CTNF 18/269,625 CTNF 89454 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Pursuant to a preliminary amendment, claims 14-31, filed July 27, 2023 are currently pending in the instant application. Therefore, claims 14-31 are under consideration to which the following grounds of rejection are applicable. Priority The present application filed July 27, 2023, is a 35 U.S.C. 371 national stage filing of International Application PCT/CN2021/141391, filed December 25, 2021, which claims the benefit of Chinese Patent Application CN202011568787.3, filed December 25, 2020. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Chinese Patent Application CN202011568787.3, filed in China on December 25, 2020. 23-19 AIA Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on July 27, 2023 and May 30, 2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the IDSs accompany this Office Action. Claim Objections/Rejections Claim Interpretation: the term “barcode” as recited in claim 14 is interpreted to refer to a synthetic or natural nucleic acid sequence of any length. The term “one kind of first barcode nucleic acid” as recited in claim 14 is interpreted to refer to any type of ‘one kind’ of first barcode nucleic acid including wherein all first barcode nucleic acids comprise the same sequence; they are all the same length; they are all specific for the same components (e.g., origin-specific, dot-specific, feature-specific, cell-specific, etc.), etc. The term “synthetic sequencing” as recited in claim 16 is interpreted to refer to any method of sequencing. The term “said first linking fragment and second linking fragment are each complementary to a sequence at each end of said single-stranded linking nucleic acid” as recited in claim 23 is interpreted to refer to the step of “joining” (claim 14) by hybridization to form a partially double-stranded nucleic acid sequence. Product-by-Process Please Note: instant claims 14-31 are determined to be product-by-process claims. The structural elements of the biochip as recited in claim 14 is interpreted to comprise: (i) a surface; (ii) an array; and (iii) a plurality of parallel microfluidic channels comprising a plurality of positional domains (e.g., dots or features), wherein each positional domain corresponds to a position on an array comprising a probe, wherein each probe comprises two nucleic acid barcodes joined in any way (e.g., to form a single barcode, two barcodes separated by a spacer, joined across two positional domains, hybridized to form a double-stranded barcode, etc.), such that the plurality of probes in each channel forms a barcode strip, wherein each of the plurality of nucleic acid barcodes comprises a different barcode sequence, and wherein each probe can be directly or indirectly bound to the surface. It is presumed that the biochip as recited is obtainable by multiple routes. The burden is placed upon the Applicant to establish a patentable distinction between the claimed and referenced products. Moreover, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe , 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP §2113. Claim Objection 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 14-31 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 14-31 recite a mixture of pronouns including “the” and “said” within each claim, such that for consistency, a single pronoun reciting either “the” or “said” should be used . Appropriate correction is required. (2) Claims 22, 27, 30 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 22, 27, 30 and 31 recite terms such as: “UMI” and " m m”, where an abbreviation should be spelled out in the first encounter of the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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 14-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 14 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “a method for analyzing…using a biochip, said method comprising: providing the biochip having an array prepared by the steps of…followed by reverse transcription and/or amplification” in claim 14, lines 1-25 because instant claim 14 do not recite a single invention and, instead, claim 14 appears to recite multiple processes and a product in a single claim including: a biochip, a method for making a biochip, and a method of using a biochip), such that the invention as claimed is completely unclear and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claims 14-31 are indefinite because the claims appear to recite both a product and process in the same claim. The examiner cautions that according to the MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) states that a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b). PXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Ex parte Lyell , 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b)). For example, claim 14 recites: “ [A] method for analyzing spatial transcriptomic information of a biological tissue sample” in lines 1-2; and “contacting the array of the biochip with the tissue sample, the probes on the array recognizing and binding nucleic acids, of cells in the tissue, followed by reverse transcription and/or amplification” in lines 23-25; while claim 14 also recites: “providing the biochip having an array prepared by steps of: A. fixing a first set of barcode nucleic acids…B. applying a second set of barcode nucleic acids…C. undergoing a joining reaction…said plurality of first barcode strips intersect said plurality of second barcode strips to generate probes, said probes forming arrays of dots” in lines 3-22. Such claims can also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the theory that the claim is directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 which is drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only. Id. at 1551. Claims 14 and 19 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “the surface” such as recited in claim 14, lines 4 and 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the surface” in the claim. Claims 14, 17 and 19 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “a chip” such as recited in claim 14, lines 4, 11 and 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “a chip” in the claim because claim 14, line 2 recites the term “a biochip.” The Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the claim to recite, for example, “on a surface of the biochip.” Claim 14 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “each said kind” such as recited in claim 14, lines 8 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “each said kind” in the claim because claim 14, line 8 recites the term “one kind.” Moreover, the specific “kind” of barcode being referred to is unclear. The Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the claim to recite, for example, “and each of said one kind of first barcode nucleic acid.” Claims 14, 17 and 28 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “the chip surface” such as recited in claim 14, line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the chip surface” in the claims. Claims 14, 18, 19, 23 and 26 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “the first barcode nucleic acid” such as recited in claim 14, lines 17-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the first barcode nucleic acid” in the claim because claim 14, lines 4 and 6-7 recites the terms “a first set of barcode nucleic acids” and “a plurality of first barcode nucleic acids.” Claims 14, 20, 21, 23 and 26 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “the second barcode nucleic acid” such as recited in claim 14, lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the second barcode nucleic acid” in the claim because claim 14, lines 10 and 12 recites the terms “a second set of barcode nucleic acids” and “a plurality of second barcode nucleic acids.” Claim 14 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “where said plurality of first barcode strips intersect said plurality of second barcode strips to generate probes” in claim 14, lines 19-20 because the “plurality of first barcode strips” and the “plurality of second barcode strips” are not recited to intersect, such that where and/or how this occurs to generate probes is completely unclear and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 14 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the tissue sample” such as recited in claim 14, line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the tissue sample” in the claims. Claim 14 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the tissue” such as recited in claim 14, line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the tissue” in the claims. Claim 16 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “wherein further comprises high throughput” such as recited in claim 16, line 1 because claim 16 depends from instant claim 14, where it is completely unclear what “further comprises high throughput” (e.g., analyzing, sequencing, probes, etc.) and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 16 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the obtained nucleic acid” such as recited in claim 16, lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the obtained nucleic acid” in the claims. Moreover, claim 16 depends from instant claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite any step of “obtaining nucleic acids” and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 17 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the side of said microfluidic channel in contact with the chip surface” such as recited in claim 17, line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the side of said microfluidic channel” in the claims. Moreover, claim 16 depends from instant claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite any side of a microfluidic channel including one in contact with the chip surface and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 17 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “said microfluidic device” such as recited in claim 17, lines 3 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “said microfluidic device” in the claims. Moreover, claim 17 depends from instant claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite the presence of a microfluidic device and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 17 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “solution or nucleic acids in solution” such as recited in claim 17, line 5 because claim 17 depends from instant claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite the presence of a solution or nucleic acids in solution and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 17 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “wherein one of the first set of barcode nucleic acids…said microfluidic device” such as recited in claim 17, lines 6-8 because claim 17 depends from claim 14, wherein claim 14 already recites applying a second set of barcode nucleic acid sequences, such that it is unclear whether this barcode addition represents a third barcode nucleic acid sequence and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claims 20, 21 and 24 are indefinite for the recitation of the term “a probe fragment at the 3’ end” in claim 20, line 2 because claims 20, 21 and 24 depend from claim 14, wherein claim 14-C recites that the probe is generated from the joining of the first barcode nucleic acid and the second barcode nucleic acid, such that it is unclear how the probe can comprise a “probe fragment” (e.g., is the probe cleaved, etc.) and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claims 20 and 24 indefinite for the recitation of the term “the biological sample” such as recited in claim 20, line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the biological sample” in the claims. Moreover, claims 20 and 24 depend from instant claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite a target nucleic acid, or a biological sample and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 22 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “i.e., UMI” such as recited in claim 22, line 2 because the meaning of “i.e., UMI” is unclear including whether the term is a suggestion, an example, or whether the term refers to something else and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 23 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “said first linking fragment and second linking fragment” such as recited in claim 23, line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the probe formed” in the claim because claim 23, lines 1-2 and 3-4 recite the terms “a first linking fragment” and “a second linking fragment”. Claim 24 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the probe formed” such as recited in claim 14, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the probe formed” in the claim. Moreover, claim 24 depends from instant claim 14, wherein no “forming” reaction is recited in claim 14 and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 24 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “Step C” such as recited in claim 14, line 1 because claim 24 depends from claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite “Step C”. Instead, claim 14, line 17 recites the term “C” and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 26 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the sequence” such as recited in claim 26, lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the sequence” in the claims. Moreover, claim 26 depends from claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite the presence of a “sequence” of a barcode fragment and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 26 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the barcode fragment” such as recited in claim 26, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the barcode fragment” in the claims. Moreover, claim 26 depends from claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite the presence of a “barcode fragment” and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 26 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “is designated” such as recited in claim 26, line 4 because the meaning of the term “is designated” is completely unclear, such that one of skill in the art would not understand the meaning of the claim limitation as recited and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 27 is indefinite for the recitation of the terms “the concentration;” and “the flow channel” such as recited in claim 27, lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the concentration” and “the flow channel” in the claim. Moreover, claim 27 depends from claim 14, wherein instant claim 14 does not recite the presence of nucleic acids, a solution, and/or a flow channel and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claims 27, 28 and 30 are indefinite for the recitation of the terms “step A or B;” “step A;” and/or “step A and step B” such as recited in claim 27, line 2 because claims 27, 28 and 30 depend from claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite any “steps”, but instead recites “A”, “B”, and “C” and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 28 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “chemical bonding means” such as recited in claim 28, line 2 because the instant as-filed Specification does not recite a list of “chemical bonding means,” such that it is unclear whether Applicant intends this term to refer to 35 USC 112(f) (a means plus function claim) and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 29 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “a chemical group reaction” such as recited in claim 29, line 2 because claim 29 depends from claims 14 and 28, wherein claim 14 and 28 do not recite chemical groups or chemical group reactions and, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claim 30 is indefinite for the recitation of the terms “the width” and “said microfluidic channels” such as recited in claim 30, lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the width” and “said microfluidic channels” in the claims because claim 14, lines 11-12 recites the term “a plurality of microfluidic channels.” Claim 31 is indefinite for the recitation of the terms “the spacing” and “the microfluidic channels” such as recited in claim 31, lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the spacing” and “the microfluidic channels” in the claims because claim 14, lines 11-12 recites the term “a plurality of microfluidic channels.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 16, 17, 20, 24, 27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 recites (in part): “wherein further comprises high throughput next generation sequencing or synthetic sequencing to further analyze the obtained nucleic acids” in lines 1-2 because claim 16 depends from instant claim 14, wherein claim 16 does not recite what component or step specifically further comprises NGS or synthetic sequencing. Moreover, claim 14 does not recite ‘obtaining nucleic acids’ or that nucleic acids have been obtained. Thus, claim 16 is an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 recites (in part): “wherein said first set of barcode nucleic acids or second set…is added into each microfluidic channel of said microfluidic device” in lines 1-8 because claim 17 depends from instant claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite a microfluidic device, a side of the microfluidic channel, solutions including flowing solutions, etc. Thus, claim 17 is an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 recites (in part): “wherein said second barcode nucleic acid in said second set of barcode nucleic acids comprises a probe fragment at the 3’ end for recognizing and binding a target nucleic acid in the biological sample and a second barcode fragment” in lines 1-4 because claim 20 depends from instant claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite probe fragments (e.g., a probe is formed by joining nucleic acid barcodes); target nucleic acids, a biological sample, etc. Thus, claim 20 is an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 24 recites (in part): “wherein the probe formed in step C comprises…and binding a target nucleic acid in the biological sample” in lines 1-2 because claim 24 depends from instant claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite “step” C, target nucleic acids, and/or a biological sample. Thus, claim 24 is an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 27 recites (in part): “wherein the concentration of nucleic acid in the flow channel in step A or B” in lines 1-2 because claim 27 depends from instant claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite “step” A, a flow channel, and/or a solution such that there would be any concentration of nucleic acids. Thus, claim 27 is an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 29 recites (in part): “wherein chemical bonding means is a chemical group reaction or covalent crosslinking” in lines 1-2 because claim 29 depends from instant claims 14 and 28, wherein claims 14 and 28 do not recite chemical groups. Thus, claim 29 is an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 30 recites (in part): “said microfluidic channels set in parallel in step A and step B in lines 1-2 because claim 24 depends from instant claim 14, wherein claim 14 does not recite “step”. Thus, claim 30 is an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 14-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 which is drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only. Id. at 1551. In the instant case, claim 14 is directed to “a method for analyzing” such as recited in claim 1, line 1, where instant claim 14 recites, for example: : “ [A] method for analyzing spatial transcriptomic information of a biological tissue sample” in lines 1-2; and “contacting the array of the biochip with the tissue sample, the probes on the array recognizing and binding nucleic acids, of cells in the tissue, followed by reverse transcription and/or amplification” in lines 23-25; while claim 14 also recites: “providing the biochip having an array prepared by steps of: A. fixing a first set of barcode nucleic acids…B. applying a second set of barcode nucleic acids…C. undergoing a joining reaction…said plurality of first barcode strips intersect said plurality of second barcode strips to generate probes, said probes forming arrays of dots” in lines 3-22. (reciting a product and a process) . Claims 15-31 depend from instant claim 14. Thus, instant claims 14-31 recite both a product and process in the same claim and overlaps two statutory classes of invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 14-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a1)/102(a2 ) as being anticipated by Yin et al. (hereinafter “Yin”) (US Patent No. 11649485, issued May 16, 2023; WO2020123305, filed December 6, 2019; effective filing date January 6, 2019) as evidenced by Fan et al. (hereinafter “Fan”) (US Patent Application Publication 20210095331, published April 1, 2021; filed September 29, 2020; effective filing date September 30, 2019) . Regarding claims 14, 18-21, 23 and 27, Yin teaches compositions and methods for generating capture probes on a substrate for identifying the location of analytes in a biological sample (interpreted as probes; and biological samples, claim 14) (Abstract). Yin teaches that a substrate can generally have any suitable form or format such as, for example, a substrate can be flat, curved, e.g., convexly or concavely curved towards the area where the interaction between a biological sample , e.g., tissue sample , and a substrate takes place; and a substrate can be planar, chip , or slide; and a substrate can contain one or more patterned surfaces within the substrate, such that the substrate can have any desired shape (e.g., channels , wells, projections, ridges, divots, etc.) (interpreted as a surface; encompassing parallel channels; a chip; and spots, claim 14) (col 93, lines 5-13). Yin teaches microfluidic channel networks such as on a chip can be utilized to generate partitions (interpreted as a chip; microfluidic device; flow channels, claim 14) (col 194, lines 43-45). Yin teaches that methods of generating a spatial array including: (a) providing an array including a plurality of oligonucleotides , where the 3' end of an oligonucleotide of the plurality of oligonucleotides is attached to a substrate ; (b) providing a plurality of primers , where a primer of the plurality of primers is substantially complementary to a portion of the oligonucleotide ; (c) extending the primer using the oligonucleotide as a template, thereby generating a first oligonucleotide with a free 3' end , (d) extending the first oligonucleotide to produce a 3' overhang, (e) providing a splint oligonucleotide that hybridizes to the 3' end of the first oligonucleotide , and (f) ligating a second oligonucleotide to the 3' end of the first oligonucleotide (interpreted as an array comprising a surface; first barcode has a 5’ end for attachment to the chip; a plurality of joined first barcodes and second barcodes; probe fragment at the 3’ end for linking or binding a target; and a primer at the 5’ end of the first barcode, claims 14, 18-21, 23) (col 2, lines 18-30). Yin teaches that the second oligonucleotide further includes a constant sequence substantially complementary to a portion of the splint oligonucleotide; a unique molecular identifier ; and/or a spatial barcode (interpreted as comprising a second barcode or joined barcode; and a UMI, claim 14) (col 2, lines 46-53). Yin teaches that in some embodiments of methods of generating an array , one or more physical barriers are printed on the substrate , wherein the one or more physical barriers form one or more chambers including one or more chamber walls , which can include a hydrophobic surface ; as well as, a tapered end in contact with the substrate, wherein the second oligonucleotide is delivered using a microfluidic device (interpreted as including microfluidic channels, claim 14) (col 7, lines 3-14). Yin teaches that the capture probe can include a UMI sequence that can uniquely identify a given transcript , and a spatial barcode sequence and a capture domain that is capable of specifically hybridizing with an analyte capture agent, which can includes an oligonucleotide that includes an analyte capture sequence that interacts with the capture domain coupled to the feature (interpreted as unique barcodes, claim 14) (col 258, lines 21-28). Yin teaches isothermal nucleic acid amplification , which is helicase-dependent nucleic acid amplification on a substrate (e.g., on-chip ) is described in EMBO Rep., 795-800 (2004); US Patent 7282328 ; Andresen, et. al., Helicase-dependent amplification: use in OnChip amplification and potential for point of care diagnostics, Expert Rev Mal Diagn., 9, 645-650, doi: 10.1586/erm.09.46 (2009), which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety (interpreted as a biochip, claim 14) (col 62, lines 6-18). Yin teaches that a substrate can contain one or more capture probes designed to capture mRNA from one organism (e.g., a human), and one or more capture probes designed to capture DNA from a second organism (e.g., a bacterium), wherein the relative abundance of each analyte in the biological sample; and since an array can contain thousands or millions of capture probes (or more), an array can interrogate many analytes in parallel (interpreted as channels set in parallel, claim 14) (col 102, lines 29-39), where it is known that parallel microfluidic channel (10 m m, 25 m m, or 55 m m in width) are used to deliver molecular barcodes to the surface of a fixed tissue slide as evidenced by Fan (paragraph [0004], lines 1-5). Yin teaches methods for sequencing genetic material include, but are not limited to, DNA hybridization methods (e.g., Southern blotting), restriction enzyme digestion methods, Sanger sequencing methods, next-generation sequencing methods (e.g., single-molecule real-time sequencing, nanopore sequencing, and Polony sequencing), ligation methods, microarray methods, targeted sequencing, single molecule real-time sequencing, exon sequencing, electron microscopy-based sequencing, panel sequencing, transistor-mediated sequencing, direct sequencing, random shotgun sequencing, Sanger dideoxy termination sequencing, whole-genome sequencing, sequencing by hybridization, pyrosequencing, etc. (interpreted as NGS and synthetic sequencing, claims 14 and 16) (col 209, lines 15-28). Yin teaches in Figure 25 , a diagram showing a method of capturing an analyte with a capture domain and performing reverse transcription to obtain a complementary cDNA sequence (interpreted as reverse transcription, claim 14) (col 20, lines 22-25; and Figure 25). Regarding claims 15 and 24 , Yin teaches that arrays can be designed with pluralities of capture probes that can be designed to capture a substantial population of analytes such as mRNA , or to capture specific (e.g., gene specific) analytes (interpreted as probes for binding a target; for binding mRNA; and capture fragments, claims 14, 15 and 24) (col 2, lines 55-57). Yin teaches that the capture domain includes a poly-T sequence or gene-specific sequence (interpreted as a probe for binding a target; for binding mRNA; capture fragment, claims 14, 15 and 24 ) (col 2, lines 55-57). Regarding claim 16 , Yin teaches methods for sequencing genetic material include, but are not limited to, DNA hybridization methods (e.g., Southern blotting), restriction enzyme digestion methods, Sanger sequencing methods, next-generation sequencing methods (e.g., single-molecule real-time sequencing, nanopore sequencing, and Polony sequencing), ligation methods, microarray methods, targeted sequencing, single molecule real-time sequencing, exon sequencing, electron microscopy-based sequencing, panel sequencing, transistor-mediated sequencing, direct sequencing, random shotgun sequencing, Sanger dideoxy termination sequencing, whole-genome sequencing, sequencing by hybridization, pyrosequencing, etc. (interpreted as NGS and synthetic sequencing, claim 16) (col 209, lines 15-28). Yin teaches that Figure 17A shows an example of microfluidic channel structure 1700 for delivering spatial barcode carrying beads to droplets (interpreted as channels carrying nucleic acids, claim 31) (col 19, lines 22-24; and Figure 17A). Regarding claim 17 , Yin teaches that in some embodiments of methods of generating an array , one or more physical barriers are printed on the substrate , wherein the one or more physical barriers form one or more chambers including one or more chamber walls , which can include a hydrophobic surface ; as well as, a tapered end in contact with the substrate, wherein the second oligonucleotide is delivered using a microfluidic device (interpreted as delivering barcode nucleic acids using a microfluidic device, claim 17) (col 7, lines 3-14). Regarding claim 22 , Yin teaches that the second oligonucleotide further includes a constant sequence substantially complementary to a portion of the splint oligonucleotide; a unique molecular identifier ; and/or a spatial barcode (interpreted as comprising a second barcode or joined barcode; and a UMI, claims 14 and 22) (col 2, lines 46-53). Regarding claims 25 and 26 , Yin teaches an example of a capture probe in Figure 6 , where the capture probe 602 is optionally coupled to a feature 601 by a cleavage domain 603, such as a disulfide linker, wherein the capture probe can include functional sequences that are useful for subsequent processing, such as functional sequence 604 , which can include a sequencer-specific flow cell attachment sequence , such as a P5 sequence , as well as functional sequence 606, which can include sequencing primer sequences , such as a R1 primer binding site , such that sequence 604 can be a P7 sequence and sequence 606 is a R2 primer binding site , wherein spatial barcode 605 can be included within the capture probe for use in barcoding the target analyte , such that the functional sequences can generally be selected for compatibility with any of a variety of different sequencing systems , e.g., 454 Sequencing , Ion Torrent Proton or PGM, Illumina X10 , PacBio, Nanopore, etc.; and the spatial barcode 605, functional sequences 604 (e.g., flow cell attachment sequence) and 606 (e.g., sequencing primer sequences) can be common to all of the probes attached to a given feature , wherein the spatial barcode can also include a capture domain 607 to facilitate capture of a target analyte (interpreted as a flow cell for NGS sequencing comprising microfluidic channels; joined barcodes; feature 601 as a spot; capture domain 607 for binding targets or mRNA; and comprising primer sequences; primer fragment at the 5’ end; and designated barcode sequences, claims 14, 25 and 26) (col 65, lines 5-21 and 33-38). Figure 6 is shown below: PNG media_image1.png 272 732 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claims 28 and 29 , Yin teaches that each feature can be printed or deposited at a specific location on the substrate (e.g., inkjet printing); and each feature can have a unique oligonucleotide that functions as a spatial barcode , and capture probes for multiplexing ( e.g., capturing multiple analytes or multiple types of analytes, e.g., proteins and nucleic acids), wherein a feature can contain a photo-crosslinkable polymer precursor and an oligonucleotide , and/or a photo-crosslinkable polymer precursor can be deposited into a patterned feature on the substrate (e.g., well) (interpreted as being fixed to a chip surface by chemical bonding, including crosslinking, claims 28 and 29) (col 100, lines 65-67; and col 101, lines 1-8). Regarding claim 30 , Yin teaches that the channels can direct the migration of a cell such that it does not contact another cell on the array (e.g., the channels do not overlap with each other), and in some embodiments, the channels are about the same width as or wider than a cell , such that for a mammalian cell, a channe l can have a width of about 2 μm to about 10 μm ) (interpreted as encompassing 2-200 μm, claim 30) (col 215, lines 50-55). Regarding claim 31 , Yin teaches that arrays of different feature densities can be prepared by adjusting the spacing between adjacent features in the array, wherein the geometric center-to-center (e.g., pitch) spacing between adjacent features in an array is between 100 nm to 10 μm, 500 nm to 2 μm, 1 μm to 5 μm, and 20 μm to 200 μm (interpreted as encompassing 5-400 μm, claim 31) (col 141, lines 63-67; and col 142, line 1). Yin meets all the limitations of the claims and, therefore, anticipates the claimed invention. Conclusion Claims 14-31 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY M BUNKER whose telephone number is (313) 446-4833. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (6am-2:30pm). 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, Heather Calamita can be reached on (571) 272-2876. 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. /AMY M BUNKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 2 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 3 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 4 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 5 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 6 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 7 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 8 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 9 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 10 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 11 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 12 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 13 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 14 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 15 Art Unit: 1684 Application/Control Number: 18/269,625 Page 16 Art Unit: 1684