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, and species A1, B1, C3, D4, E4, F3, G3, H2, I1, J1, K1, L1, M1, N1 in the reply filed on 04/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Group I drawn to a microfluidic system covering claims 2-32. Traversal is on the grounds that further examining at least claim 33 and even claims 33-39 "would [not] be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required." MPEP § 808.02. Notably, independent claim 34 has been amended to depend from independent claim 2. Therefore, the claims of Groups I and III share the same special technical features. Many of the elements of independent claim 33 largely overlap with those of independent claims 2 and 34. Accordingly, examining the further elements of a single claim would not be a serious search and/or examination burden. [...] examining claims 2-39 would not present a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner.” This is not found persuasive because: The invention of Group I includes the special technical features of wherein the microfluidic system is configured to flow the solution through the cell confinement region, not required by the claims of Groups II-III. The invention of Group II includes the special technical feature of a cell confinement region comprising cells coupled to a surface, a microcarrier, a cell growth disc, or a cell growth carrier; a microfluidic device comprising a plurality of channels fluidically coupling the reservoir to the cell confinement region through at least one opening, wherein the at least one opening is configured to prevent egress of the cells, the microcarrier, the cell growth disc, or the cell growth carrier from the cell confinement region into the plurality of channels; and a pump configured to flow the solution through the cell confinement region, not required by the claims of Groups I and Ill. The invention of Group Ill includes the special technical feature of contacting cells with the solution, and measuring a response of the cells to the solution, not required by the claims of Groups I-II. In addition, there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); (d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and (e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Regarding the species: each species of A represents a distinct system configuration, not shared by the other species, see the Applicant’s specification at ¶ 0004-0017 for example; each species of B represents a distinct force employed, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species B1-B3; each species of C represents a distinct partition configuration, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species C1i-C3iv; each species of D represents a distinct cell coupled feature, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species D1-D4; each species of E represents a distinct cell confinement region feature, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species E1-E4; each species of F represents a distinct system configuration feature, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species F1-F3; each species of G represents a distinct dimensional feature, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species G1-G3; each species of H represents a distinct cell confinement region feature, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species H1-H3; each species of I represents a distinct cell confinement region feature, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species I1-I4; each species of J represents a distinct analyte, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species J1-J2; each species of K represents a distinct instrument, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species K1-K3; each species of L represents a distinct cell confinement region feature, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species L1-L4; each species of M represents a distinct cell confinement region feature, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species M1-M4; and each species of N represents a distinct measuring apparatus, not shared by the other species, see the 01/28/2026 Restriction Requirement species N1-N6i. In addition, there would be a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species, because at least the following reason(s) apply: (a) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; or (c) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 13, the elected species are directed to a withdrawn species (see Species D, and pending claim 7); therefore, the species of the cell growth carrier is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 2-32 are being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: wherein the microfluidic system is configured to prevent egress of the cell from the cell confinement region with an optical force in claim 5; further comprising an instrument configured to measure a cellular response in claim 31; and wherein the instrument is configured for single cell analysis in claim 32.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-32 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.
Claims 2-32 are not clear with respect to what applicant is claiming. The claims do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
Claim 2 is unclear reciting “configured to flow [...]”, because it is unclear what structural configuration is being claimed.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation "the microfluidic system is configured to prevent egress of the cell from the cell confinement region with an optical force" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural configuration is being claimed, and whether an optical force element is part of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 is unclear reciting “wherein the solution is contained within oil within the reservoir” because it is unclear what is being claimed. Is the applicant trying to claim that the solution is oil, and the oil is contained in the reservoir, or the solution and oil in the reservoir?
Claim 29 is unclear reciting “the cell is configured to express a fluorescent protein upon contact to an analyte in the solution”, because it is unclear what structure of the microfluidic system is being claimed. In addition, it is unclear if the fluorescent protein is part of the claimed invention. Claim 30 is unclear because the analyte has not been positively claimed in claim 29.
For this reason, dependent claims relating to the above limitation are also unclear.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "[...] the microcarrier, the cell growth disc, or the cell growth carrier from the cell confinement region" in L3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the cells, the microcarrier, the cell growth disc, or the cell growth carrier" in L2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the instrument" in L1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “configured [...]” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the term “means” or generic placeholder is modified by a word, which is ambiguous regarding whether it conveys structure or function; and/or the claim limitation uses the word “means” or a generic placeholder coupled with functional language, but it is modified by some structure or material that is ambiguous regarding whether that structure or material is sufficient for performing the claimed function. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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) 2-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Beaumont et al. (US 2017/0165667 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Beaumont et al. teach:
2. A microfluidic system comprising:
a reservoir (e.g., chamber 202) comprising a solution (e.g., fluid medium 180, ¶ 0105-0107+);
a cell confinement region (e.g., isolation region 240, 270; i.e., regions of sequestration pens 124, 126, 128, 130, and trap 132); and
a microfluidic device comprising a plurality of channels fluidically coupling the reservoir to the cell confinement region (see ¶ 0155 & Fig. 2G for example);
wherein the microfluidic system is configured to flow the solution through the cell confinement region (see ¶ 0155 & Fig. 2G for example).
With regard to limitations in claims 4-6, 8-10, 19-22, 29, 31, 32 (e.g., [...] to prevent egress of the cell from the cell confinement region; [...] detachable; [...] can be, 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)). "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
Regarding claims 3-20 & 22-32, Beaumont et al. teach:
3. The microfluidic system of claim 2, wherein the cell confinement region comprises a cell (see ¶ 0057-0059 for example).
4. The microfluidic system of claim 3, wherein the microfluidic system is configured to prevent egress of the cell from the cell confinement region (see ¶ 0005, 0100-0101 for example).
5. The microfluidic system of claim 3, wherein the microfluidic system is configured to prevent egress of the cell from the cell confinement region with an optical force (see i.e., optically-actuated electrokinetic device. A variety of optically-actuated electrokinetic devices are known in the art, including devices having an optoelectronic tweezer (OET) configuration and devices having an opto-electrowetting (OEW) configuration. Examples of suitable OET configurations are illustrated in the following U.S. patent documents, each of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety: U.S. Pat. No. RE 44,711 (Wu et al.) (originally issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,612,355); and U.S. Pat. No. 7,956,339 (Ohta et al.). Examples of OEW configurations are illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 6,958,132 (Chiou et al.) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0024708 (Chiou et al.), both of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety. Yet another example of an optically-actuated electrokinetic device includes a combined OET/OEW configuration, examples of which are shown in U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 20150306598 (Khandros et al.) and 20150306599 (Khandros et al.) and their corresponding PCT Publications WO2015/164846 and WO2015/164847, all of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. ¶ 0102).
6. The microfluidic system of claim 3, wherein the cell confinement region is partitioned from the plurality of channels by a semipermeable barrier (see In Situ-Generated Isolation Structures. ¶ 0216+; e.g., in situ-generated barrier 1520, 1620, 1720; see also 620, 720, 820, 920, 1020, 1120, 1220, 1320+) that prevents egress from the cell confinement region (see ¶ 0005, 0100-0101, 0217+ for example).
7. The microfluidic system of claim 3, wherein the cell is coupled to a surface of the cell confinement region (see i.e., The barrier may further include a capture moiety configured to capture at least one subset of micro-objects disposed in a sequestration pen or a sector that the barrier surrounds. ¶ 0236 & Figs. 10A-10C for example).
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the surface of the cell confinement region is dissolvable (see ¶ 276 for example).
9. The microfluidic system of claim 7, wherein the microfluidic system is configured to prevent egress (see ¶ 0005, 0100-0101 for example) from the cell confinement region (see ¶ 0005, 0100-0101, 0217+ for example).
10. The microfluidic system of claim 7, wherein the cell confinement region is partitioned from the plurality of channels by a semipermeable barrier (see In Situ-Generated Isolation Structures. ¶ 0216+; e.g., in situ-generated barrier 1520, 1620, 1720; see also 620, 720, 820, 920, 1020, 1120, 1220, 1320+) that prevents egress from the cell confinement region (see ¶ 0005, 0100-0101, 0217+ for example).
11. The microfluidic system of claim 10, wherein the semipermeable barrier comprises a membrane (see ¶ 0236-0237, 0320 for example).
12. The microfluidic system of claim 3, wherein a diameter of an opening that fluidically couples the cell confinement region to the plurality of channels is smaller than a diameter of the cell (see ¶ 0240 & Figs. 6A, 8A for example).
13. The microfluidic system of claim 7, wherein a diameter of an opening that fluidically couples the cell confinement region to the plurality of channels is larger (see Figs. 6A, 8A for example).
14. The microfluidic system of claim 2, wherein the microfluidic system comprises a pump or a syringe configured to flow the solution through the cell confinement region (see ¶ 0413 for example).
15. The microfluidic system of claim 2, wherein the microfluidic system comprises a plurality of cell confinement regions (see Figs. 1A, 2D, 2G for example).
16. The microfluidic system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of cell confinement regions are connected in series by the plurality of channels (see Figs. 1A, 2D, 2G for example).
17. The microfluidic system of claim 2, wherein the microfluidic device further comprises a fluid reservoir (e.g., connection region 236, 268) that is fluidically coupled to the cell confinement region (see Fig. 2C for example).
18. The microfluidic system of claim 17, wherein the fluid reservoir comprises a plurality of serpentine channels (see Fig. 2G for example).
19. The microfluidic system of claim 17, wherein the microfluidic system is configured to prevent egress of the cells from the cell confinement region into the fluid reservoir (see ¶ 0005, 0100-0101, 0217+ for example).
20. The microfluidic system of claim 2, wherein the cell confinement region is detachable from the microfluidic device (as the device is assembled, it would be capable of being dissembled ¶ 0208).
22. The microfluidic system of claim 2, wherein the cell confinement region comprises an opening (e.g., proximal opening 234) through which the cells can be added (see ¶ 0130 for example).
23. The microfluidic system of claim 2, wherein the cell confinement region comprises a lower portion disposed within a flow path of the plurality of channels and an upper region that is not exposed to the flow path of the plurality of channels (see Figs. 1A-1B for example).
24. The microfluidic system of claim 23, wherein the flow path comprises a downward trajectory through the cell confinement region (see Fig. 2G for example).
25. The microfluidic system of claim 2, wherein oil contained within the reservoir (see i.e., an immiscible fluid (e.g., an oil medium) present in the region/chamber 202 ¶ 0122).
26. The microfluidic system of claim 2, wherein the reservoir comprises a hydrophobic coating (see ¶ 0119 for example).
27. The microfluidic system of claim 7, wherein the surface of the cell confinement region comprises a porous support (see ¶ 0242 for example).
28. The microfluidic system of claim 2, wherein the solution comprises conditioned media (this limitation is sufficiently broad to have read on the fluid medium taught throughout the reference).
29. The microfluidic system of claim 3, wherein the cell is capable of fluoresce configured to express a fluorescent protein upon contact to an analyte in the solution (see ¶ 0058 for example).
30. The microfluidic system of claim 29, wherein the analyte is a bacterium (see ¶ 0059 for example).
31. The microfluidic system of claim 2, further comprising an instrument configured to measure a cellular response (e.g., microscope ¶ 0081).
32. The microfluidic system of claim 2, wherein the instrument is capable for single cell analysis (see ¶ 0009 for example).
Regarding limitations recited in claim 21, which is directed to method of assembling the microfluidic system (e.g., “to screw into the microfluidic device and fluidically couple to the plurality of channels”) it is noted that said limitations are given little patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.), see MPEP 2113 and 2114. Therefore, the claim is unpatentable even though the system of Beaumont et al. was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beaumont et al. (US 2017/0165667 A1) incorporated reference in its entirety:
Examples of suitable OET configurations: U.S. Pat. No. RE 44,711 (Wu et al.) (originally issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,612,355); and U.S. Pat. No. 7,956,339 (Ohta et al.).
Examples of OEW configurations are illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 6,958,132 (Chiou et al.) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0024708 (Chiou et al.).
An optically-actuated electrokinetic device includes a combined OET/OEW configuration, examples of which are shown in U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 20150306598 (Khandros et al.) and 20150306599 (Khandros et al.) and their corresponding PCT Publications WO2015/164846 and WO2015/164847.
Examples of microfluidic devices having pens in which oocytes, ova, or embryos can be placed, cultured, and/or monitored have been described, for example, in US 2014/0116881 (application Ser. No. 14/060,117, filed Oct. 22, 2013), US 2015/0151298 (application Ser. No. 14/520,568, filed Oct. 22, 2014), and US 2015/0165436 (application Ser. No. 14/521,447, filed Oct. 22, 2014), each of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. U.S. application Ser. Nos. 14/520,568 (US 2015/0151298 A1, Hobbs et al.) and 14/521,447 (US 2015/0165436 A1, Chapman et al.) also describe exemplary methods of analyzing secretions of cells cultured in a microfluidic device.
Examples of microfluidic devices having electrode activation substrates that comprise electrodes controlled by phototransistor switches have been described, for example, in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0124370 (Short et al.)
Microfluidic devices having a EWOD configuration with selectively addressable and energizable electrodes are known in the art and have been described, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 8,685,344 (Sundarsan et al.)
A power source frequency ranges and average or peak power ranges are known in the art. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,958,132 (Chiou et al.), U.S. Pat. No. RE44,711 (Wu et al.) (originally issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,612,355), and US Patent Application Publication Nos. US2014/0124370 (Short et al.), US2015/0306598 (Khandros et al.), and US2015/0306599 (Khandros et al.)
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
Prosecution Insights