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
The following response is based upon papers filed 6/08/2026.
Claims 1-2,15-16,18,20-28,31-32,36, 130-131 are pending. Claims 3-14,17,19,29-30,33-35,37-129 have been cancelled.
The following rejections are modified as necessitated by amendment. Response to arguments is final.
This action is FINAL.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
The objection to the claims is withdrawn based upon arguments in the reply.
The 35 USC 112b made in the previous office action is withdrawn based upon amendments to the claims.
The 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection made in the previous office action is withdrawn based upon amendments to the claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,15-16,18,20-28,31-32,36, 130-131 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0056415 Feb 21, 2019) in view of Spero et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0401950 December 22, 2022).
With regard to claim 1, Lai et al. teaches a tray configured to receive a multi microwell array flow cell cartridge (para 5-7). Lai et al. teaches a uniform magnetic force to the flowcells (para 7). Lai et al. teaches applying the magnetic force using a polarity of magnets (para 131-333). Lai et al. teaches applying different directions to the magnetics (para 135). Lai et al. teaches that the assembly is actuatable between an active and inactive positions (para 136-137).
However, Lai et al. does not teach that this flowcell comprises magnets having alternating polarities.
With regard to claim 2, Lai et al. teaches that the magnet assembly applies a uniform magnetic force superior to the tray (para 5).
With regard to claims 15-16, Lai et al. teaches a plurality of sample collection vessels for collecting an analysis (para 159-162).
With regard to claim 18, Lai et al. teaches that the number of flow cells is the same as the number of reaction vessels (para 54).
With regard to claim 20, Lai et al. teaches collection tubes that can be used vertically (para 143-152).
With regard to claim 21, the collection tubes are the same type of tubes and therefore are received in the same orientation (para 144-153).
With regard to claim 22, Lai et al teaches a movable drawer (para 143).
With regard to claim 23-24, Lai et al. teaches a waste collection vessel (para 142).
With regard to claim 25, Lai et al. teaches an interlocking device to separate the sample and the waste collector (para 142-144 and 172).
With regard to claim 26, Lai et al teaches that the cartage can have closures (para 172) that can be a cap. As the term “latch” is not defined it would encompass any device that can close and open including the closure of Lai et al.
With regard to claim 27, Lai et al. does not teach a lysis magnet.
With regard to claim 28, Lai et al. teaches a plurality of inlets, a flow cell and an outlet (para 160-162 and 172).
With regard to claim 31, Lai et al. teaches that the outlet can be stopped (para 172-173).
With regard to claim 32, Lai et al. teaches that the flow cell can be configured to be a channel (para 159) and as such would be considered elongated.
With regard to claim 36, Lai et al. teaches that the flowcells can be received in parallel and therefore in a single orientation (para 126-131).
With regard to claim 130, the term “bar magnet” is not defined and as such the term is unclear with regard if the term would encompass shape or type of magnet (e.g. ferromagnetic). As Lai et al. teaches that the magnetics can be rectangular, the magnets would encompass “bar magnets” (para 104).
With regard to claim 131, Lai et al. teaches that the plurality of magnets can comprise more than two magnets (para 215) and as such suggests pluralities of more than 2 (e.g. 3).
With regard to claim 1, Spero et al. teaches flow cell chambers (para 115). Spero et al. teaches a flow cell in which the magnets are alternating polarity configurations (para 123-128).
Therefore it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method of Lai et al. to use known alternating polarity configurations of magnetics such as those target by Spero et al in order to move liquids from the chamber to outlets. The ordinary artisan would have a reasonable expectation as Spero et al teaches that alternating polarity magnetics can be used to move liquids in a flow cell.
Conclusion
11. No claims are allowed.
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 KATHERINE D SALMON whose telephone number is (571)272-3316. The examiner can normally be reached 9-530.
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, Wu Cheng (Winston) Shen can be reached at 5712723157. 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.
/KATHERINE D SALMON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights