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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-15, drawn to a compartmentalized microfluidic device.
Group II, claim(s) 16-17, drawn to a process for fabricating a compartmentalized microfluidic device.
Group III, claim(s) 18-20, drawn to a method of detecting neural communications between neural cells or brain organoids.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a compartmentalized microfluidic device comprising:
a. a rigid, transparent substrate;
b. a frame bonded to the substrate, wherein the frame forms a majority of perimeters for at least two compartments, with openings located between adjoining compartments; and
c. one or more separators, each separator comprising a plurality of microfluidic channels, wherein a separator is located in each opening in the frame and each separator is bonded to the frame;
wherein each separator is oriented in a perpendicular direction to the substrate, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Viovy et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0306041; hereinafter Viovy; already of record on the IDS received 11/28/2023).
Viovy discloses a compartmentalized microfluidic device ([0136], see Fig. 1). The device comprises:
a. a rigid, transparent substrate ([0129]-[0130], see Fig. 1).
b. a frame bonded to the substrate, wherein the frame forms a majority of perimeters for at least two compartments, with openings located between adjoining compartments ([0124], [0129]-[0130], see Fig. 1 at body/chambers extending vertically from square coverslip, the body forming microfluidic chambers 2a, 2b, and unlabeled opening where component 3 meets both left and right compartments).
c. one or more separators, each separator comprising a plurality of microfluidic channels, wherein a separator is located in each opening in the frame and each separator is bonded to the frame ([0144], the juxtaposed microchannels are connected at their ends to the cell chambers, [0149], [0176], see Fig. 1 at microchannel 10, and Fig. 6A at microchannel 10 with a bifurcation which comprises a first portion 60 which joins up with two branches 51’).
Each separator is oriented in a perpendicular direction to the substrate (see Fig. 10 where separator 10 extends vertically in a perpendicular direction to the substrate).
During a telephone conversation with Brent Peebles on 2/25/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1-15 being examined, and claims 16-20 deemed withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/28/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the U.S. Patent No. 10233115 does not cite Mathur et al. as the Applicant of the cited document, but rather cites Didier et al. as the Applicant. Therefore, U.S. Patent No. 10233115 has not been considered. It appears that Applicant intended to cite U.S. patent No. 10233415, which is to Mathur et al., and was cited on the International Search Report mailed April 6, 2022 in reference to co-pending PCT/US2022/012834 mailed January 18, 2022, also cited on the information disclosure statement filed 11/28/2023. The remainder of the references on the information disclosure statement filed 11/28/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
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 11 and 14-15 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.
Regarding claim 11, Ln. 2 recites, “the microfluidic channels of a separator”. However, it is unclear if the recited separator is the a part of or different from the one or more separators previously recited in claim 1. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “the microfluidic channels of a separator of the one or more separators”.
The term “high heat tolerance” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high heat tolerance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level of heat tolerance a polymer must have to be considered to have high heat tolerance, and it is further unclear what qualities the polymer must have at a given temperature, e.g. strength, cohesion, etc. in order to be considered to have high heat tolerance.
Claim 15 is rejected as depending on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viovy.
Regarding claim 1, Viovy discloses a compartmentalized microfluidic device ([0136], see Fig. 1). The device comprises:
a. a rigid, transparent substrate ([0129]-[0130], see Fig. 1).
b. a frame bonded to the substrate, wherein the frame forms a majority of perimeters for at least two compartments, with openings located between adjoining compartments ([0124], [0129]-[0130], see Fig. 1 at body/chambers extending vertically from square coverslip, the body forming microfluidic chambers 2a, 2b, and unlabeled opening where component 3 meets both left and right compartments).
c. one or more separators, each separator comprising a plurality of microfluidic channels, wherein a separator is located in each opening in the frame and each separator is bonded to the frame ([0144], the juxtaposed microchannels are connected at their ends to the cell chambers, [0149], [0176], see Fig. 1 at microchannel 10, and Fig. 6A at microchannel 10 with a bifurcation which comprises a first portion 60 which joins up with two branches 51’).
Each separator is oriented in a perpendicular direction to the substrate (see Fig. 10 where separator 10 extends vertically in a perpendicular direction to the substrate).
Regarding claim 3, Viovy discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1 wherein the device has two or three compartments (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Viovy discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises glass ([0129]-[0130]).
Regarding claim 5, Viovy discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1 wherein the frame comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polymers, ceramics, metals and glass ([0129]-[0130]).
