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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 remain pending in the application.
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) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 4,790,640, hereinafter Nason.
Regarding claim 1, Nason teaches a flow cell (figures 1 and 2), comprising: a first substrate (item 12) comprising a first planar surface (the upper surface of item 12); a second substrate (item 14) comprising a second planar surface (the lower surface of item 14) that is parallel to the first planar surface (figure 1); and an adhesive layer (item 16) that couples the first substrate to the second substrate (column 3, lines 45-59) and spaces the first planar surface apart from the second planar surface (column 3, lines 45-59), wherein the adhesive layer comprises: a first adhesive (the portion of item 16 touching and surrounding items 19 and 20) in direct contact with the first planar surface and in direct contact with the second planar surface (figure 1); and a second adhesive (the portion of item 16 on the far left and far right side of figure 2 only next to items 18, 21, 23 and 26) in direct contact with the first planar surface and in direct contact with the second planar surface (figure 1), wherein a flow channel (item 20) is at least partially defined by the first planar surface by the second planar surface and by the first adhesive (figure 2), wherein the first adhesive is disposed between the flow channel and the second adhesive (figure 2).
Regarding claim 2, Nason teaches wherein the first adhesive comprises a biocompatible material (column 1, lines 5-12 and column 2, lines 8-22).
Regarding claim 3, Nason teaches wherein the first adhesive comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive (column 2, lines 8-22).
Regarding claim 4, Nason teaches wherein the second adhesive comprises an epoxy (column 2, lines 8-22).
Regarding claim 6, Nason teaches wherein at least a portion of the first adhesive is disposed radially inward relative to the second adhesive (figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Nason teaches wherein the second adhesive completely surrounds the first adhesive (figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Nason teaches wherein at least one of the first substrate or the second substrate comprises glass (column 2, lines 8-22).
Regarding claim 9, Nason teaches a cartridge for use in a system for sequencing polynucleotides (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)), the cartridge comprising the flow cell of claim 1 (see supra).
Regarding claim 10, Nason teaches a system for sequencing polynucleotides (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)), the system comprising the flow cell of claim 1 (see supra).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nason.
Regarding claim 5, Nason teaches the first adhesive has a first bond strength and the second adhesive has a second bond strength (each section of the adhesive would have a specific bond strength).
Nason fails to teach the second bond strength is greater than the first bond strength. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to change the amounts of adhesive on either side of the device, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A). A larger area of adhesive for the second adhesive would result in a second bond strength which is greater than the first bond strength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 3/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nason.
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights