, the inlet and the outlet include, as shown in Figures 3-4, respective ports 3b, 5b, and respective reservoirs or sites 3, 3a and 5, 5a. It is further emphasized that the features not positively recited as part of the claimed invention [such as the ‘pillar gap, or the cell(s), , including all associated details, are not accorded patentable weight when evaluated for patentability.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, as well as any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention. Therefore, the first and second ‘planes’, the ‘height depth of the microgroove’, the site for aspiration’, the ‘exchange/feeding port’, the ‘fluid reservoirs’, the ‘chamber(s)’, the ‘imaging device(s)’, as well as the ‘micropillar(s), configured as recited, must be clearly shown and properly referenced as such, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Additionally, many drawings, like Figures 2 A-D, 6 A-B, 7 or 10-A, fail to clearly chow the boundaries of the recited components and/or reference any of the components shown.. Formal drawings for at least Figures 2 A-D, 6 A-B, 7 and 10-A, are requested. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Natalia Levkovich whose telephone number is (571)272-2462. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 2.00 pm-10:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jill A Warden can be reached on 571-272-1267. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATALIA LEVKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798