DETAILED ACTION
CONTINUED EXAMINATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.114 AFTER FINAL REJECTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 of RCE filed on August 21, 2026 and the amendment filed on July 15, 2026 have been entered. The claims pending in this application are claims 1-3, 5, 7, 13-15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 37, and 45. The objections and rejections not reiterated from the previous office action are hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments filed on July 15, 2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 13-15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 37, and 45 will be examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: “permeabilizing the biological sample” should be “permeabilizing cells of the biological sample”.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informality: the phrase “or the second three-dimensional polymerized matrix” should be deleted.
Appropriate 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 1-3, 5, 7, 13-15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 37, and 45 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.
Claim 1 is rejected as vague and indefinite in view of step (c). Since step (d) requires delivering a second hydrogel monomer or subunit to the first three-dimensional polymerized matrix comprising the biological sample embedded therein and immobilized on the second substrate, step (c) does not make sense. Does step (c) mean “immobilizing the first three-dimensional polymerized matrix comprising the biological sample embedded therein on the first substrate to a second substrate”? Furthermore, the phrase “forming a second three-dimensional polymerized matrix from the second hydrogel monomer or subunit” in step (e) does not make sense. Does this phrase mean forming a second three-dimensional polymerized matrix comprising the biological sample by polymerizing the second hydrogel monomer or subunit on the first three-dimensional polymerized matrix”? Please clarify.
Claim 7 is rejected as vague and indefinite. Since the biological sample is embedded in the first three-dimensional polymerized matrix, it is unclear why the biological sample embedded in the first three-dimensional polymerized matrix can be directly detached from the first substrate. Please clarify.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the molecules” in last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no word “molecules” in claim 1. Please clarify.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 13-15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 37, and 45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
An examiner’s amendment was sent to applicant on July 21, 2026. However, there was no agreement to be reached. Applicant is encouraged to call the examiner to solve the issues in this office action.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Lu, Ph. D., whose telephone number is (571)272-0746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Anne Gussow, Ph.D., can be reached at 571-272-6047. 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.
/FRANK W LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683
September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights