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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, drawn to a microfluidic flow cell, in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “As claim 1 has been amended to include the structural feature of a holding device (50), claims of Group I and Group II have a common feature, which makes a contribution over the cited art and links the embodiments to a common inventive concept.” This is not found persuasive because even though the inventions have a common feature of a holding device, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as noted in the 11/17/2025 Requirement for Restriction, therefore presenting lack of unity between the groups a posteriori.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A 1; B 1; C 7 (Fig. 10); D n/a due to the election of species C 7; E n/a due to the election of species C 7; F 1; G 1; H n/a due to the election of species C 7; in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-8 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 1 is not clear with respect to what applicant is claiming. The claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. The claim is unclear reciting “A microfluidic flow cell [...] comprising: [...] a holding device (50), said holding device (50) configured to hold one or more flow cells” because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase ‘configured to’ are part of the claimed invention as the one or more flow cells has not been positively claimed. In addition, it is unclear what structural configuration is being claimed. It is further unclear if the applicant is trying to claim a microfluidic flow cell comprising one or more additional flow cells. For this reason, dependent claims 2-8 are also unclear.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Fan et al. (US 2016/0289669).
Regarding claim 1, Fan et al. teach:
1. A microfluidic flow cell comprising:
a support plate (e.g., cartridge) with a sample chamber (e.g., reaction chamber/well) formed therein (see Figs. 9, 12, 13, 14A-14B for example), which is peripherally limited by chamber walls (24) and a bottom (see Figs. 12-14 for example);
a cover plate (see annotated Figs. 14A-14B), which can be connected with the support plate in a fluid tight manner (see ¶ 0288 for example);
an inlet with an integrated inlet channel, which leads to the sample chamber via an opening (see Figs. 12, 13B for example);
a drain (see “Outlet” in Figs. 12, 13B for example) with an integrated drain channel (see Figs. 12, 13A-13C for example);
holding elements capable for fixing the support plate (see e.g., Imaging System Design ¶ 0511+), the holding elements are attached to the front sides of the support plate (see annotated Figs. 14A-14B for example); and
a holding device (e.g., Instrument), said holding device configured to hold one or more flow cells (see annotated Figs. 14A-14B & ¶ 0308+ for example).
PNG
media_image1.png
1778
2326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to limitations in claims 1, 4, 6 (e.g., [...] can be connected with the support plate in a fluid tight manner; [...] for fixing the support plate to a microscope stage, etc.), these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claims 2-8, Fan et al. teach:
2. The microfluidic flow cell according to claim 1, wherein, the cover plate and/or the bottom are attached the support plate in a removable manner (see annotated Figs. 14A-14B & ¶ 0308+ for example).
3. The microfluidic flow cell according to claim 1, wherein, the holding elements arranged on the front sides of the support plate of the flow cell are strip-shaped (see Figs. 14A-14B for example), whereas the aspect ratio between the long side and short side is preferably 3:1 (see ¶ 0263 for example).
4. The microfluidic flow cell according to claim 1, wherein, a latching lug and a latching receptacle each are attached to at least one longitudinal side of the support plate (see i.e., In general, the mechanical interface features of the cartridge provide for easily removable but highly precise and repeatable positioning of the cartridge relative to the instrument system. Suitable mechanical interface features include, but are not limited to, alignment pins, alignment guides, mechanical stops, and the like. ¶ 0338; Kits ¶ 0455).
5. The microfluidic flow cell according to claim 1, wherein, the diameters of the inlet channel of the inlet and the drain channel of the drain are >1 mm (see ¶ 0298-0299 for example).
6. The microfluidic flow cell according to claim 1, wherein, a notch capable for attaching a seal (e.g., gasket) is formed on the top and bottom of the support plate (see ¶ 0576 for example).
7. The microfluidic flow cell according to claim 1, wherein, the cover plate is incorporated in a cover frame and/or the bottom is incorporated in a bottom frame (see annotated Figs. 14A-14B for example).
8. The microfluidic flow cell according to claim 1, wherein, at least the support plate is entirely made out of polyethylene (PE) or polypropylene (PP) (see ¶ 0317 for example).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN KWAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7072. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 4:30 am - 2:30 pm EST.
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, CHARLES CAPOZZI can be reached at (571)270-3638. 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.
/DEAN KWAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
DEAN KWAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1798