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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 4/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 7, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 17 – 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Breinlinger et al. (US 2016/0158757 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, regarding claim 12, this claim is optionally dependent on claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1. Claim 12 can be interpreted as an independent claim, and is therefore still considered anticipated by Breinlinger et al. (see the following rejection below).
The previous objection of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
The previous rejections of claims 2, 5, 8, 11 – 13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been withdrawn.
The previous rejections of claims 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10, the term “configured” should be inserted before the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the “incision.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, the term “configured” should be inserted before the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the “incision.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the term “configured” should be inserted before the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the “flow chamber.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, the term “configured” should be inserted before the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the “incision.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10, the term “configured” should be inserted before the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the “incision.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 11, the term “configured” should be inserted before the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the “holder.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, the term “configured” should be inserted before the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the “incision.” Appropriate correction is required.
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular sections, columns, line numbers, paragraphs and figures, in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Breinlinger et al. (US 2016/0158757 A1; “Breinlinger”).
Regarding claim 12, Breinlinger teaches an insert (416 and 430) for a microfluidic device (microfluidic device 420) (paragraphs 174 and 175; figures 4A, 4B and 5), the insert comprising: a carrier portion (432) and a frame portion (416) surrounding the carrier portion, the insert comprising an elastomeric material (a self-sealing, pierceable material comprising rubber or polydimethylsiloxane materials; paragraph 241), and wherein the carrier portion is provided with an incision for accommodating a biological specimen (the deformable surface is pierceable to allow introduction and withdraw of fluidic media and sample; paragraphs 234 and 241).
Claim 12, in line 4, further recites that “optionally wherein the insert is further defined in claim 2” (emphasis added). Claim 12 is being interpreted as not requiring this optional limitation, and the prior art therefore meets the limitations of the insert as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 11, 13 – 16, 18 and 20 – 23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the cited prior art neither teaches nor fairly suggests the fluidic device further comprising:
wherein the microporous carrier portion separates the flow chamber in a lower flow chamber region and an upper flow chamber region;
and wherein at least one lower flow channel is fluidly connected to the lower flow chamber region and at least one upper channel is fluidly connected to the upper flow chamber region.
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art does not specifically teach a method for clamping a biological specimen, the method further comprising wherein the microporous carrier portion of the insert is provided with an incision configured for accommodating the biological specimen, and further clamping the biological specimen between adjacent cut ends defined by the incision.
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art does not specifically teach a method of manufacturing an insert for a microfluidic device, the method comprising:
creating an incision within a region of a carrier portion of an insert comprising the carrier portion and a frame portion surrounding the carrier portion, wherein the incision clamps a biological specimen between adjacent cut ends defined by the incision.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN J. SINES whose telephone number is (571)272-1263. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM EST M-F.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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 J. SINES
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/BRIAN J. SINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights