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
Claims 18-20, 30, 34, 36-38, 40-42, and 47 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 13, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on February 13, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that amended claim 1-7, 9, 14-17, 21-23, 25, and 27-28 relative to one invention or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept sharing a special technical relationship. As such, this argument was found persuasive, and the recited claims have been examined below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 22, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
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 15-17 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.
Claim 15 recites “a respective interaction chamber of the one or more interaction chambers” in lines 16-18. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same interaction chamber recited in lines 8-10, or a different interaction chamber (or set of interaction chambers) that are unrelated to the cited first particle traps. For examination, prior art that teaches either interpretation will suffice to read upon the claimed limitation(s). Clarification is requested.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jury et al (US 2009/0275115 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Jury discloses a device (microreactor 10, See Fig. 1 and Para. 0031) comprising:
a main fluid channel (heating/dispersion unit 14 with flow space between inlet 60 and outlets 62, See Fig. 4 and Para. 0038);
a first interaction chamber (separation unit 18, See Fig. 6 and Paras. 0031-0032) in fluid communication with the main fluid channel (via reaction unit 16, See Fig. 1A); and
a first particle trap (one of locations 74 in reaction unit 16 depicted in Fig. 5, See. Paras. 0044 and 0046) in fluid communication between the main fluid channel and the first interaction chamber (See Fig. 1A);
wherein the first particle trap and a second particle trap (another of locations 74 in reaction unit 16, See Fig. 5 and Paras. 0044 and 0046) are in fluid communication both via the first interaction chamber and via the main fluid channel (See Fig. 1A).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (US 2011/0143964 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Zhou discloses a device (fluid template portion 210 depicted in Figs. 2A-B) comprising:
a main fluid channel (combination of inlet transport channel 230 and fluid bypass channel 233, See Para. 0111);
a first interaction chamber (chamber 220, See Para. 0111) in fluid communication with the main fluid channel; and
a first particle trap (entrance conduit 221, See Para. 0111 and Figs. 2A-B) in fluid communication between the main fluid channel and the first interaction chamber;
wherein the first particle trap and a second particle trap (exit conduit 222, See Para. 0111 and Figs. 2A-B) are in fluid communication both via the first interaction chamber and via the main fluid channel (exit conduit connects to second part of the main channel, fluid bypass channel 233).
With respect to claim 2 Zhou discloses that the device further comprises the second particle trap;
wherein:
the first particle trap extends from a first wall of the main fluid channel (See Fig. 2A reproduced below); and
the second particle trap extends from a second wall of the main fluid channel and is positioned between the main fluid channel and the first interaction chamber (See Fig. 2A reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2A (reproduction)
With respect to claim 15 Zhou discloses a device (fluid template portion 210 depicted in Figs. 2A-B) comprising:
a first main fluid channel (inlet transport channel 230, See Figs. 2A-B and Para. 0111);
one or more first particle traps (entrance conduit 221, See Para. 0111), each first particle trap:
extends from a first wall of the first main fluid channel (See Fig. 2A reproduced above);
is in fluid communication with the first main fluid channel (See Fig. 2A); and
is configured to receive one or more first particles from the first main fluid channel, releasably trapping one or more of the first particles, and pass one or more of the first particles to a respective interaction chamber (chamber 220) of one or more interaction chambers (See Fig. 2A and Para. 0111); and
one or more second particle traps (exit conduit 222, See Para. 0111 and Fig. 2A), each second particle trap:
extends from a second wall (See Fig. 2A reproduced above) of a second main fluid channel (bypass channel 233, See Fig. 2A and Para. 0111);
is in fluid communication with the second fluid channel (See Fig. 2A and Para. 0111); and
is configured to receive one or more second particles from the second main fluid channel, releasably trapping one or more of the second particles, and pass one or more of the second particles to a respective interaction chamber (chamber 220) of the one or more interaction chambers (See Fig. 2A and Para. 0111);
wherein:
each respective interaction chamber is:
positioned between at least one respective first particle trap of the one or more first particle traps and at least one respective second particle trap of the one or more second particle traps (See Fig. 2A for depiction of the chamber 220 between the inlet conduit 221 and the outlet conduit 222);
in fluid communication with the first and second main fluid channels, the at least one respective first particle trap, and the at least one respective second particle trap (See Fig. 2A);
configured to receive one or more of the first particles and one or more of the passed second particles releasably trapped by the respective particle traps; and
configured to enable observation of an interaction between one or more of the opaquereceived first particles and one or more of the received second particles (Para. 0151 discloses that cover plate 141 depicted in Fig. 1A is a flat and opaque or translucent plate);
the device is configured for passive, hydrodynamic trapping of respective particles in respective particle traps and interaction between respective particles in a respective interaction chamber; and
either:
the first main fluid channel and the second main fluid channel form the same, unitary main fluid channel; or
the first main fluid channel and the second main fluid channel are different main fluid channels (first main fluid channel is inlet transport channel 230 and the second main fluid channel is bypass channel 233).
Applicant should note the italicized limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Zhou and the apparatus of Zhou is capable of the recitation of claim 15. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Zhou (see MPEP §2114).
With respect to claim 16, applicant should note these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Zhou and the apparatus of Zhou is capable of the recitation of claim 16. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Itoh (see MPEP §2114).
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.
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al al (US 2011/0143964 A1) in view of Handique et al (US 2017/0073745 A1).
Refer above for the disclosure of Zhou.
With respect to claim 3 Zhou fails to disclose the incorporation of a first restriction channel positioned between the first particle trap and the first interaction chamber;
wherein the first restriction channel has a first restriction channel cross-section smaller than a first particle trap channel cross-section of the first particle trap.
Handique teaches a system (100) for capturing cells, wherein an array (110) includes a set of pores (112), each pore (111) including a chamber (113) including a chamber inlet (114) and a chamber outlet (115) fluidly connected to a pore channel (117) (See para. 0023 and Figs. 1A-C). Because it is desired to trap cells of a predetermined size within the chamber 113 as the sample flows through the pores (111), the pore channel (117) dimensions preferably prevent flow of certain cell sizes therethrough (See Para. 0026). Figs. 2A-C clearly depicts a tapered profile of the chamber (113), wherein the cross-section of the pore channel is smaller than the smaller cross-section of the tapered chamber (See Para. 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the pore channel of Handique as a first restriction channel between the first particle trap and the first interaction chamber, and to incorporate a tapered profile or smaller cross-sectional dimension into the first restriction channel to prevent the flow of certain cell sizes therethrough (See Para. 0026 of Handique).
With respect to claim 4 Zhou fails to disclose the incorporation of a second restriction channel positioned between the second particle trap and the first interaction chamber;
wherein the second restriction channel has a second restriction channel cross-section smaller than a second particle trap channel cross-section of the second particle trap.
Handique teaches a system (100) for capturing cells, wherein an array (110) includes a set of pores (112), each pore (111) including a chamber (113) including a chamber inlet (114) and a chamber outlet (115) fluidly connected to a pore channel (117) (See para. 0023 and Figs. 1A-C). Because it is desired to trap cells of a predetermined size within the chamber 113 as the sample flows through the pores (111), the pore channel (117) dimensions preferably prevent flow of certain cell sizes therethrough (See Para. 0026). Figs. 2A-C clearly depicts a tapered profile of the chamber (113), wherein the cross-section of the pore channel is smaller than the smaller cross-section of the tapered chamber (See Para. 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the pore channel of Handique as a second restriction channel between the second particle trap and the first interaction chamber, and to incorporate a tapered profile or smaller cross-sectional dimension into the second restriction channel, to prevent the flow of certain cell sizes therethrough (See Para. 0026 of Handique).
With respect to claim 5 the combination of Zhou and Handique depicts that the at least a portion of the main fluid channel, the first interaction chamber, the first particle trap, the second particle trap, the first restriction channel, and the second restriction channel are coplanar (See Fig. 2A of Zhou and Fig. 1C of Handique for depiction of fluid flow taking place in the same plane for each device).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US 2011/0143964 A1).
Refer above for the disclosure of Zhou.
With respect to claim 6, Zhou fails to disclose the incorporation of a third particle trap extending from the first wall of the main fluid channel and positioned between the main fluid channel and the first interaction chamber. However, the courts have held In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) that even if a reference does not teach a plurality of a feature, a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
With respect to claim 7, modified Zhou teaches that the first particle trap and the third particle trap would be parallel and coplanar (See Fig. 2A of Zhou for depiction of fluid flow taking place in the same plane for each device).
With respect to claim 9, Zhou fails to disclose that the first particle trap is one of a plurality of first particle traps, each respective first particle trap extending from the first wall of the main fluid channel and positioned between the main fluid channel and the first interaction chamber; and the second particle trap is one of a plurality of second particle traps, each respective second particle trap extending from the second wall of the main fluid channel and positioned between the main fluid channel and the first interaction chamber. However, the courts have held In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) that even if a reference does not teach a plurality of a feature, a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
With respect to claim 21 Zhou discloses that the second particle trap extends from a second wall of the main fluid channel (See Fig. 2A reproduced above) and positioned between the main fluid channel (channel 233) and the first interaction chamber (chamber 220);
wherein:
the first particle trap extends from a first wall of the main fluid channel (See Fig. 2A reproduced above) and is positioned between the main fluid channel (channel 230) and the first interaction chamber (chamber 220).
Figs. 2A-B fail to disclose that the main fluid channel has a serpentine shape.
Fig. 3 of Zhou depicts an alternative embodiment of the device, wherein the chamber array device utilizes serpentine-shaped bypass channels 331 are utilized so that the total length of the bypass channels 331 can be adjusted to achieve a suitable ratio between the amounts of fluid 353 flowing through chambers 320 and fluid 356 flowing through the bypass channels 331 while minimizing the size of the fluidic device (See Para. 0115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the serpentine channel shape taught in Fig. 3o f Zhou into the main fluid channel of Fig. 2A of Zhou so that the total length of the channels can be adjusted to achieve a suitable ratio between the amounts of fluid flowing through chambers and fluid 356 flowing through the channels while minimizing the size of the fluidic device (See Para. 0115 of Zhou).
With respect to claim 22, while Zhou discloses that the main channel comprises a first opening and a second opening (See opening into channel 230 from inlet 271 and opening from channel 230 to outlet 272 in Fig. 2A), Zhou fails to disclose the incorporation of a first restriction channel positioned between the first particle trap and the first interaction chamber; and
a second restriction channel positioned between the second particle trap and the first interaction chamber.
Handique teaches a system (100) for capturing cells, wherein an array (110) includes a set of pores (112), each pore (111) including a chamber (113) including a chamber inlet (114) and a chamber outlet (115) fluidly connected to a pore channel (117) (See para. 0023 and Figs. 1A-C). Because it is desired to trap cells of a predetermined size within the chamber 113 as the sample flows through the pores (111), the pore channel (117) dimensions preferably prevent flow of certain cell sizes therethrough (See Para. 0026). Figs. 2A-C clearly depicts a tapered profile of the chamber (113), wherein the cross-section of the pore channel is smaller than the smaller cross-section of the tapered chamber (See Para. 0032).
The recitation of “wherein the first opening acts both as a first fluid inlet and a first fluid outlet; and wherein the second opening acts both as a second fluid inlet and a second fluid outlet” are limitations directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been taught by modified Zhou and the apparatus of modified Zhou is capable of the recitation of claim 21. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Zhou (see MPEP §2114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the pore channels of Handique as first and second restriction channels between the second particle trap and the first interaction chamber to prevent the flow of certain cell sizes therethrough (See Para. 0026 of Handique).
With respect to claim 23 the combination of Zhou and Handique depicts that the at least a portion of the main fluid channel, the first interaction chamber, the first particle trap, the second particle trap, the first restriction channel, and the second restriction channel are coplanar (See Fig. 2A of Zhou and Fig. 1C of Handique for depiction of fluid flow taking place in the same plane for each device).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US 2011/0143964 A1) in view of Milgram et al (US 2020/0406263 A1).
Refer above for the disclosure of Zhou.
With respect to claim 17 Zhou fails to disclose a chamber ramp positioned within each interaction chamber proximate each respective second particle trap and configured to retain a particle within the interaction chamber.
Milgram teaches a microfluidic chip with a first analysis chamber 3a having a first analysis inlet. First analysis chamber 3a is designed for performing analysis of molecules present in the liquid coming from well 2a which are representative of the cellular response (See Para. 0066 and Fig. 1). In a particular embodiment, the bottom wall of chamber 3a presents an obstacle, for example a step or ramp facilitating contact of the liquid with the analysis surface. The step or ramp is defined so that the liquid flow encounters an obstacle which forces the liquid flow to move towards the opposite wall of analysis chamber 3a, i.e. the analysis surface containing collection devices 6a (See Para. 0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the step or ramp of Milgram proximate the interaction chamber of Zhou such that the liquid flow encounters an obstacle which forces the liquid flow to move towards the opposite wall of chamber (See Para. 0093 of Milgram).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 25, 27, and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest cited prior art of reference fails to disclose or teach:
the plurality of interaction chambers comprises at least some interaction chambers having different quantities of respective particle traps (claim 14);
a second interaction chamber in fluid communication with the main fluid channel; a third particle trap extending from the first wall of the main fluid channel and positioned between the main fluid channel and the second interaction chamber, the third particle trap being positioned linearly from the first particle trap along the first wall; a fourth particle trap extending from the second wall of the main fluid channel and positioned between the main fluid channel and the second interaction chamber, the fourth particle trap being positioned linearly from the second particle trap along the second wall; a third restriction channel positioned between the third particle trap and the second interaction chamber; and a fourth restriction channel positioned between the fourth particle trap and the second interaction chamber (claim 25). Claims 27 depends upon claim 25 and inherit the same status; and
a third particle trap extending from the first wall of the main fluid channel and positioned between the main fluid channel and the first interaction chamber; and wherein a third restriction channel positioned between the third particle trap and the first interaction chamber; a first particle trap channel cross-section of the first particle trap is larger than a third particle trap channel cross-section of the third particle trap; and the first particle trap is configured to trap larger cells within a fluid delivered to the first opening than the third particle trap (claim 28).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY I FISHER whose telephone number is (469)295-9182. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRITTANY I FISHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1796 May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights