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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on May 19, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the application
2. Claims 1-7 are pending under examination. New claims 12-15 are added. Claims 9-11 were withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected group. Claim 8 is canceled. The Applicant’s arguments and the amendment have been fully considered and found persuasive for the following reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103-Withdrawn
3. The rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Fan et al. in view of Hussain et al. has been withdraw in view of the amendment.
Informalities
4. The following informalities are noted:
(i) claims 12 and 13 recite the terms ‘SU8’ ‘PDMS’ and ‘PMMA’. Expanding the terms at least for the first time that they appear in the claims is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claims 1-7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Love et al. (WO2019/113457) in view of Sano et al. (US 2012/0085649).
Love et al. teach a method of claim 1, 4, for single-cell RNA comprising: aligning a
microwell array (larger-sized microwells) on top of a single cell-trapping (nanowell) array
(cell-diameter sized microwells), loading a plurality of cells into the nanowell array (page 12, line 5 to line 17 on page 13, page 14, line 26 to line 7 on page 15);
inverting the aligned arrays so that the microwell array is beneath the nanowell array
and so that the loaded cells from nanowells are transferred into the microwells by
gravity (page 14, line 26 to line 7 on page 15);
loading a plurality of barcoded beads into the microwells after transfer of the loaded cells so that a single bead occupies each cell-loaded microwell (page 14, line 26 to line 7 on page 15);
capturing RNA from cells and retrieving RNA-loaded beads (page 20, line 10-26);
and sequencing the captured RNA, wherein sequencing RNA by one or more techniques comprising PCR (page 20, line 10-26).
With reference to claims 2-3, Love et al. teach the microwell array comprises wells having a 50um diameter and nanowells have a diameter of 20um (page 19, line 22 to line 5 on page 20, page 52, line 5-17, page 53, line 14-31).
With reference to claims 6-7, Love et al. teach loading plurality of second cell type (page 14, line 26 to line 7 on page 15).
With reference to claims 12-14, Love et al. teach that the microwell array is directly fabricated in an SU8 insulating layer that is coated on a substrate (page 49, line 14-27, page 58, line 8 to 29, page 73, line 20-30).
With reference to claim 15, Love et al. teach a gasket disposed between the microwell array and the nanowell array to form a channel for loading (page 52, line 5 to line 13 on page 53).
However, Love et al. did not teach dielectrophoresis (DEP) and applying electric filed to
trap single cells by positive DEP.
Sano et al. teach a dielectrophoresis (DEP) method of claims 1-7, 12-15, to trap target cells by applying electric field to move the cells wherein a positive electric charge is applied to move the cells through conductive dielectrophoretic medium, wherein cells are trapped by positive DEP (para 0051-0054, 0064-0068, 0072-0080, 0117-0122). Sano et al. teach that the substrate comprises a substrate comprising PMMA or gold deposited on glass substrate (para 0102, 0113, 0368).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Love et al. with the application of positive dielectrophoresis as taught by Sano et al. to develop an improved method for capturing single cells. The ordinary person skilled in the art would have motivated to combine the method of Love et al. with positive DEP as taught by Sano et al. and have a reasonable expectation of success that the combination would improve the method
because Sano et al. explicitly taught applying positive DEP to attract and trap cells and continuously sort forma sample fluid (para 0052, 0069-0071, 0116) and such a modification of the method is considered obvious over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SURYAPRABHA CHUNDURU whose telephone number is (571)272-0783. The examiner can normally be reached 8.00am-4.30pm.
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, Gary Benzion can be reached at 571-272-0782. 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.
Suryaprabha Chunduru
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1681
/SURYAPRABHA CHUNDURU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681
Prosecution Insights