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, see Remarks page 8, filed 12 February 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The rejections of claims 3, 12, and 13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 February 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Wang et al teaches the new limitation of “wherein said second side channel does not comprise any of said array of obstacles and said second array of obstacles.” Please see the detailed rejection under 102, below.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 February 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Wang et al teaches the new limitation of “wherein said second side channel does not comprise any of said array of obstacles and said second array of obstacles” per the rejection of claim 1.
The statistics regarding the one stage vs the two stage device are not convincing as evidence of unexpected result. As the examiner understands the quoted portion of the specification, providing two stages of filtration provided greater filtration efficiency; this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 12 February 2026 have been entered. Applicant's remarks filed 12 February 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 5, 10, 12, and 17 are in status “Currently amended.” Claims 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18 – 22 are in status “Original” or “Previously presented.” Claim 84 is new. Claims 7, 9, 23 – 51, and 53 – 83 are canceled. Claim 52 is withdrawn as due to non-elected subject matter
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 13, 17, 22, and 84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (WO 2019094633 A1, cited on the IDS submitted 13 October 2022).
With regards to claim 1, Wang et al teaches;
The claimed “a substrate” has been read on the taught ([0045], “The body structure may comprise a substrate.”);
The claimed “a fluidic channel disposed in or along said substrate, wherein said fluidic channel comprises a first surface opposing a second surface of said substrate” has been read on the taught ([0045], “The substrate may comprise a fluidic channel disposed therein… The obstacles may comprise obstacles associated with or immobilized on a surface (e.g., bottom, top or side walls) of the microfluidic channel.”);
The claimed “a main channel comprising an inlet; an outlet; a length defining an x-axis direction; a width defining a y-axis direction; a height defining a z-axis direction” has been read on the taught ([0059], “The fluid inlets may be in fluidic communication with the fluidic channel.”; [0060], “The fluid outlets may be in fluidic communication with the fluidic channel.”; [0045], “The obstacles may comprise obstacles associated with or immobilized on a surface (e.g., bottom, top or side walls) of the microfluidic channel.”; The top, bottom, and side walls of the microfluidic channel read on the channel having a length, width, and height.);
The claimed “a first side channel connected to said outlet of said main channel” and “a second side channel connected to said outlet of said main channel” have been read on the taught ([0060], “The fluid outlets may comprise a first fluid outlet and a second fluid outlet.”; Figure 2a shows the two outlets extending into side channels. [0069] details that a device may comprise multiple fluidic channels.);
The claimed “an array of obstacles disposed in said main channel, wherein said array of obstacles extend from said first surface toward said second surface substantially along said z-axis, wherein each obstacle of said array of obstacles comprises a first length along said z-axis, wherein said first length is shorter than said height of said main channel, thereby separating said each obstacle of said array of obstacles from said surface first surface by a first vertical spacing” has been read on the taught ([0046], “The fluidic channel may comprise one or more obstacles disposed therein. The one or more obstacles may be a plurality of obstacles… The obstacles may have an average height that is less than or equal to an average height (or depth) of the microfluidic channel.”; The obstacle having a height that is less than an average height of the microfluidic channel reads on the first length being shorter than the height of the main channel.).
The claimed “a second array of obstacles deposited in said first side channel […] and wherein said second side channel does not comprise any of said array of obstacles and said second array of obstacles” has been read on the taught ([0013], “In some embodiments, the first fluid outlet is configured to receive the one or more target analytes and the second fluid outlet is configured to receive the fluid absent the one or more target analytes. […] In some embodiments, the microfluidic device comprises a plurality of microfluidic channels each comprising a different array of obstacles. In some embodiments, each of the plurality of microfluidic channels is configured to separate a given type of target analytes from a fluid flowing therethrough.”; A second fluid outlet configured to receive the fluid absent one or more target analytes reads on a said second side channel not comprising any of said array of obstacles. A plurality of microfluidic channels comprising a different array of obstacles, and configured to separate a given target analyte reads on a second array of obstacles deposited in said first side channel.);
The claimed “wherein said array of obstacles is angled toward said first side channel” has been read on the taught ([0012], “…wherein the array of obstacles is oriented at an angle greater than 0° relative to a direction of a fluid flow in the fluidic channel; wherein the array of obstacles is configured to separate one or more target analytes from a fluid flowing through the fluidic channel.”).
