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. Drawings The drawings were received on November 3, 2022. These drawings are acceptable. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ‘means of the connecting rod’ in claim 12, ‘means of the slider structure’ in claim 13, and ‘means of the sealing ring’ in claim 19. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 2, 3 , and 5-19 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 2 recites the limitation "the channel turntable" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant’s specification filed 11/3/2022 makes reference to the turntable as a “channel turntable” throughout the specification. For the purpose of examination, the “channel turntable” will be interpreted to be the re cited “turntable” of claim 1. However, clarification is requested. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the channel turntable" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the channel turntable" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6-13 and 16-19 are ultimately dependent upon claim 5 and inherit the same deficiencies. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the channel turntable" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the channel turntable" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the sealed connection " in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 is dependent upon claim 15 and inherits the same deficiencies. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al (US 2020/0164370 A1) . With respect to claim 1 Zh ao discloses a nucleic acid extraction device, comprising: a piston chamber (receiving chamber 2011; See Para. 0116 for discussion of how the piston can be moved up and down along the receiving chamber) provided with a piston (piston 7, See Figs. 1A-B and Para. 0112 ) ; a reaction chamber (reaction chamber 201) for nucleic acid extraction (See para. 0109 for discussion of how reaction chamber 201 is a place where nucleic acid is extracted); a plurality of reagent chambers (PCR reaction solution chamber 206 that includes a primary PCR reaction solution 2061 and a secondary PCR reaction solution chamber 2062) containing nucleic acid extraction reagents (See Para. 0129 for discussion of how the chamber 206 is provided with reagents for a PCR reaction) ; a permanent magnet (permanent magnet 11) ; and a turntable ( shell 2 with rotary disk 3, See Para. 0105) , wherein the turntable keeps the reaction chamber in fluid communication with one of the plurality of reagent chambers by rotating (See Para. 0122) ; the reaction chamber contains magnetic beads (magnetic bead 10, See Para. 0116; Para. 0146 discloses a plurality of beads are in the reaction chamber 201) and is configured to provide a place for the magnetic beads to adsorb, wash and elute nucleic acids ; the permanent magnet is configured to provide a magnetic attraction force for the magnetic beads and keep the magnetic beads fixed in the reaction chamber (See Para. 0116) ; and the piston chamber and the reaction chamber are in fluid communication with each other (See Paras. 0112 and 0116) , and the piston moves to control the flow of fluids between the plurality of reagent chambers and the reaction chamber respectively (See Paras. 0131-0134) . Applicant should note the italicized limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Zhao and the apparatus of Zhao is capable of the recitation of claim 1 . As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Zhao (see MPEP §2114). With respect to claim 2 Zhao discloses wherein the reaction chamber is located on the channel turntable (See paras. 0108-0109) ; and a micro-channel (inlet microfluidic channel 301) in communication with the reaction chamber is provided in the channel turntable (See Fig. 9 and Para. 0124) . With respect to claim 3 Zhao discloses wherein the reaction chamber is a recess with an upward opening that is provided in the center of the channel turntable (See Figs. 1-3 and Para. 0116) , and the piston chamber is located inside the recess (See Fig. 1A for depiction of the 2011 being disposed in 201; see Para. 0116). With respect to claim 15 Zhao discloses wherein the device further comprises a nucleic acid amplification assembly (nucleic acid amplification element, See Para. 0132) , and the nucleic acid amplification assembly comprises a PCR tube (PCR reaction tube 5) and a PCR tube channel ( input port 208 ) (See Paras. 0134-0137) ; after the nucleic acid extraction is completed, the channel turntable is rotated to enable the micro-channel to be in selective communication with the PCR tube channel, so that the reaction chamber is in selective communication with the PCR tube (See Paras. 0059 and 0154-0155) ; and the PCR tube is detachably connected to a bottom surface of the nucleic acid extraction device, and the sealed connection can be realized after the connect ion (See Para. 0140 for discussion of how the reaction tube 5 and shell 2 are detachably connected; Para. 0137 discusses seal 9 for the PCR reaction tube 5) . Applicant should note the italicized limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Zhao and the apparatus of Zhao is capable of the recitation of claim 15 . As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Zhao (see MPEP §2114). With respect to claim 19 Zhao discloses wherein the PCR tube comprises a sealing ring (seal 9, See Para. 0137) and the PCR tube is in sealed connection with the nucleic acid extraction device by means of the sealing ring. 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 and 14 is/are reje cted under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C onnolly et al (US 2014/0099646 A1) in view of Yanagida (US 2006/0183217 A1). With respect to claim 1 Connolly discloses a nucleic acid extraction device (sampling device, See Fig. 22 and Para. 0090; Para. 0113 discloses how the system is used for preparing nucleic acid samples) , comprising: a piston chamber (syringe molding 141) provided with a piston (plunger 150) (See Paras. 0069-0070 and Figs. 4A-5B) ; a reaction chamber for nucleic acid extraction (reaction chamber 142, See Para. 0070) ; a plurality of reagent chambers (chamber 103) containing nucleic acid extraction reagents (See Para. 0061 for discussion of various fluids being contained in the chambers 103; Para. 0059 discusses how chambers are used to deliver the reagents necessary for end-repair and kinase treatment; Para. 0089 discloses different amounts of reagents contained within each chamber; also See para. 0095 for discussion of specific types of reagents, to include PCR reagents) ; a permanent magnet (magnet 114, See Para. 0064) ; and a turntable (cylindrical insert 101, See Paras. 0058-0061 and Figs. 1-2) , wherein the turntable keeps the reaction chamber in fluid communication with one of the plurality of reagent chambers by rotating; the reaction chamber contains magnetic beads ( See Para. 0084-008 6 for discussion of how various fluids and reagents are transferred to the reaction chamber; Para. 0064 discusses how the magnet 114 can push or pull magnetic nanoparticles in the cylindrical insert 101) and i s configured to provide a place for the magnetic beads to adsorb, wash and elute nucleic acids ; the permanent magnet is c onfigured to provide a magnetic attraction force for the magnetic beads and keep the magnetic beads fixed in the reaction chamber (See Para. 0064 for discussion of how the magnet can push or pull the magnet nanoparticles in the cylindrical insert) ; and the piston chamber and the reaction chamber are in fluid communication with each other, and the piston moves to control the flow of fluids between the plurality of reagent chambers and the reaction chamber respectively (See Para. 0069 for discussion of how the plunger draws and pushes fluids through the fluid paths of the cylindrical insert 101; Para. 0070 discusses how t he plunger 150 is capable of drawing fluid from the chambers 103. Once the plunger 150 draws the fluid, the disposable cartridge repositions the fluid path to align a distinct port with the syringe molding 141 which is in fluid communication with a reaction chamber 142 or a different chamber 103. The plunger 150 then pushes the fluid through the fluid path 151 into the reaction chamber 142 or the different chamber 103 ). Applicant should note the italicized limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Connolly and the apparatus of Connolly is capable of the recitation of claim 1 . As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Connolly (see MPEP §2114). Although Connolly discusses how a permanent magnet can be utilized to enforce a strong magnetic field to a mixture in a vial, Connolly fails to disclose that the magnet is a permanent magnet. Yanagida provides methods and devices for automatic measurement of various solutions, wherein magnetic particles can be separated from a sample with a permanent magnet placed in a pipette tip (See Para. 0075). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the permanent magnet of Yanagida into the magnet of Connolly such that the magnetic beads/particles can be easily and efficiently be separated from the mixed sample. With respect to claim 14 the combination of Connolly and Yanagida teaches that the plurality of reagent chambers for containing the nucleic acid extraction reagents include a pyrolysis bin (heating chamber 170, see Paras. 0064, 0072 , and 0076-0077 of Connolly ), a washing bin (See Para. 0072 for discussion of one of the chambers containing washes/washing fluid; also see Para. 0095) and an elution bin (See Para. 0095 of Connolly for discussion of how the chambers may hold buffer solutions; Para. 0142 discusses the use of elution buffers) ; and the channel turntable can be rotated (See Para. 0058 of Connolly for discussion of how the insert 101 is rotatably situated with a cartridge body 102; Para. 0070 discusses how the cartridge is repositioned to align a distinct port with the syringe molding which is in fluid communication with a reaction chamber 142 or a different chamber) to enable the micro-channel to be in selective communication with a bottom through hole of the pyrolysis bin, the washing bin or the elution bin (See Para. 0072 of Connolly for discussion of ports 160; each chamber has a fluid path that is in communication with a port to extract or push a fluid ; See Fig s . 6D- 6G for depiction of the ports being positioned towards the bottom of the cartridge ) , so that the reaction chamber is in selective communication with the pyrolysis bin, the washing bin or the elution bin. Claim(s) 2 is/are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C onnolly et al (US 2014/0099646 A1) and Yanagida (US 2006/0183217 A1) in view of Ismagilov et al (US 2013/0280725 A1). Refer above for the combined teachings of Connolly and Yanagida . With respect to claim 2, the combination of Connolly and Yanagida teaches that the reaction chamber is located on the channel turntable (See Figs. 5A-B and Para. 0070 ; also see 112b rejection above ); and A channel (fluid path 151) in communication with the reaction chamber is provided in the channel turntable (See Figs. 5A-B and Para. 0070) . Although Connolly discusse s that the system works with small quantities (See Para. 0121), there is no discussion of the channel being a micro-channel. Ismagilov teaches a microfluidic device for sample preparation, wherein the microfluidic device includes at least one feature that is 1,000 µ m or less in at least one dimension. In other embodiments, the feature is at least one of the plurality of first chambers, at least one second chamber, at least one feature of the membrane (e.g., dimension, pore size, etc.), at least one of the one or more bridges, and/or at least one capture region (See Para. 0059). Use of the device and application of microfluidic features enables the provision of miniaturized, fast, digital, and high throughput analysis of applied samples (See Para. 0211). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the micro-dimensions taught by Ismagilov into the channel of the device of combined Connolly and Yanagida to enable the provision of miniaturized, fast, and high-throughput analysis of applied samples (See Para. 0211 of Ismagilov). Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C onnolly et al (US 2014/0099646 A1) and Yanagida (US 2006/0183217 A1) in view of Dority et al (US 2003/0162304 A1). Refer above for the combined disclosure of Connolly and Yanagida . With respect to claim 15, while Connolly discloses a chip (107) containing biological probes is affixed to the cartridge body 102 that is designed to receive fluid transferred from the chambers, and is in communication with a detection device to indicate the presence of a target analyte in a sample, the combination of Connolly and Yanagida fails to teach the device further comprises a nucleic acid amplification assembly, and the nucleic acid amplification assembly comprises a PCR tube and a PCR tube channel; after the nucleic acid extraction is completed, the channel turntable is rotated to enable the micro-channel to be in selective communication with the PCR tube channel, so that the reaction chamber is in selective communication with the PCR tube ; and the PCR tube is detachably connected to a bottom surface of the nucleic acid extraction device, and the sealed connection can be realized after the connection . Applicant should note the italicized limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Connolly and the apparatus of Connolly is capable of the recitation of claim 15 . As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Connolly (see MPEP §2114). Dority teaches a fluid control and processing system 10 including a housing 12 having a plurality of chambers 13 , wherein a fluid control device/rotary valve 16 and a reaction vessel 18 (PCR tube) are connected to different portions of the housing 12. As the rotary valve is rotated around its axis 52 relative to the housing 12, one of the external ports 42, 46 may be open and fluidically coupled with one of the chambers 13 or the reaction vessel 18 (See Para. 0048). To fill the reaction vessel 18, the piston 54 is pulled upward to draw the mixture in the reagent chamber 78 through the crossover groove 56 and the second branch 86 into the reaction vessel 18. In such an arrangement, the reaction vessel 18 is the aspiration chamber or referred to as the first chamber, and the reagent chamber 78 is the source chamber or referred to as the second chamber. The valve 16 is then rotated to place the second external port 46 in fluidic communication with the first branch 84 (PCR tube channel) and to close the first external port 42, as shown in FIGS. 9L and 9LL. The piston 54 is pushed downward to pressurize the mixture inside the reaction vessel 18. The reaction vessel 18 may be inserted into a thermal reaction chamber for performing nucleic acid amplification and/or detection (See Para. 0056). The reaction vessel can be detachably coupled to a bottom portion of the housing (See Fig. 10 and Paras. 0058 and 0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the chip of combined Connolly and Yanagida with the reaction vessel and branch(es) of Dority such that processed sample can be easily transported to a thermal reaction chamber for performing nucleic acid amplification and/or detection (See para. 0056 of Dority ). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest cited prior art of reference fails to disclosed or teach that a size of a lower end of the piston and a size of a lower end of the piston chamber are reduced, and when the piston is positioned in the lowest position, the piston is blocked by the piston chamber and cannot enter into the reaction chamber. Zhao specifically discloses that a recess 701 is provided on the sidewall at the bottom of the piston 7, that is, the sidewall at the bottom of the piston protrudes outwardly to form a recess 701, and the recess 701 and the sidewall at the bottom of the receiving chamber 2011 form a space for accommodating the magnetic bead (See para. 0116). Connolly fails to disclose the specifics of the size or shape of either the syringe molding or the plunger. Claims 5 -13 and 16-18 are ultimately dependent upon claim 4 and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRITTANY I FISHER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (469)295-9182 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT IFP . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /BRITTANY I FISHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1796 December 12, 2025