Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. OBJECTIONS 2. The specification is objected to because of the following informality: the continuation information must be updated to include the issue of the parent applications. 3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 4. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains . The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps . Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. NON-PRIOR ART REJECTIONS 5. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 147-166 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. A) Claims 147-156 are indefinite because in independent claim 147, ‘the cell’ in line 2, and ‘the microdroplet’ in part (d), lack proper antecedent basis. Correction is required. B) Claims 157-162 are indefinite because in independent claim 157, ‘the cell’ in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Correction is required. C) Claims 161-162 are further indefinite because ‘ the second device’ in claim 161 lacks proper antecedent basis, and ‘the first device’ in claim 162 lacks proper antecedent basis. Correction is required. D) Claims 163-166 are indefinite because in independent claim 163, ‘the cell’ in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Correction is required. 6. A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 163-166 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-5 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,891,666 . This is a statutory double patenting rejection. The claims differ only in that the patented claims recite in the preamble ‘for genotyping a cell’, but this does not impart any limitation to the recited steps, which are identical to the steps recited in the pending claims. Thus, the patented claims and the pending claims are drawn to the same invention. 7 . 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 . 8 . Claims 147-153 and 163-166 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,161,007 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim and the pending claims are related as species-genus . That is, the pending claims are broader than the patented claim in that the patented claim requires a microfluidic device, and a microdroplet as opposed to the broader ‘droplet’. 9 . Claims 160-162 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,745,762 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim and the pending claims are related as genus -explicitly-recited species . That is, the patented claim is a genus reciting both sequencing and another option in the detection step, whereas the pending claims are a species reciting only sequencing. 10 . Claims 160-162 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,203,787 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim and the pending claims are related as species-genus . That is, the patented claim is a genus reciting both sequencing and another option in the detection step, whereas the pending claims are a species reciting only sequencing. 1 1 . Claims 147-153 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,666 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims and the pending claims are related as species-genus . That is, all of the steps (a)-(e) of the pending claims are within the steps (a)-(f) of the patented claim s, and the patented claims require the additional limitation of ‘introducing amplification reagents’ . Thus, the patented claims are a species within the broader pending claims. PRIOR ART REJECTION (repeated from similar claims in the parent ‘565 application) 12. 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 negatived 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). Claim s 157-159 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollack et al. (US 2011/0104816) in view of Kupershmidt et al. (US 2010/0318528) . Pollack discloses a method comprising: encapsulating lysis reagents and a cell in a droplet, the lysis reagents comprising an enzyme having protease activity; incubating the droplet to lyse the cell; inactivating the enzyme; amplifying a target polynucleotide using the amplification reagents , and sequencing a nucleic acid target . See paragraphs 0052-0056, 0062, and 0137-0157. Pollack does not disclose applying the method specifically to changed nucleotide or mutation detection. Kupershmidt discloses that detecting mutations was a known application of nucleotide sequencing (see paragraph 0151). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the method of Pollack to detecting changed nucleotides or mutations because detecting mutations was a known application of nucleotide sequencing, as disclosed by Kupershmidt . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to carry out the claimed method. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER 1 3 . For the reasons established during prosecution of the parent application s , claims 147-15 6 and 160-166 are free of the prior art, but they are rejected for other reasons. CONCLUSION 1 4 . No claims are allowable. 1 5 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KENNETH R HORLICK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0784 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon. - Thurs. 8:30 - 6:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Gary Benzion can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0782 . 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. 03/17/26 /KENNETH R HORLICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681