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 .
Status of the Claims
It is acknowledged that the Applicant amended claims 18, 23, 25, and 27 and added new claim 28 in the response filed May 22, 2026.
Claims 18-28 are currently pending and have herein been examined.
Summary of Response
This action is in response to the papers filed May 22, 2026. Applicant’s remarks and amendments have been fully and carefully considered but are not found to be persuasive. Detailed responses are documented on page 14 of this office action. Any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Any rejections or objections not reiterated herein have been withdrawn. This action is made FINAL.
As a result of amendments to the specification, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
In the reply, Applicant amended the claims and provided arguments against the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As a result of amendments, the rejections of claims 23-25 have been withdrawn. As a result of persuasive arguments, the rejection of claim 26 has been withdrawn. However, as a result of amended and new claim limitations, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been set forth below.
As a result of amendment, new rejections over new combinations of reference have been set forth under 35 U.S.C. 103 on pg. 5-14. Responses to the arguments have been set forth on pg. 14.
Priority
It is acknowledged that the instant application claims the status of divisional of Patent Application No. 16/701,863, filed December 3, 2019. However, in the reply filed May 22, 2026, Applicant amended the claims to include limitations which are not consonant in scope with the original separation of Groups I and II of the restriction of the parent application mailed July 30, 2020. Due to these amendments, the instant application is considered to be a continuation of the parent application 16/701,863, and subject to restrictions against double patenting (as set forth below).
It is acknowledged that the instant application claims benefit of provisional 62/780,602, filed December 17, 2018.
The effective filing date is considered to be December 17, 2018.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is acknowledged that the applicant provided an IDS and provided the disclosed NPL #1 and #2 (filed March 3, 2026). These documents have been considered. NPL#2 has been considered only with regard to the elements provided in English.
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 18-28 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 18-28 are rejected for the recitation of “directly positioned” in line 6 of claim 18, as indefinite. ‘Directly positioned’’ is a relative phrase which is not given a clear, limiting definition in the claims or the specification. The term ‘directly’ is an adverb which may indicate that an object is in immediate physical contact with another. In the context of the claim (“electrode [is] directly positioned on the substrate and in the flow channel”) it is unclear which other object is ‘directly’ related to the electrode. For example, can the electrode be immediately adjacent to any element, as long as it is also on the substrate and in the flow channel, or must it be in immediate physical contact with a substrate itself? As a result, one of skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter so as to avoid infringement. If what is meant is that the patterned electrode is in direct contact with the substrate and exposed to the flow channel, the claim must be amended to reflect that meaning.
Claims 18-28 are rejected because it is unclear what is required by “walls,” as recited in line 7 of claim 1. “Wall” is not given a particular definition in either the claims or the specification, and may be defined as a material layer enclosing space, or a barrier. It is not clear if the claim is requiring that the patterned electrode merely have exposed surfaces which define depressions in the flow channel, if the claim is requiring a particular configuration of the patterned electrode where there must be empty space on either side of a ‘wall,’ or if the claim is requiring that the ‘walls’ be at least part of the outmost boundary of an electrode element. As a result, one of skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter so as to avoid infringement. If what is meant is that the patterned electrode has exposed surfaces which define depressions, the claim must be amended to reflect that meaning.
Claims 18-28 are rejected because it is unclear what the term “define” in intended to require (recited in lines 7, 8, 10 of claim 18). ‘Define’ or ‘defines’ is not given a clear, limiting definition in the claims or the specification. It is unclear if the claim is intended to require that a substrate marks out the exact shape of the depressions (e.g. allowing that the substrate generally outlines the depression, with potentially additional layers or elements placed on top and following the depression outlined or formed by the substrate), or if it is meant to require that surface of at least a portion of the bottom of a depression is composed only of the substrate (or exposed), or if some other meaning is intended. As a result, one of skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter so as to avoid infringement.
Claim 27 is rejected for the recitation of “respective template polynucleotide chains,” which is a relative phrase that renders the claim indefinite. “Respective” is not given a clear and limiting definition in either the specification or claims, and it is unclear what is required. Is the claim requiring that each depression merely have a local plurality of template polynucleotide chains, or is it requiring that each depressive has a distinct subset of template polynucleotide chains, or is something else required? As a result, one of skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter so as to avoid infringement.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 18-21, 23-25, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Meuleman et al. (published April 4, 2013; Patent Publication No. US 2013/0085083) in view of Wohlstadter (published Aug. 25, 2011; Patent Application Publication US 2011/0203924) and Li et al (published Oct. 16, 2003; Patent Application Publication US 20030194715; hereafter referred to as ‘Li 2003’).
Regarding claim 18, Meuleman teaches introducing a fluid including a polymerase and nucleotides to a flow cell (par. 4, 61). Meuleman teaches that at least some of the nucleotides are labeled nucleotides having: a 3′ OH blocking group (par. 56), a linking molecule attached to a base or a sugar of the nucleotide, and an electrochemiluminescent label attached to the linking molecule (par. 89-90, 93). Meuleman teaches template polynucleotide chains attached to primers grafted to the surface of a substrate (par. 125, 127), at the bottom of a depression (‘well’: par. 109). Meuleman teaches the incorporation of one of the labeled nucleotides into a nascent strand complementary to the template polynucleotide chain and detecting an opticalemissions (par. 4, 57).
Regarding claim 19, Meuleman recites the incorporation of a labeled nucleotide into a nascent strand complementary to the template polynucleotide chain (par. 48).
Regarding claim 28, Meuleman teaches that the substrate consists of a material such as glass, modified glass, plastic, nylon, silica-based materials, silica, and inorganic glass (par. 61, 68).
Regarding claim 18, Meuleman does not explicitly teach a flow cell including a substrate, a lid; a patterned electrode directly positioned on the substrate and in the flow channel, wherein the patterned electrode has walls that define depression in the flow channel, wherein the substrate defines a bottom of the depression, wherein the depression are separated by interstitial regions, and wherein the interstitial regions are defined by a surface of the patterned electrode that is exposed to the flow channel. Meuleman does not explicitly teach apply a potential to an electrode and detecting an optical emission in response to the applied potential.
Regarding claim 18, Wohlstadter teaches a flow cell (par. 196) comprising:
a substrate (par. 29-31; Fig. 2H-J).
a lid (par. 196);
a flow channel defined between the lid and the substrate (par. 196)
a patterned electrode directly positioned on the substrate and in the flow channel, wherein the patterned electrode has walls that define depression in the flow channel, wherein the substrate defines a bottom of the depression, wherein the depression are separated by interstitial regions, and wherein the interstitial regions are defined by a surface of the patterned electrode that is exposed to the flow channel (par. 16; Fig. 2H; par. 196)
In this case, the term ‘substrate’ of the instant application is not given a clear, limiting definition in the claims or the specification. Therefore, the term is being interpreted under a plain meaning of “a foundation or base for supporting, building, or connecting components.” Using Wohlstadter’s Fig. 2H as an example, the electrode (“2006”) is directly positioned on the substrate, which may be considered to be any combination of the electrode(s)/support (“2006,” “2001”) and the dielectric layer (“2004”). The electrode forms a pattern on the substrate which is exposed to the flow channel. The walls/exposed surface of the electrode(s) define depressions as well as the interstitial regions (par. 127: “inter-well regions”; Fig. 2: “170”). The device of Wohlstadter (or ‘assay module’) may be considered a ‘flow cell,’ congruent with the limitations of the instant claims (see par. 196 of Wohlstadter).
Wohlstadter teaches applying potential to an electrode and detecting an optical emission in response to the applied potential, e.g. for use with electrochemiluminescent labels (par. 12-13; par. 660).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Meuleman and Wohlstadter. One would have been motivated to do so because Meuleman suggests the incorporation of electrochemiluminescent labels into sequencing-by-synthesis methods using means of detection known to those skilled in the art (Meuleman: par. 93), and Wohlstadter describes the means of detecting said electrochemiluminescent labels (par. 4). One would have had reasonable expectation of success because Wohlstadter is concerned with assays of biological materials and explicitly considers the use of electrochemiluminescent labels applied to nucleic acids (par. 4-5) in the context of flow cell technology (par. 196).
Regarding claim 19, Meuleman does not teach explicitly teach that the application of potential initiates a redox reaction pathway involving the label of the incorporated nucleotide. However, Wohlstadter teaches that electrochemiluminescence is a means of converting electrical energy into light which involves initiation of redox reactions (par. 684). Therefore, by teaching electrochemiluminescent labels detected by methods known to those skilled in the art, the limitation is implicitly met by Meuleman (Meuleman: par. 93) and explicitly taught by the combination of Meuleman and Wohlstadter (Wohlstadter: par 684).
Regarding claim 18, Meuleman and Wohlstadter do not explicitly teach a primer grafted to a functional group of a polymer layer attached to substrate exposed at the bottom of the depressions. However, Wohlstadter does teach the tethering of nucleic acids AND of polymers to surfaces in a flow cell which may be at the bottom of a depression (par. 9, 169; Fig. 2H). Regarding claim 28, Meuleman and Wohlstadter do not teach explicitly that the polymer layer is attached to silane groups or hydroxyl groups that are attached to the substrate.
Li 2003 teaches grafting nucleic acids to functional groups of polymer layers attached to silane or hydroxyl groups that are attached to a substrate such as silica or glass (par. 42-43).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Meuleman and Wohlstadter with the teachings of Li 2003. One would have been motivated to do so because Meuleman suggests attaching nucleic acids to substrates (Meuleman: par. 125) and Li 2003 states that polymer layers attached to silane/hydroxyl groups that are attached to a substrate is a means of doing so (Li: par. 42-43). One would have had reasonable expectation of success because Li 2003 states that this method is amenable to nucleic acid synthesis reactions (par. 42).
Regarding claim 20 and 21, Meuleman recites a fluid (par. 61) with at least three different labeled nucleotides (par. 143). Meuleman recites each label having a distinct optical emission spectrum used for identifying the incorporated nucleotides (par. 57, 143). Meuleman also recites identification by other means, including both optical and electrical properties (par. 57) and using electrochemiluminescent labels (par. 93), which would require application of potential. Wohlstadter, as discussed for claim 18 above, teaches detection of electrochemiluminescence from application of potential. Therefore, the combination of Meuleman and Wohlstadter teaches the limitations of claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Meuleman recites the linking molecule and label being attached during incorporation, potential application, and optical detection (par. 88), as well as a deblocking agent which cleaves the label and 3’ OH blocking groups from the incorporated nucleotide (par. 89).
Regarding claim 24, Meuleman discloses fluidically replacing reagents multiple times in a traditional sequence-by-synthesis reaction (par. 77), thus the reference teaches introducing an other fluid. Meuleman recites applying an other stimulus and detecting an other optical emission (par. 117). As discussed above, Meuleman does not explicitly discuss the application of potential to an electrode, but such an embodiment is congruent with its teachings, and the combination of Meuleman and Wohlstadter is considered to have met the limitation.
Regarding claim 25, Meuleman recites a photodiode detecting the optical emission and detection of a corresponding electrical signal (par. 146). Although Meuleman does not explicitly address converting photons of the optical emission into an electrical signal, by definition photodiodes are devices that convert light into electrical current.
Regarding claim 27, Meuleman recites a plurality of sites where a plurality of template polynucleotide chains are attached, where nucleotides are incorporated into nascent strands complementary to template polynucleotides (par. 4, 61-62), and simultaneously detecting a respective optical emission from each of the plurality of sites (par. 121-122).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Meuleman et al. (published April 4, 2013; Patent Publication No. US 2013/0085083) in view of Wohlstadter (published Aug. 25, 2011; Patent Application Publication US 2011/0203924) and Li et al (published Oct. 16, 2003; Patent Application Publication US 20030194715, as applied to claims 18 and 19 above, and further in view of Richter (published March 20, 2004; Richter. Chem Rev. 2004 Jun;104(6):3003-36).
Meuleman, Wohlstadter, and Li 2003 teach the limitations of claims 18 and 19, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 22, Wohlstadter teaches the use of co-reactants for electrochemiluminescence (par. 4, 643)
Regarding claim 22, Meuleman, Wohlstadter, and Li 2003 do not teach a co-reactant introduced before the application of potential.
Regarding claim 22, Richter teaches the use of co-reactants in electrochemiluminescence (pg. 3008: Coreactant ECL). These co-reactants are present at the same time as the primary electrochemiluminescent species, and the electrode induces the redox reaction in a single potential step (pg. 3008, 1st full paragraph), thus meeting the limitation that a co-reactant is introduced prior to applying potential.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to combine the teachings of Meuleman, Wohlstadter, and Li 2003 with the teachings of Richter, in order to allow for the easy generation of electrochemiluminescence in aqueous solutions (pg. 3009, col. 2, fourth full par.). One would have had reasonable expectation of success because Richter describes the properties and uses of electrochemiluminescence including co-reactants in biological applications (Introduction), and because Wohlstadter suggests the use of co-reactants in biological assays (Wohlstadter: par. 643).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Meuleman et al. (published April 4, 2013; Patent Publication No. US 2013/0085083) in view of Wohlstadter (published Aug. 25, 2011; Patent Application Publication US 2011/0203924) and Li et al (published Oct. 16, 2003; Patent Application Publication US 20030194715, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kain et al. (published March 28, 2013; Patent Publication No. US2013/0079232) and Li et al. (published March 28, 2016; Li et al. Nat Chem Biol. 2016 Mar;12(3):129-37; hereafter referred to as ‘Li 2016’).
Meuleman, Wohlstadter, and Li 2003 teach the limitations of claim 18, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 26, Meuleman teaches: a labeled nucleotide wherein the linking molecule is cleavable (Meuleman: par. 91); or a non-labeled nucleotide having a 3′ OH blocking group (Meuleman: par. 97).
Regarding claim 26, Meuleman, Wohlstadter, and Li 2003 do not recite: a labeled nucleotide wherein the linking molecule is non-cleavable; a non-labeled nucleotide having a 3′ OH blocking group and including a linking molecule that is to attach to the label; or introducing a reagent that can cleave the label from the cleavable labeled nucleotide and add the label to the to-be-labeled nucleotide.
Kain teaches methods for detecting multiple different nucleotides in a sample (Abstract).
Regarding claim 26, Kain teaches nucleotides having a first labeled nucleotide, wherein the linking molecule is cleavable (par. 44: rbATP; note that ‘rb’ means the nucleotide is reversibly blocked), a second labeled nucleotide, wherein the linking molecule is not cleaved (par. 44: rbTTP), a third non-labeled nucleotide having a 3′ OH blocking group and including a linking molecule that is to attach to the label (par. 43-44: rbCTP), and a fourth non-labeled nucleotide having a 3′ OH blocking group (par. 43-44: rbGTP).
In this specific example, Kain teaches a second labeled nucleotide which is not cleaved but which nonetheless contains a cleavage group. However, in the description of this embodiment, Kain allows that labels may be attached to a nucleotide using a linker which has no cleavage groups (par. 43). Additionally, the cleavage group in the second nucleotide’s linker is not required for the general sequencing strategy laid out in the embodiment (Fig. 1, par. 43-53). Therefore, the limitation that the second nucleotide does not contain a cleavage group is considered to be met.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Meuleman, Wohlstadter, and Li 2003 with the teachings of Kain. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the number of dyes/labels in a sequencing reaction, thereby decreasing instrument hardware needs (e.g. fewer required light filters) or the size of an instrument etc. while increasing data output (Kain: par. 25). One would have had reasonable expectation of success because Kain explicitly contemplates the strategy’s use with sequencing-by-synthesis techniques on sequencing devices such as flow cells (par. 140, 144) and because Wohlstadter also discusses a need for reducing the number of light detectors (par. 102).
Regarding claim 26, Meuleman, Wohlstadter, Li 2003, and Kain do not teach that a single reagent is used to cleave the label from the first labeled nucleotide and add the label to the third non-labeled nucleotide.
Li 2016 teaches bioorthogonal chemical reactions for investigating biological processes (Abstract).
Li 2016 teaches various agents which can be used in ‘ligation’ or attachment-type reactions to add functional groups/labels (Figure 1), and in cleavage-type reactions to remove functional groups/labels (Figure 2). These agents include ruthenium and copper, as well as non-chemical agents such as light, which Li 2016 teaches may be used to simultaneously accomplish both attachment and cleavage (pg. 135, col 1, 1st par.; Figure 6a, iii and iv).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to combine the teachings of Meuleman, Wohlstadter, Li 2003 and Kain with the teachings of Li 2016, in order to decage biomolecules for applications that need to be carried out in a precisely tunable manner (Li 2016: pg.130, col. 2, 1st full par.). One would have had reasonable expectation of success because Kain’s strategy explicitly allows similar types of cleavage chemistry (Kain: par. 121).
Response to Arguments
In the reply, Applicant amended the claims, introducing a number of limitations for the flow cell used in the claimed method. Applicant argued that none of the references relied upon in the previous office action would have led a person with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the required flow cell, and therefore none of the references or combinations of references teach the claimed method.
This argument has been fully considered but is moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the combinations of references challenged in the argument. New grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment are set forth above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 18-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of Black et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,841,310) in view of Wohlstadter (published Aug. 25, 2011; Patent Application Publication US 2011/0203924).
Applicant’s amendments filed May 22, 2026 have introduced limitations which are not consonant in scope with the original restriction of the parent application (application 16/701,863; mailed July 30, 2020), which required election between a flow cell and a method of sequencing. Due to these amendments, the instant application now includes limitations of the flow cell (which was elected and patented in the parent application). Thus, the instant application is now considered to be a continuation, and subject to restrictions against double patenting.
Both sets of claims require a flow cell, comprising (ref claim 1):
a substrate consisting of a material selected from the group consisting of epoxy siloxane, glass, modified glass, nylon, ceramics/ceramic oxides, silica, fused silica, silica-based materials, aluminum silicate, silicon nitride, and inorganic glasses;
a lid;
a flow channel defined between the lid and the substrate;
a patterned electrode directly positioned on the substrate and in the flow channel, wherein the patterned electrode has walls that define depressions in the flow channel, wherein the substrate defines a bottom of the depressions, wherein the depressions are separated by interstitial regions, and wherein the interstitial regions are defined by a surface of the patterned electrode that is exposed to the flow channel;
a functionalized surface of the substrate exposed at the bottom of each of the depressions, the functionalized surface including a polymer layer attached to silane groups or hydroxyl groups attached to the substrate; and
a primer grafted to a functional group of the polymer layer in each of the depressions.
labeled nucleotides to be introduced into the flow cell, each labeled nucleotide including: a nucleotide having a 3′ OH blocking group; a linking molecule attached to a base or a sugar of the nucleotide; and an electrochemiluminescent label attached to the linking molecule.
labeled nucleotides include at least three different labeled nucleotides, and
wherein a respective electrochemiluminescent label of each of the at least three different labeled nucleotides has a distinct emission spectrum or oxidation/reduction potential or emission intensity (ref. claims 6 and 7 and 9)
wherein a respective electrochemiluminescent label of each of the at least three different labeled nucleotides has a distinct lifetime for electrochemiluminescence emission (ref. claim 8)
Although the reference patent does not explicitly require the active steps of; introducing fluid; applying potential; or detecting an optical emission, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the device according to this method (see for example, Wohlstadter: par. 12-13, 196).
Conclusion
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 Christine M Jones whose telephone number is (571)272-2585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 4PM.
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 Shen can be reached at (571)272-3157. 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.
/C.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1682
/WU CHENG W SHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights