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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s reply filed 4/15/26 is acknowledged. Claim 19 was cancelled and claims 20-27 were added. Claims 1-18 and 20-27 are pending and are under examination.
Response to Reply
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In light of applicant’s claim amendments, the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn except for the following below, and new rejections follow.
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 1-18 and 20-27 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.
The prior rejections of claim 1 are modified and maintained. Claim 1 is rejected because the scope of the claim is indefinite for the following reasons: 1) the preamble is unclear, the term, e.g., “comprising:” should be included to clearly indicate the scope of the preamble; 2) “the fluidic flow controllers” raises an antecedent basis issue; 3) “a microfluidic channel” in the last two lines of the claim raises an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 2 is rejected because “a first sub-channel” and “a second sub-channel” raises an antecedent basis issue. Are these sub-channels referring to the first generation or the second generation?
The prior rejection of claim 3 is modified and maintained. Claim 3 is rejected because “the sub-channels” is unclear and raises an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 8 is rejected because: 1) the scope of the preamble is unclear, the term, e.g., “comprising:” should be included to clearly indicate the scope of the preamble.
Claim 18 is rejected for the following reasons: 1) “preferably” in part c. and j. makes claim unclear because it is unclear whether the claim language following this term is optional or not; 2) “connects or is connectable” in “connects or is connectable to the reaction chamber” makes the claim unclear; 3) “the fluidic flow controllers” raises an antecedent basis issue; 4) “a microfluidic channel” in part a. raises an antecedent basis issue; 5) “suitable magnetic capturing carriers” is unclear. What makes the magnetic capturing carriers “suitable”?; 6) “suitable ultrasound” in part i. is unclear; 7) spacing between “micro fluidic” in part h. should be corrected.
Claim 20 is rejected because the scope of the claim is indefinite for the following reasons: 1) the preamble is unclear, the term, e.g., “comprising:” should be included to clearly indicate the scope of the preamble; 2) “the fluidic flow controllers” raises an antecedent basis issue; 3) “a microfluidic channel” in the last two lines of the claim raises an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 21 is rejected because “a first sub-channel” and “a second sub-channel” raises an antecedent basis issue. Are these sub-channels referring to the first generation or the second generation?
Claim 22 is rejected because “the sub-channels” is unclear and raises an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 24 is rejected because “the fluidic flow controllers” raises an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 27 is rejected for the following reasons: 1) “preferably” in part c. makes claim unclear because it is unclear whether the claim language following this term is optional or not; 2) “the fluidic flow controllers” in part a. raises an antecedent basis issue; 3) “a microfluidic channel” in part a. raises an antecedent basis issue; 4) “a magnetic field exciter means” is unclear because it cannot be determined if this term is supposed to invoke 35 USC 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 11-18, filed 4/15/26, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 and 20-27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for withdrawing the prior art rejections: the prior art of record (Pourahmadi) fails to teach or fairly suggest the second sub-channel of first generation is branched at a second junction into two downstream sub-channels of second generation, wherein a first sub-channel of second generation connects or is connectable to the reaction chamber and a second sub-channel of second generation is connected to the buffer chamber and is configured to facilitate fluidic flow in at least part of the second subchannel of first generation and the second microfluidic channel in direction to the outlet of the elution chamber, in combination with the remaining features and elements of the claimed invention.
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 LORE RAMILLANO JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254.
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.
/LORE R JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
6/27/2026
Prosecution Insights