DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. 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 2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IV in the reply filed on 02 February 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant amended claims 19-26 and states that these claims now depend from independent claim 27 on ¶ 3 of their remarks, however claims 19-26 are only drawn to the oligonucleotide-conjugated bead of claim 27 and do not incorporate or require all of the limitations of independent claim 27. Therefore, the technical feature linking claims 19-26 and Group IV (claims 27-38) is only the oligonucleotide bead of claim 27, and this feature is not a special technical feature as demonstrated in the restriction requirement filed 01 December 2025. Claims 19-26 are not rejoined, and this restriction requirement is made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 4. Claims 27-38 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. A. Claim 27 recites “a plurality of oligonucleotide complexes conjugated to the bead, wherein each oligonucleotide complex comprises… a plurality of unique molecule identifiers; and a plurality of capture sequences…” As written, this claim seems to require that each oligonucleotide complex on the bead comprises more than one unique molecular identifier and more than one capture sequence. It is unclear if this is the intended interpretation, because applicant’s specification states that “in one embodiment, the bead is conjugated with a plurality of the same oligonucleotide” compared to “for example, it may be desirable for each oligonucleotide among a plurality of oligonucleotides to have a different unique molecule identifier,” i.e., the difference between each oligonucleotide on the bead having a different UMI (a plurality of UMIs) vs. each individual oligonucleotide itself having a plurality of UMIs as is currently claimed. Similarly, applicant’s specification states that “in some embodiments, the plurality of capture sequences conjugated to a single bead comprise more than one sequence per bead,” i.e., does the plurality of oligonucleotide complexes conjugated to the bead comprise a plurality of different capture sequences or does each oligonucleotide complex comprise a plurality of capture sequences as is currently claimed. Additionally, the later interpretation is unclear because the capture sequence as described by the applicant is at the 3' end in order to reverse transcribe RNA captured by the capture sequence, since there is only one 3' end of the oligonucleotide it is unclear how there could be a plurality of productive capture sequences on each oligonucleotide complex. See applicant’s specification ¶ 88 and ¶ 43. For the purpose of prosecution these phrases are being interpreted as described in applicant’s specification ¶ 88, such that each oligonucleotide conjugated to the bead has a different unique molecular identifier and that there is more than one capture sequence per bead but each oligonucleotide conjugated to the bead only has one of these capture sequences (see applicant’s drawings, FIG. 4 as well). Additionally, this claim recites the phrase “wherein a plurality of the wells comprises one of the oligonucleotide-conjugated beads.” It is unclear based on the language of the claim and the applicant’s specification how a plurality of wells comprises one bead (i.e., a single bead), since one bead cannot be in a plurality of wells at the same time. For these reasons, this claim lacks clarity and is therefore indefinite. B. Any claim not specifically discussed in this section is rejected for being dependent on a previously rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 5. 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. 6. Claims 27-32, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Soumillon et al (International Patent Application No. WO2018064640, published 05 April 2018) . Regarding claim 27, Soumillon teaches a solid support detection system comprising a solid support and a plurality of pens (i.e., wells; [00123] and FIG. 1A), a plurality of oligonucleotide-conjugated beads with each bead comprising a bead and a plurality of oligonucleotide complexes conjugated to the bead (FIG. 6 and [00117]). Soumillon teaches that each oligonucleotide complex comprises a primer sequence ([00117]), an optically readable well-identifying barcode comprising (i.e., the barcode is optically readable by the hybridization of fluorescently labeled complementary probes; 3 or more cassetable barcode sequence [00147], hybridization probes [00149], and FIG. 5). Soumillon teaches that each capture probe on a capture object has a different unique molecular identifier (UMI) from other capture probes on the capture object (i.e., a plurality of UMIs; [00139]). Soumillon teaches that the capture sequence on the capture oligonucleotide is a random hexamer (i.e., there is more than one distinct capture sequence on oligonucleotides conjugated to the same bead; [00134]). It is reiterated here that “a plurality of unique molecular identifiers” and “a plurality of capture sequences” is being interpreted as described above in ‘claim rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112. Soumillon teaches a plurality of wells each comprising one oligonucleotide bead ([00123]). It is noted that claim 27, as written, only requires that the nucleotide sequences in the optically readable well-identifying barcode are complementary to a second plurality of nucleotide sequences comprising at least 3 distinct fluorescent labels. This wording reads as an intended use of the optically readable well-identifying barcode and nature of the “second plurality of nucleotide sequences” (i.e., comprising at least 3 distinct fluorescent labels) does not limit the claims as written, therefore Soumillon anticipates claim 27. Regarding claim 28, Soumillon teaches that the location of each cell barcode is identified and recorded (i.e., mapped; [00498]). Regarding claim 29, Soumillon teaches a cell in a well comprising one of the oligonucleotide-conjugated beads ([0007]). Regarding claim 30, Soumillon teaches that the cell is a T cell ([00234] and [00457]). Regarding claim 31, Soumillon teaches T cells stained with antigen (i.e., an interacting molecular component) in individual wells ([00459]). Regarding claim 32, Soumillon teaches that the biological cell in the well is a macrophage (i.e., an antigen presenting cell; [0084], [00234], [00261]). In this embodiment there is a cell in the wells containing one of the oligonucleotide-conjugated beads, the cell is an antigen presenting cell, and the cell is an interacting molecular component (i.e., the cell interacts with the oligonucleotide-conjugated bead). Regarding claim 34, Soumillon teaches performing a protein expression assay (i.e., a functional assay) on a biological cell and observing a detectable signal generated during said assay (FIG. 4B, [00580] and [00581]). Regarding claim 35, Soumillon teaches that the biological micro-object (i.e., the cell) is lysed using a lysing reagent (i.e., a cell lysing agent) in the well ([00637]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7. 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. 8. Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soumillon et al (International Patent Application No. WO2018064640, published 05 April 2018) in view of Correa et al (Evaluation of antigen-conjugated fluorescent beads to identify antigen-specific B cells, Frontiers in Immunology, 9, 493, 1-17, published 23 March 2018) . Regarding claim 33, the method of claim 31 is discussed fully above and incorporated here. Soumillon further teaches that each pen (i.e., well) comprises a plurality of micro-objects ([00365]) and that micro-objects are antigen coated beads (beads with covalently attached antigens; [0083]) or B cells ([00372]), but Soumillon does not specifically teach an embodiment wherein a well comprises a cell and an antigen-coated bead with the capture object (i.e., the oligonucleotide-conjugated bead). However, Correa teaches an assay for the identification of antigen-specific monoclonal antibodies wherein antigen-coated beads are mixed with B-cells and then sequenced to identify variable regions (FIGURE 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method taught by Soumillon such that antigen-coated beads were sequestered with B-cells as taught by Correa to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make this combination because Soumillon specifically teaches that all of the claimed components can be used in their nanopen array and Correa teaches assays related to these components. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the monitoring of cellular assays by sequencing techniques. 9. Claim s 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soumillon et al (International Patent Application No. WO2018064640, published 05 April 2018) in view of Love et al (United States Patent Application No. US20190218607, published 18 July 2019). Regarding claims 36-38, the methods of claims 27 and 29 are discussed fully above and incorporated here. Soumillon teaches a microfluidic substrate wherein cells and oligonucleotide-conjugated beads are co-partitioned within individual pens (i.e., wells). Soumillon does not teach a gasket that divides the plurality of wells into separated areas nor do they teach a solid support comprising more than 100,000 wells. However, Love teaches a solid support detection system wherein a gasket is used to separate the wells into 6 separate areas (FIG. 18 and [0395]) and that such solid supports comprise 10,000-1,000,000 wells ([0003]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the microfluidic substrate taught by Soumillon with the seq-well substrate taught by Love to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make this substitution because the substrate taught by Soumillon only teaches up to a maximum of 20,000 pens ([00377]) and the device taught by Love would allow for the analysis of many more single cell samples per experiment. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictably results because the known techniques in the cited reference predictably result in the co-partitioning of cells with barcoded beads in reaction wells as a precursor to single-cell library preparation and sequencing. Double Patenting 10. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . 11. Claims 27-32 and 34-35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-26 of copending Application No. 19/028,385 in view of Soumillon et al (International Patent application No. WO2018064640, published 05 April 2018). Claim 19 of the copending application teaches all the limitations of instant claim 27 except the limitations wherein the oligonucleotide-conjugated bead comprises a plurality of unique molecular identifiers and a plurality of capture sequences. However, Soumillon teaches these limitations as discussed fully above and incorporated here. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the capture object in the copending claims with the plurality of unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) and the plurality of capture sequences taught by Soumillon to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications in order to label each captured nucleic acid with a distinct UMI to provide additional data after sequencing (e.g., molecular counting data) and the plurality of capture sequences (such as the random hexamers taught by Soumillon ) would allow for the improved analysis of RNA sequences outside of just the 3' end region. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the sequestration of capture beads in regions within a microfluidic device. The limitations of claims 28 and 29 of the instant application are taught by claims 19 and 24 of the copending application. The limitations of claims 30-32, 34 and 35 are by claim 19 of the copending application in view of Soumillon . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim 33 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-26 of copending Application No. 19/028,385 in view of Soumillon et al (international Patent Application No. WO2018064640, published 05 April 2018) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Correa et al (Evaluation of antigen-conjugated fluorescent beads to identify antigen-specific B cells, Frontiers in Immunology, 9, 493, 1-17, published 23 March 2018). Neither the copending application nor Soumillon teach the limitations of claim 33. However, Correa teaches these limitations as discussed fully above and incorporated here. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the copending claims in view of the methods taught by Soumillon such that antigen-coated beads were sequestered with B-cells as taught by Correa to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make this combination because Soumillon specifically teaches that all of the claimed components can be used in their nanopen array and Correa teaches assays related to these components. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the monitoring of cellular assays by sequencing techniques. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 36-38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-26 of copending Application No. 19/028,385 in view of Soumillon et al (International Patent Application No. WO2018064640, published 05 April 2018) as applied to claims 27 and 29 above, and further in view of Love et al (United States Patent Application No. US20190218607, published 18 July 2019). Neither the copending application nor Soumillon teach the limitations of claims 35-38. However, Love teaches these limitations as discussed fully above and incorporated here. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the microfluidic substrate taught by the copending application in view of Soumillon with the seq-well substrate taught by Love to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make this substitution because the substrate taught by Soumillon only teaches up to a maximum of 20,000 pens ([00377]) and the device taught by Love would allow for the analysis of many more single cell samples per experiment. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictably results because the known techniques in the cited reference predictably result in the co-partitioning of cells with barcoded beads in reaction wells as a precursor to single-cell library preparation and sequencing. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion 12. No claims are allowed. 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN ELLIS YOUNG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5397 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 0730 - 1700 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Heather Calamita can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /BRIAN ELLIS YOUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1684 /JULIET C SWITZER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682