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 .
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-18 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.
Specifically, in amended claim 1, “the detection well is deeper and wider than the channel to realize flow rate inversely proportional to the area, and the detection well has a recess deeper than the channel”, it is unclear whether the recess is distinctly part of the detection well (as a separate part) or is the result of the detection well’s deepness. Claims 2, 5-8, 10-18 are included in this rejection because they fail to cure the deficiencies of the independent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, Park et al. (US 20210402396) provides the closest prior art. As discussed in the prior Office Action, Park et al. teaches a microfluidic device comprising: a base, a sample well, detection well, reaction well between the sample well and the detection, and a lid. Park et al. fails to teach that the detection well holds a recess deeper than the channel and an arc-shaped protrusion corresponding to the recess located on the lid (which forms a three-dimensional geometry configuration). Specifically, as Applicant points out in remarks dated 5/26/2026 (See Page 8), Park et al. fails to disclose the specific three-dimensional geometry configuration as recited in the amended independent claim 1. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose, teach, or suggest the noted features within the claim environment.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-18 have been withdrawn.
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 JULIUS FRANCIS YOH whose telephone number is (571)272-3489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-5 PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/J.F.Y./ Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights