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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 3-10, 20, 21, 25, 27 and 37 in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged. Claims 42-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 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, 3, 4, 20, 21, 25 -27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazutis (US 2012/0108721). Mazutis teaches a microfluidic system. The embodiments or portions of the device most relevant to the instant claims are shown in Figures 1A-1C, 8A-8C, 10A, 14A, 14B, and 20-22. Regarding claim 1 – As shown in Figures 1A-1C, Mazutis teaches a system comprising a housing (microfluidic chip) ; and a plurality of modular components disposed in a serial arrangement within the housing (chip), the modular components connected through a plurality of microfluidic flow channels (Figure 1B), wherein the modular components comprise an emulsifier (droplet pair formation section of Fig 1B) , a coating reactor (oil addition section) , and a separator (stability measurement chamber and collection outlet). With respect to the “ emulsifier ” , “c oating reactor ” and “ separator ” , the Examiner submits those terms are intended uses of the modules or sections of the housing (chip) that do not provide or confer a structure that is different than the structures of the prior art. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Regarding claim 3 – As shown in Figure 1B, Mazutis teaches an emulsifier (droplet pair formation section of Fig 1B) having two inputs comprised of flow channels (droplet production channel, emulsion re-injection channel) that combine to form a channel in communication with the coating reactor (oil addition section). With respect to the recited “organic solution flow channel” and “crosslinking solution flow channel”, the Examiner submits the terms organic solution and crosslinking solution are intended uses of the flow channels in the emulsifier section that do not provide or confer a structure that is different than the flow channels of the prior art. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Regarding claim 4 – The Examiner considers the passive filter structures disclosed in Figure 1B and Paragraph 0179 to meet the limitation of microfluidic pores disposed between the organic solution flow channel and the crosslinking solution flow channel. Regarding claim 20 – As shown in Figure 1B, Mazutis teaches a coating reactor (oil addition section of Fig 1B) having two inputs comprised of two flow channels (opposing stabilization oil addition channels) that combine to form a channel in communication with the separator (stability measurement chamber and collection outlet). With respect to the “ emulsification flow channel” and “ coating solution flow channel”, the Examiner submits the terms emulsification and coating solution are intended uses of the flow channels in the coating reactor that do not provide or confer a structure that is different than the flow channels of the prior art. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Regarding claim 21 – Mazutis teaches an oil supply stock for supplying oil in Paragraphs 0181-0185. Regarding claim 25 – The Examiner submits the coating reactor is capable of receiving a continuous flow of droplets and oil. Regarding claim 26 – As shown in Figure 1B, Mazutis teaches a separator comprised of the coated emulsification flow channel (coalescence channel/stability measurement chamber ) in communication with the coating reactor (oil addition section of Fig 1B) and a fluid supply ( collection outlet) in communication with the coated emulsification flow channel (coalescence channel/stability measurement chamber). With respect to the “ coated emulsification flow channel” and “supercritical fluid supply”, the Examiner submits the terms coated emulsification and supercritical fluid supply are intended uses of the flow channels in the separator that do not provide or confer a structure that is different than the flow channels of the prior art. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Regarding claims 27 and 37 – Claim 27 recites “ wherein outputs from the separator comprise: a solvent evaporation channel wherein solvents from the coated emulsification are evaporated and removed by the supercritical fluid; and solids comprising cell culture scaffolds”. Claim 37 recites “wherein the cell culture scaffolds comprise a polymer bead, a dissolvable microcarrier, or slug ” . The Examiner again submits the term “solvent evaporation channel” is an intended use of the channel and the further limitations directed to the supercritical fluid and solids are directed to an intended use of the device. Inventorship 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 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. Claim 5, 6, and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazutis (US 2012/0108721) in view of Oguchi (US 2011/0257026) . Mazutis as described in Paragraphs 5-12 above teach es every element of claim s 5- 7 except for the removable filter. Oguchi teaches a DNA detection system having an analytic unit comprised of a microfluidic device having a filter. The embodiment(s) of the device most relevant to the instant claims are shown in Figures 1, 8A and 8B. As shown in Figure 8B, the system of Oguchi includes a microfluidic device (cartridge 804) that includes an input port (806) coupled with a filtration unit (812). In Paragraphs 0030-0036, Oguchi teaches the filter may be removable in order to replace or replenish the filtering capacity (Para 0036). The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the removable filter from Oguchi with the device of Mazutis . One of ordinary skill in the art at the time would add Filter to Mazutis in order to provide a filter that can be replenished as taught by Oguchi . Claim s 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazutis (US 2012/0108721) in view of Frey et al. (US 2019/0060522). Mazutis as described in Paragraphs 5-12 teach es every element of claims 8-10 except for the organic solution stock and crosslinking solution stock. Frey teaches a microfluidic device and method for performing a polymerization from an emulsion to form a scaffold material. The device is best shown in Figure 1 and described in Paragraphs 0015-0063 and 0117-0149. The device includes a microfluidic chip as well as a plurality of reservoirs for containing an organic polymer precursor solution and aqueous catalyzer. The reservoirs are operatively connected to the channels of the microchip to deliver solutions to the channels. The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the organic solution stock and crosslinking solution stock from Frey with the device of Mazutis . One of ordinary skill in the art at the time would add the organic solution stock and crosslinking solution stock to Mazutis in order to perform polymerizations as taught by Frey. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DWAYNE K HANDY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1259 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10AM-7PM . 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 Jill Warden can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1267 . 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. /DWAYNE K HANDY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1798 December 17, 2025 /JILL A WARDEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798