Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/919,508

FLUID HANDLING DEVICE AND METHODS

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Oct 17, 2022
Examiner
MONTGOMERY, ANN Y
Art Unit
1678
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
The University Court of the University of Glasgow
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
457 granted / 657 resolved
+9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
681
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 657 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “teach” should be –each--. 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. Claim 6 is 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 6 recites “each/at least one multi-directional valves are 6-way valves.” It is not clear whether the claim requires that each multi-directional valve is a 6-way valve, or whether the claim requires at least one is a 6-way valve. 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. (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) 1-7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20070193375 (hereinafter “Pandori”). Applicant’s claim 1 recites: a fluid handling device comprising: a fluid directing manifold comprising an array of interconnected multi-directional valves, and a plurality of ports in fluid connection with the array, wherein teach multi-directional valve has three or more valve positions; and (b) a controller to set the position of the multi-directional valves, wherein the manifold is configured to provide at least two independent flow paths between a pair of ports within the manifold, and wherein the manifold is configured to provide a flow path between at least two of the three or more valve positions. Pandori discloses the following. Embodiments of the invention are directed to a system for sampling sterile liquids in a pharmaceutical environment. The system can include a nesting station, the nesting station including one or more divert valves, a manifold, disposed partially within the nesting station, the manifold comprising one or more tubes, an input valve, coupled to the manifold, the valve being designed and dimensioned to control the flow of liquid into the manifold, and one or more sampling pouches, each sampling pouch coupled to one of the tubes. Each of the divert valves can be used to selectively control the flow of liquid from the manifold, into the sampling pouches. See abstract. Regarding Applicant’s claim 1, Pandori discloses the claimed limitations as follows. Pandor discloses a fluid handling device comprising: a fluid directing manifold comprising an array of interconnected multi-directional valves, [see para. 13 disclosing the “manifold is designed as a multi-directional flow station”] [see para. 26 disclosing divert valves 350, positioned at, and being a part of, nesting station 300, that selectively control the flow of liquid out of the manifold 200, through tubes 204; thus, liquid samples can be selectively collected in sampling pouches 500] [see fig. 3 disclosing a plurality of valves 350, which Examiner notes is equivalent to an array of multi-directional valves, since there are multiples of the valves in a row, and the manifold is disclosed as a “multi-direction flow station” (para. 26)] and a plurality of ports in fluid connection with the array [Examiner notes that each valve 350 is connected to a plurality of ports, as the valves are used to connect liquids flowing into the manifold 200 and out through tubes 204, which can be collected in sampling pouches 500 (see para. 26)], wherein each multi-directional valve has three or more valve positions [see para. 44 disclosing that nesting station 300 and divert valves 350 can be used in conjunction with a disposable internal element, such as a manifold 200; nesting station 300 and divert valves 350 can provide for multi-directional flow control, with a large number of flow path combinations] [Examiner notes that it is understood that different valve positions are necessary to provide for this large number of flow path combinations] and (b) a controller to set the position of the multi-directional valves, [see para. 26 disclosing clamps; or see para. 29 disclosing levers to compress tube 204; Examiner notes that the clamps, or alternatively the levers, together are equivalent to the claimed controller] wherein the manifold is configured to provide at least two independent flow paths between a pair of ports within the manifold, [Examiner notes that the Pandori manifold provides at least two independent flow paths between ports within the manifold since it can allow for liquid to flow from the manifold [i.e., a port within the manifold through which fluid flows into the manifold (para. 26)] through divert valves 350 and into various sampling pouches 500 (para. 26)] and wherein the manifold is configured to provide a flow path between at least two of the three or more valve positions [see para. 44 disclosing that nesting station 300 and divert valves 350 can be used in conjunction with a disposable internal element, such as a manifold 200; nesting station 300 and divert valves 350 can provide for multi-directional flow control, with a large number of flow path combinations] [Examiner notes that it is understood that different valve positions are necessary to provide for this large number of flow path combinations]. As to claim 2, at least one of the multi-directional valves (350) in the manifold is connected to at least three other multi-directional valves in the manifold (see fig. 3 for example). As to claim 3, the manifold comprises at least four multi-directional valves (350) (see fig. 3). As to claim 4, Applicant recites that the manifold has a partial mesh topology. Applicant’s specification discloses in paragraph 0078 of the specification (of the US PreGrant Publication 20230149882): “In a full mesh topology, each multi-directional valve in the manifold is a directly connected to all other multi-directional valves in the manifold. An example of a manifold with a full mesh topology is shown in FIG. 4. In such case, there are multiple flow paths between each port on the manifold.” The Pandori valve system has a partial mesh topology, as the valves 350 may be used such that some of the valves 350 may be connected to other valves 350 (see para. 44). As to claim 5, Applicant recites that the manifold has a non-hierarchical topology. Applicant’s specification in paragraph 0085 discloses: “Typically, the manifold does not have a hierarchical or tree topology. In a tree topology, a parent valve is connected to one or more child valves, and each child valve may be reclusively connected to one or more grandchild valves. A manifold with a tree topology is shown in FIG. 7.” The Pandori valve system including the manifold has a non-hierarchical topology (see figures 3 and 4). As to claim 6, each or at least one multi-directional valves are 6-way valves. See paragraph 44 disclosing that nesting station 300 and divert valves 350 can be used in conjunction with a disposable internal element, such as a manifold 200n Nesting station 300 and divert valves 350 can provide for multi-directional flow control, with a large number of flow path combinations. As to claim 7, the fluid handling device of claim 1, wherein the flow path through the manifold for a given fluid movement is not predetermined [since it can be changed, thus providing for multiple flow path combinations, see para. 0044]. As to claim 18, Applicant recites: “The fluid handling device of claim 1, which is a component of an automated chemical synthesis platform.” Examiner notes that the automated chemical synthesis platform is not claimed and is not a required component of the claimed invention of the fluid handling device. Rather, claim 18 is interpreted to mean that the fluid handling device is capable of being a component of an automated chemical synthesis platform. The Pandori fluid handling device is capable of being such a component, since it is capable of being attached to another platform (see for example paragraph 0026 disclosing that the fluid moving through the manifold can be selectively collected in sampling pouches). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ann Montgomery whose telephone number is (571)272-0894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5:30 PM PST. 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, Greg Emch can be reached at 571-272-8149. 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. /Ann Montgomery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1678
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 17, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Dec 22, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Mar 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 17, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 19, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590960
IMMUNOASSAY TEST DEVICE WITH TWO FLUID FLOW PATHS FOR DETECTION AND DIFFERENTIATION OF TWO OR MORE ANALYTES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575772
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR BODILY FLUID COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570947
BUFFER PREPARATION AND TRANSFER SYSTEM FOR ANTIBODY DRUG MANUFACTURING PROCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566183
DETECTION OF BIOMARKERS ON VESICLES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND PROGNOSIS OF DISEASES AND DISORDERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560598
CARTRIDGE-BASED AUTOMATED RAPID TEST ANALYZER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+26.5%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 657 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month