Regarding claim 9, Viovy discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1 further comprising one or more electrodes ([0046]).
Regarding claim 10, Viovy discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 9 wherein the one or more electrodes are selected from the group consisting of microelectrode arrays (MEAs) and three-dimensional electrodes ([0046]).
Regarding claim 13, Viovy discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1, wherein each separator has one or more microfluidic channels with at least one dimension smaller than about 10 microns ([0157]).
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., “Microfluidic compartmentalized co-culture platform for CNS axon myelination research”, December 2009, Biomedical Microdevices, Vol. 11, No. 6, Pgs. 1-17 (hereinafter Park; already of record on the IDS received 11/28/2023) in view of Viovy.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a compartmentalized microfluidic device (see Fig. 2 at PDMS frame mounted onto glass). The device comprises:
a. a rigid, transparent substrate (see Fig. 2, where the substrate is glass. See also Pgs. 3-4 at 2.1 Design and fabrication).
b. a frame bonded to the substrate, wherein the frame forms a majority of perimeters for at least two compartments, with openings located between adjoining compartments (see Fig. 1A, where the frame forms a perimeter for the soma and axon/glia compartments, and Pgs. 3-4 at 2.1 Design and fabrication).
c. one or more separators, each separator comprising a microfluidic channel, wherein a separator is located in each opening in the frame and each separator is bonded to the frame (see Fig. 1b, where an axon-guiding microchannel separates the soma compartment from the axon/glia compartment, and Figs. 1a-1b, where a separator is connected to the co-culture platform).
Each separator is oriented in a perpendicular direction to the substrate (see Fig 1b, where the microchannel extends in a direction perpendicular to the substrate).
Park fails to explicitly disclose that each separator comprises a plurality of microfluidic channels.
Viovy is in the analogous field of microfluidic devices for cell culture (Viovy [0017]-[0020]). Viovy teaches separators comprising a plurality of microfluidic channels (Viovy; [0144], the juxtaposed microchannels are connected at their ends to the cell chambers, [0149], [0176], see Fig. 1 at microchannel 10, and Fig. 6A at microchannel 10 with a bifurcation which comprises a first portion 60 which joins up with two branches 51’. See also [0145], which states that the fluidic interconnection system can comprise between 1 and 1000 microchannels). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Park with the teachings of Viovy so that each separator comprises a plurality of microfluid channels, in order to allow a user to provide a variety of axons to be able to select a specific type of cell subtype.
Regarding claim 3, modified Park discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1. Modified Park further discloses that the device has two or three compartments (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Park discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1. Modified Park further discloses that the substrate comprises glass (Park; see Fig. 1A, and Pgs. 3-4 at 2.1 Design and fabrication).
Regarding claim 5, modified Park discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1. Modified Park further discloses that the frame comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polymers, ceramics, metals and glass (Park; see Fig. 1A, and Pgs. 3-4 at 2.1 Design and fabrication).
Regarding claim 7, modified Park discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1. Modified Park further discloses that the separator comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polymers, ceramics, metals and glass (Park; see Figs. 1a-1b at microchannel, and where the microchannel is formed on the frame or co-culture platform, and Pgs. 3-4 at 2.1 Design and fabrication, which states that all co-culture platforms were fabricated in PDMS).
Regarding claim 8, modified Park discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1. Modified Park further discloses that the separator comprises a material selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polymers and copolymers, PDMS and cyclic olefin copolymer (Park; see Figs. 1a-1b at microchannel, and where the microchannel is formed on the frame or co-culture platform, and Pgs. 3-4 at 2.1 Design and fabrication, which states that all co-culture platforms were fabricated in PDMS).
Regarding claim 13, modified Park discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1. Modified Park further discloses that each separator has one or more microfluidic channels with at least one dimension smaller than about 10 microns (see Fig. 1b, where the microchannel has a height of 2.5 micrometers).
Regarding claim 14, modified Park discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1. Modified Park further discloses that the separator is formed from a mold and the mold comprises a material selected from the group consisting of metals, ceramics, silicon, silica, and polymers with a high heat tolerance (Park; see Figs. 1b, 2, and Pgs. 3-4 at 2.1 Design and fabrication, which states the master mold was fabricated on a 3 inch diameter silicon substrate).
Regarding claim 15, modified Park discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 14. Modified Park further discloses that the mold has multiple mold cavities (see Park Fig. 2 at multiple cavities within the SU-8 master mold).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viovy as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, and 13 above, and further in view of Mathur et al. (US Pat. No. 10,233,415; hereinafter Mathur).
Regarding claim 6, Viovy discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1, and all limitations recited therein.
Viovy fails to explicitly disclose that the frame comprises a material selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polymers and copolymers.
Mathur is in the analogous field of microfluidic devices for culturing cells (Mathur Col. 1 Lns. 34-41). Mathur teaches a frame comprising a material selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polymers and copolymers (Mathur Col. 8 Lns. 48-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Viovy with the teachings of Mathur so that the frame comprises a material selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polymers and copolymers, as Mathur teaches that thermoplastic polymers are capable of being used to produce microfluidic devices for cell culture (Mathur; Col. 1 Lns. 34-41, Col. 8 Lns. 48-57).
Regarding claim 12, Viovy discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 9, and all limitations recited therein.
Viovy fails to explicitly disclose that one or more of the electrodes comprise three-dimensional electrodes and wherein one or more of the three-dimensional electrodes are mounted on the substrate, the frame, or both.
Mathur teaches a microfluidic device with one or more electrodes that comprise three-dimensional electrodes and wherein one or more of the three-dimensional electrodes are mounted on the device (Mathur; Col. 11 Lns. 5-27, see Figs. 2, 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Viovy with the teachings of Mathur so that the or more of the electrodes comprise three-dimensional electrodes and wherein one or more of the three-dimensional electrodes are mounted on the substrate, the frame, or both, in order to be able to perform real-time field potential measurements on the cells within the device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Viovy as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 13-15 above, and further in view of Mathur.
Regarding claim 6, modified Park discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Park fails to explicitly disclose that the frame comprises a material selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polymers and copolymers.
Mathur is in the analogous field of microfluidic devices for culturing cells (Mathur Col. 1 Lns. 34-41). Mathur teaches a frame comprising a material selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polymers and copolymers (Mathur Col. 8 Lns. 48-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Park with the teachings of Mathur so that the frame comprises a material selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polymers and copolymers, as Mathur teaches that thermoplastic polymers are capable of being used to produce microfluidic devices for cell culture (Mathur; Col. 1 Lns. 34-41, Col. 8 Lns. 48-57).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viovy.
Regarding claim 11, Viovy discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 9, and all limitations recited therein.
Viovy fails to explicitly disclose that one or more of the electrodes are aligned with the microfluidic channels of a separator of the one or more separators.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have one or more of the electrodes be aligned with the microfluidic channels of a separator of the one or more separators, as it would be obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified and usable locations for placing the electrodes within the microfluidic device, with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have arrived at aligning the electrodes with the microfluidic channels of a separator of the one or more separators in order to measure the electrophysiological process of the cells more effectively that are occurring between the separated compartments, as well as the interactions between the separated compartments.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Viovy.
Regarding claim 14, Viovy discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 1.
With regards to the separator being formed from a mold and the mold comprising a material selected from the group consisting of metals, ceramics, silicon, silica and polymers with a high heat tolerance, 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 as 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. Further, as the device of Viovy is shown to be formed using a mold ([0247]), absent persuasive evidence, the claimed device is the same as or obvious from the device of Viovy.
Regarding claim 15, Viovy discloses the compartmentalized microfluidic device of claim 14.
With regards to the mold having multiple mold cavities, 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 as 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. Further, as the device of Viovy is shown to be formed using a mold ([0247]), absent persuasive evidence, the claimed device is the same as or obvious from the device of Viovy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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:
Viovy, Park, and Mathur teach a device similar to that claimed. However, Viovy, Park, and Mathur do not teach, either alone or in combination with the prior art, that the perimeters for the at least two compartments are formed by the frame except for the openings. Specifically, although Viovy, which is considered to be the closest prior art, teaches at least two compartments, and openings ([0124], [0129]-[0130], see Fig. 1 at body/chambers extending vertically from square coverslip, the body forming microfluidic chambers 2a, 2b, and unlabeled opening where component 3 meets both left and right compartments), Viovy does not teach that the perimeters for the at least two compartments are formed by the frame except for the openings, but rather that the openings are formed by the frame as well.
Additionally, Park, which is considered to be the next closest prior art, teaches at least two compartments, and openings (see Fig. 1A, where the frame forms a perimeter for the soma and axon/glia compartments, and Pgs. 3-4 at 2.1 Design and fabrication). However, similarly to Viovy, Park does not teach that the perimeters for the at least two compartments are formed by the frame except for the openings, but rather that the openings are formed by the frame as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1798