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 Amendment
The Amendment filed on 10/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-14 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111440719 A, hereinafter Ma in view of CN 109261234A, hereinafter Gao.
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches an integrated microfluidic chip (figures 1 and 2), comprising: a base (page 2, paragraphs 9-10, micro-flow control channel layer), comprising a front side and a back side set opposite to each other (the two sizes of the micro-flow control channel layer); an inlet flow channel and an outlet flow channel (labeled in figure below), both buried in the base and spaced apart (see figure below); a plurality of common flow channels (labeled in figure below), buried in the base and spaced apart (see figure below), wherein each of the common flow channels has two ends connected to the inlet flow channel and the outlet flow channel, respectively (see figure below); and a plurality of functional units (see below), wherein each of the functional units comprises a single-cell introduction port (the opening between the bottom of item 10 and item 3), a cell culturing-screening chamber (item 10), a cell export chamber (the channel where item 71 is), a cell export port (item 71), and a drive element (each square of item 3), wherein the single-cell introduction port is provided on the front side of the base and connected to a first common flow channel of the common flow channels (see figure below), wherein the cell culturing-screening chamber and the cell export chamber are both buried in the base (see figure below), and both ends of the cell culturing-screening chamber are connected to the common flow channel and the cell export chamber (see figure below), respectively, wherein the cell export port is provided at the back side of the base and is connected to the cell export chamber (see figure below), wherein the projections of the drive element and the cell export port overlap on a plane parallel to the base (one of the electrodes of item 3 is where item 71 is and they would overlap with each other), wherein the drive element is used to provide power to liquid for introducing single cells entering the common flow channel into the cell culturing-screening chamber and, after culturing and screening, to export target cell population in the cell culturing-screening chamber through the cell export port (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)).
Ma fails to teach the drive element is located at an inner surface of the cell export chamber away from the back side of the base and the drive element comprises a heating film.
Gao teaches a device for moving particles in which a substrate is utilized with the electrode layer on the top of the substrate and the liquid layer on the top of the electrode layer (Gao, page 4, paragraph 2) and a heating film is used in addition to a dielectric layer as it can improve the drop moving speed and improves the experiment efficiency (Gao, page 4, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the drive element located at an inner surface of the liquid layer away from the back side of the base and added a heating film to the device of Ma because it would improve the drop moving speed and improves the experiment efficiency (Gao, page 4, paragraph 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
778
1284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ma teaches wherein the inlet flow channel extends in a direction parallel to a direction in which the outlet flow channel extends (see figure above).
Regarding claim 3, Ma teaches wherein the common flow channels extend in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the inlet flow channel extends (see figure above).
Regarding claim 5, Ma teaches wherein a width of the cell culturing-screening chamber is greater than a width of the cell export chamber (see figure above), wherein the two widths are in a direction perpendicular to the direction pointing from the cell culturing-screening chamber towards the cell export chamber (see figure above).
Regarding claim 6, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Ma and the apparatus of Ma is capable of receiving cells from a single-cell printing chip. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Ma (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 7, the single-cell printing chip is not positively claimed and therefore any limitation on the single-cell printing chip has minimal patentable weight (MPEP § 2115). The claim is therefore taught by Ma.
Regarding claim 9, Ma discloses the claimed invention except for the number of functional units is between 10 to 10,000. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add additional functional units so that it is between 10 to 10,000, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma and Gao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2012/0169863, hereinafter Bachelet.
Regarding claim 4, Ma and Gao teach all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the thickness of the cell culturing-screening chamber.
Bachelet teaches a device where the channel height is designed to have a height that only permits a single layer of cells to fill the channel height thereby presenting a monolayer of cells (Bachelet, paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the thickness of the cell culturing-screening chamber so that it only permits a single layer of cells because it would present the cells in a monolayer (Bachelet, paragraph [0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the channel labeled “outlet flow channel” in the figure above should not be regarded as an outlet flow channel, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The labeled channel in Ma is able to function as an outlet flow channel as the channel is on the electrode driving structure and this structure would be capable of driving the droplets in the direction to use that channel as an outlet. Further, Ma discloses item 1 as the liquid drop generating region, which would therefore mean that this is where a droplet would start out and as item 71 is called a first cell liquid outlet would mean that the cells would flow in that direction. As such, Ma teaches the labeled channel as functioning as an outlet.
In response to applicant's argument that Ma does not disclose a chamber specifically designed for cell export, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ma calls item 71 as a first cell liquid outlet and the space directly above this outlet and the outlet itself is considered to be a chamber and this chamber can be used for cell export. The claim does not make the chamber to be specifically designed for cell export, but rather the chamber needs to be capable of being used for cell export. The common channel is not being utilized for the chamber for cell export and as seen in the figure above, the common channel and the cell export chamber are two different structures.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the electrodes in the electrode layer of Ma are arranged outside the micro-flow control channel layer is not found persuasive. Ma is not being utilized for this teaching, but rather the reference of Gao is being utilized for this teaching.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the application does not require individually controlling each of multiple electrodes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the device provides a rapid cell transport speed is added for a different reason, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP § 2145 (II).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Gao teaches the TFT array layer is located outside the liquid layer and therefore fails to teach the relative positions claimed is not found persuasive. The claim only states that the drive element is located at an inner surface of the cell export chamber. With the TFT array layer being next to the liquid layer, it is interpreted that the drive element is located at an inner surface of the cell export chamber. The drive element being located at does not mean that the drive element is inside of the channel/chamber, but rather that it is next to the inner surface. As the drive element of Gao is next to the liquid layer, this is interpreted to read on the instant claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the heater (drive unit) creates a thermal bubble nozzle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights