DETAILED ACTION Notice of 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. 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 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election with traverse of Group III and breast tissue sample as elected species in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 11/03/2025 is acknowledged. In this instant application, claims 28,30,33-35,37, 39-40, 43, 46, 58-59 and 61 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. In the Restriction Requirement filed on 08/14/2025 , the groups of inventions read: Group I, claims 28, 33, 34, 39, 40, 43 and 61, drawn to treating a subject with increased risk of recurrence of glioblastoma. Group II, claims 30, 35, 37, 46, 58 and 59, drawn to treating a subject with increased risk of recurrence of breast cancer. Group III, claims 53, 54-57, and 60, drawn to a method of screening a therapeutic agent using a microfluidic device The Applicant elected Group III which is actually drawn to claims 53-57 and does not include claim 60 because claim 60 depends on claim 59 which is part of G roup II along with the parent claim 30. Therefore, a correction is being made to the group of inventions which now read: Group I, claims 28, 33, 34, 39, 40, 43 and 61, drawn to treating a subject with increased risk of recurrence of glioblastoma. Group II, claims 30, 35, 37, 46, 58 and 59-60 , drawn to treating a subject with increased risk of recurrence of breast cancer. Group III, claims 53-57 , drawn to a method of screening a therapeutic agent using a microfluidic device Applicant elect ed breast tissue sample as the elected species in Group III in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 11/03/2025 . I n Group III , claim 55 is drawn to the breast tissue species and claims 54 and 56-57 are drawn to the brain tissue species . Thus, claims 53 and 55 are being examined on the merits. Response to applicant's remarks in regard to the Restriction Requirement The Remarks of 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below: Applicant asserts in pg. 6 para. 7 Applicant respectfully request reconsideration and examination of the non-elected claims. Applicant submits that the Examiner has not shown that a serious burden would result if all of the claims are examined together. M.P.E.P. § 803 provides that "[ i ]f the search and examination of an entire application can be made without serious burden, the Examiner must examine it on the merits, even though it includes claims to distinct or independent inventions." Thus, for a restriction requirement to be proper, the Examiner must satisfy the following two criteria: (1) the existence of independent and distinct inventions (35 U.S.C. § 121) and (2) the search and examination of the entire application cannot be made without serious burden. (Emphasis added.) See M.P.E.P. § 803. Applicant notes that the restriction requirement does not provide sufficient basis to indicate that examination of more than one of the "groups" or "species" would overly burden the Examiner. In view of the foregoing, the restriction of the claims is improper and should now be withdrawn. The Examiner disagrees and notes that the Restriction Requirement filed was complete and correct ly applied. This instant application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/050245 which requires considerations regarding lack of unity when it comes to restriction requirements. S earch burden is not one of the considerations for establishing a lack of unity . The groups of inventions listed in the Restriction Requirement filed 08/14/2025 do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features as explained in detail in the Restriction Requirement filed 08/14/2025 . Status of the Claims Claims 1-27, 29, 31-32, 36, 38, 41-42, 44-45 and 47-52 are cancelled. Claims 28, 30, 33-35, 37, 39-40, 43, 46, and 53- 61 are pending. Claims 28,30,33-35,37,39-40,43,46, 54, 56-61 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention and species, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/ 0 3/2025. ( See explanation in the Election/Restrictions section above ). Claims 53 and 55 are examined herein . Claims 53 and 55 are rejected. Priority This application US 18/026,058 (03/13/2023) is a 371 of PCT/US2021/050245 ( 09/14/2021 ) and claims priority from US Application 63/077,828 ( 09/14/2020 ), as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 07/11/2023. However, the provisional application does not provide support for "method of screening for a therapeutic agent in breast tissue sample" as recited in claims 53 and 55. Therefore, the effective filing date of claims 53 and 55 is 09/14/2021 . Information Disclosure Statement No Information Disclosure Statement has been filed herein. Specification Objections The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code in pg. 51 line 27 . Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 53 and 55 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more Judicial Exceptions (JEs) without significantly more. Regarding JEs, "Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas..., natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection" (MPEP 2106.04 §I). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts and procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, which are a type of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). 101 background MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prong One & Prong Two), and 2B as analyzed below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials. Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)? Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e ., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))? Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))? Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)? Analysis of instant claims Step 1: Are the claims directed to a 101 process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter ( MPEP 2106.03)? The instant claims are directed to a method ( claims 53 and 55 ) which falls within one of the categories of statutory subject matter. [Step 1: claims 53 and 55 : Yes] Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))? Background With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as: • mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)); • certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)); and/or • mental processes (concepts practically performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Analysis of instant claims With respect to the instant claims, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, the claims are found to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) as well as a law of nature or a natural phenomenon are as follows: • " b) determining whether the cell or the population of cells migrates through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence and absence of the therapeutic agent " ( independent claim 53 ) and • " c) determining that the therapeutic agent is an inhibitor of cancer cell migration when the cell or population of cells does not migrate through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence of the therapeutic agent " ( independent claim 53 ) . The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined to each cover performance either in the mind and/or by mathematical operation. Without further detail as to the methodology involved in " determining a therapeutic agent as an inhibitor " depending on "determining whether the cell or the population of cells migrates through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence and absence of the therapeutic agent " , under the BRI, one may simply, evaluate the cell migration using data observed . The human mind is also sufficiently capable of evaluate information based on observation and judgment. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) pertains. T he instant claims also recite a natural correlation by correlating the relationship between naturally derived cells and their natural response to agents . (see MPEP 2106.04(b).I). [Step 2A Prong One: claims 53 and 55 : Yes ] Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))? Background MPEP 2106.04(d).I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application: An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) ; Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c ) ; and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e). Analysis of instant claims Instant claim 53 recite s additional elements that are not abstract ideas: • " a) placing a cell or a population of cells from a brain or breast tissue sample in an integrative microfluidic apparatus, wherein the integrative microfluidic apparatus comprises a migratory channel and a bifurcation point in the channel " (claim 3) ( independent claim 53 ). Claim 55 further limits the breast tissue sample to being from a subject diagnosed with breast cancer. Considerations under Step 2A, Prong Two The recited "a) placing a cell or a population of cells from a brain or breast tissue sample in an integrative microfluidic apparatus, wherein the integrative microfluidic apparatus comprises a migratory channel and a bifurcation point in the channel" reads on a physical step which constitutes data gathering activities; because the recited step constitutes in placing cells in a device for further data evaluation by the judicial exception ; not amounting to a practical application. Therefore, the recited is an insignificant extra-solution activity since this limitation serve to gather data that is utilized as input for the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.04(d). Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore the claims do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; 2106.05(f); and 2106.05(g)). None of the dependent claims recite any additional non-abstract elements; they are all directed to further aspects of the information being analyzed, the manner in which that analysis is performed, or the mathematical operations performed on the information. In Step 2A, Prong One above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs). In this Step 2A, Prong Two immediately above claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more additional elements . Additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B below. Here in Step 2A, Prong Two, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application. [Step 2A Prong Two: claims 53 and 55 : No] Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)? According to analysis so far, the additional elements described above do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A determination of whether additional elements provide significantly more also rests on whether the additional elements or a combination of elements represents other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Conventionality is a question of fact and may be evidenced as: a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during examination that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). With respect to the instant claims, the prior art review to Huang ("Microfluidics-based devices: New tools for studying cancer and cancer stem cell migration." Biomicrofluidics 5(1) (2011) , newly cited) discloses that therapeutic approaches to immobilize cancer cells via inhibition of the related signal transduction pathways relying on cell migration mechanisms using microfluidic devices (pg. 1 para. 1) are routine, well-understood and conventional in the art . When the claims are considered as a whole, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; they do not confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology; they do not solve a problem rooted in or arising from the use of a particular technology; they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(h). The instant claims constitute insignificant extra solution activity, and when considered individually, are insufficient to constitute inventive concepts that would render the claims significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Hence, these elements, when considered individually, are insufficient to constitute inventive concepts that would render the claims significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). [Step 2B: claims 53 and 55 : No] Conclusion: Instant claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter For the reasons above, the claims in this instant application, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept not clearly anything significantly more. 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)(l) 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. Claims 53 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yankaska ("A microfluidic assay for the quantification of the metastatic propensity of breast cancer specimens." Nature biomedical engineering 3(6)452-465 (2019)) , as cited on the attached Form PTO-892. Claim 53 recites a) placing a cell or a population of cells from a brain or breast tissue sample in an integrative microfluidic apparatus, wherein the integrative microfluidic apparatus comprises a migratory channel and a bifurcation point in the channel; b) determining whether the cell or the population of cells migrates through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence and absence of the therapeutic agent; and c) determining that the therapeutic agent is an inhibitor of cancer cell migration when the cell or population of cells does not migrate through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence of the therapeutic agent. • Yankaska teaches the development and testing of a microfluidic assay that quantifies the abundance and proliferative index of migratory cells in breast-cancer specimens (pg. 452 para. 1) named Microfluidic Assay for quantification of Cell Invasion ( MAqCI ) (pg. 45 3 col. 1 para. 1 ); wherein cells that reach the far end of the feeder channel encounter a bifurcation region and must choose between two narrower branch channels (i.e. a) placing a cell or a population of cells from a brain or breast tissue sample in an integrative microfluidic apparatus, wherein the integrative microfluidic apparatus comprises a migratory channel and a bifurcation point in the channel ) (pg. 45 3 col. 1 para. 1 ); wherein MAqCI is capable of identifying highly migratory and proliferative cells that have enhanced metastatic potential in response to a specific therapeutic regimen (i.e. (b) determination of whether the cell or the population of cells migrates through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence and absence of the therapeutic agent ) (pg. 45 9 col. 1 para. 3 ); wherein MAqCI is used to test therapeutic agents from ongoing clinical trials (pg. 460 Fig. 6); showing inhibition of cell migration for cells during treatment when compared to vehicle control (i.e. (c) determining that the therapeutic agent is an inhibitor of cancer cell migration when the cell or population of cells does not migrate through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence of the therapeutic agent ) (pg. 460 Fig. 6A) Claim 55 recites wherein breast tissue sample is from a subject diagnosed with breast cancer • Yankaska teaches the development and testing of a microfluidic assay that quantifies the abundance and proliferative index of migratory cells in breast-cancer specimens (pg. 452 para. 1) . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . A. Claim s 53 and 55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 16 , 19 and 28 of U S Patent No 12493037 in view of Yankaska ("A microfluidic assay for the quantification of the metastatic propensity of breast cancer specimens." Nature biomedical engineering 3(6)452-465 (2019)), as cited on the attached Form PTO-892. • US Patent No 12493037 teaches claim 53 except " determining cells migration in the presence or absence of a therapeutic agent . " and the limitations of claim 55. However, Yankaska teaches the development and testing of a microfluidic assay that quantifies the abundance and proliferative index of migratory cells in breast-cancer specimens (pg. 452 para. 1) named Microfluidic Assay for quantification of Cell Invasion ( MAqCI ) (pg. 45 3 col. 1 para. 1 ); wherein cells that reach the far end of the feeder channel encounter a bifurcation region and must choose between two narrower branch channels (pg. 45 3 col. 1 para. 1 ); wherein MAqCI is capable of identifying highly migratory and proliferative cells that have enhanced metastatic potential in response to a specific therapeutic regimen (i.e. (b) determination of whether the cell or the population of cells migrates through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence and absence of the therapeutic agent ) (pg. 45 9 col. 1 para. 3 ); wherein MAqCI is used to test therapeutic agents from ongoing clinical trials (pg. 460 Fig. 6); showing inhibition of cell migration for cells during treatment when compared to vehicle control (i.e. (c) determining that the therapeutic agent is an inhibitor of cancer cell migration when the cell or population of cells does not migrate through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence of the therapeutic agent ) (pg. 460 Fig. 6A) . Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143) Regarding claims 53 and 55 , it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of U S Patent No 12493037 in view of Yankaska because all references disclose methods for the investigation of cancer cells migratory properties . The motivation would have been to incorporate a method aiming the selection of effective therapeutic regimens (pg. 452 para. 1 Yankaska ) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the investigation of cancer cells migratory properties of U S Patent No 12493037 to the methods by Yankaska because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for the investigation of cancer cells migratory properties . B. Claims 53 and 55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of US Patent No. 11747338 in view of Yankaska ("A microfluidic assay for the quantification of the metastatic propensity of breast cancer specimens." Nature biomedical engineering 3(6)452-465 (2019)), as cited on the attached Form PTO-892. • US Patent No. 11747338 teaches claim 53 except "determining cells migration in the presence or absence of a therapeutic agent . " and the limitations of claim 55. However, Yankaska teaches the development and testing of a microfluidic assay that quantifies the abundance and proliferative index of migratory cells in breast-cancer specimens (pg. 452 para. 1) named Microfluidic Assay for quantification of Cell Invasion ( MAqCI ) (pg. 45 3 col. 1 para. 1 ); wherein cells that reach the far end of the feeder channel encounter a bifurcation region and must choose between two narrower branch channels (pg. 45 3 col. 1 para. 1 ); wherein MAqCI is capable of identifying highly migratory and proliferative cells that have enhanced metastatic potential in response to a specific therapeutic regimen (i.e. (b) determination of whether the cell or the population of cells migrates through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence and absence of the therapeutic agent ) (pg. 45 9 col. 1 para. 3 ); wherein MAqCI is used to test therapeutic agents from ongoing clinical trials (pg. 460 Fig. 6); showing inhibition of cell migration for cells during treatment when compared to vehicle control (i.e. (c) determining that the therapeutic agent is an inhibitor of cancer cell migration when the cell or population of cells does not migrate through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence of the therapeutic agent ) (pg. 460 Fig. 6A) Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143) Regarding claims 53 and 55 , it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of US Patent No. 11747338 in view of Yankaska because all references disclose methods for the investigation of cancer cells migratory properties. The motivation would have been to incorporate a method aiming the selection of effective therapeutic regimens (pg. 452 para. 1 Yankaska ) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the investigation of cancer cells migratory properties of US Patent No. 11747338 to the methods by Yankaska because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for the investigation of cancer cells migratory properties . C . Claims 53 and 55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 11559803 in view of Yankaska ("A microfluidic assay for the quantification of the metastatic propensity of breast cancer specimens." Nature biomedical engineering 3(6)452-465 (2019)), as cited on the attached Form PTO-892. • US Patent No. 11559803 teaches claim 53 except "determining cells migration in the presence or absence of a therapeutic agent . " and the limitations of claim 55. However, Yankaska teaches the development and testing of a microfluidic assay that quantifies the abundance and proliferative index of migratory cells in breast-cancer specimens (pg. 452 para. 1) named Microfluidic Assay for quantification of Cell Invasion ( MAqCI ) (pg. 45 3 col. 1 para. 1 ); wherein cells that reach the far end of the feeder channel encounter a bifurcation region and must choose between two narrower branch channels (pg. 45 3 col. 1 para. 1 ); wherein MAqCI is capable of identifying highly migratory and proliferative cells that have enhanced metastatic potential in response to a specific therapeutic regimen (i.e. (b) determination of whether the cell or the population of cells migrates through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence and absence of the therapeutic agent ) (pg. 45 9 col. 1 para. 3 ); wherein MAqCI is used to test therapeutic agents from ongoing clinical trials (pg. 460 Fig. 6); showing inhibition of cell migration for cells during treatment when compared to vehicle control (i.e. (c) determining that the therapeutic agent is an inhibitor of cancer cell migration when the cell or population of cells does not migrate through the migratory channel of the apparatus and to the bifurcation point of the channel in the presence of the therapeutic agent ) (pg. 460 Fig. 6A) . • US Patent No. 11559803 does not teach claim 5 5 . However, Yankaska teaches the development and testing of a microfluidic assay that quantifies the abundance and proliferative index of migratory cells in breast-cancer specimens (i.e. wherein breast tissue sample is from a subject diagnosed with breast cancer ) (pg. 452 para. 1) . Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143) Regarding claims 53 and 55 , it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of US Patent No. 11559803 in view of Yankaska because all references disclose methods for the investigation of cancer cells migratory properties. The motivation would have been to incorporate a method aiming the selection of effective therapeutic regimens (pg. 452 para. 1 Yankaska ) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the investigation of cancer cells migratory properties of US Patent No. 11559803 to the methods by Yankaska because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for the investigation of cancer cells migratory properties . Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT FRANCINI A FONSECA LOPEZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0899 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM ET . 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 Olivia Wise can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2249 . 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. /F.F.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1685 /JANNA NICOLE SCHULTZHAUS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1685