With regards to claim 2, the device of claim 1 is anticipated by Wang et al.
Wang et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein said array of obstacles comprises at least a first line of obstacles and a second line of obstacles, wherein said first line of obstacles is separated from said second line of obstacles by at least a first distance along said y-axis” has been read on the taught ([0053], “In some cases, the microfluidic channel may comprise one or more sections along a length of the channel… At least one obstacle array may be disposed within each section of the microfluidic channels.”; [0052] teaches about spacing between obstacles. Figure 1a shows lines of obstacles arranged along the y-axis.).
With regards to claim 3, the device of claim 2 is anticipated by Wang et al.
Wang et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein said first distance along said y-axis is at least 10 nanometers (nm), 20 nm, 40 nm, 50 nm, 60 nm, 70 nm, 80 nm, 90 nm, 100 nm, 200 nm, 300 nm, 500 nm, 1 micrometer (µm), 2 µm, 5 µm, 10 µm, 30 µm, 50 µm, or 100 µm” has been read on the taught (Claim 9, “…wherein an average spacing size between obstacles of said array is between about 100 nanometers and 100 micrometers.”).
With regards to claim 4, the device of claim 2 is anticipated by Wang et al.
Wang et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein said first line of obstacles is at an angle of θ1 relative to said x-axis on a plane defined by said x-axis and said y-axis” has been read on the taught ([0051], “ The array of obstacles may be angled relative to a direction of a fluid flow in the microfluidic channel.”).
With regards to claim 17, the device of claim 1 is anticipated by Wang et al.
Wang et al additionally teaches that additional fluidic channels including the features laid out in claim 17 may be included in the microfluidic device—see [0062] and [0069].
With regards to claim 22, the device of claim 1 is anticipated by Wang et al.
Wang et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “a fluidic component in fluidic communication with an outlet of said first side channel or an outlet of said second side channel and said inlet of said main channel” has been read on the taught ([0061], “…the microfluidic devices may comprise an additional fluidic component in fluidic communication with the fluidic channel… The additional fluidic component may be used to remove the target analytes from the microfluidic devices.”).
With regards to claim 84, the device of claim 1 is anticipated by Wang et al.
Wang et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein said second side channel does not comprise any array of obstacles” has been read on the taught ([0013], “In some embodiments, the first fluid outlet is configured to receive the one or more target analytes and the second fluid outlet is configured to receive the fluid absent the one or more target analytes.”; A second fluid outlet configured to receive the fluid absent one or more target analytes reads on a said second side channel not comprising any of said array of obstacles.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 10 - 12, 14, 15, and 18 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (WO 2019094633 A1, cited on the IDS submitted 13 October 2022).
With regards to claim 5, 6, 8, 10 - 12, 14, 15, and 18 - 21; the device of claim 4 is anticipated by Wang et al.
Wang et al additionally teaches;
The spacing of the obstacles may be dependent on other factors of the device, as read on ([0052], “The average spacing size may be adjusted depending upon a variety of factors, including such as dimension of the microfluidic channel, number of obstacles disposed in the microfluidic channel, sample volume, sizes, dimensions, geometries of target analytes, fluid flow rate, or combinations thereof.”);
The features of obstacle arrays which may be changed, as read on the taught ([0069], “Obstacle arrays may differ from one another in number of obstacles comprised in the array, size, dimension, shape, geometry, cross sections, configuration of obstacles, spacing size between adjacent obstacles of the array, and/or arrangement of obstacles in the array.”);
That obstacle array spacing may be based on the desired analyte to separate, as read on the taught ([0057], “The obstacles may be configured to separate or isolate the target analytes using the spaces between the obstacles.”);
The obstacle height may be adjusted according to the height of the channel, and may have arbitrary dimensions, as read on the taught (see paragraph [0045]).
Accordingly, the arrangement of the obstacles within the channel, the angle of the array, the spacing between the obstacles, or the heights of the obstacles are held to be a results-dependent variable that would have been obvious to modify by one of ordinary skill of the art.
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 ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30pm EST.
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.
/ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights