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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-16, 32, and 35-37 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. The term “ substantially ” in claim s 1, 10, 14, and 15 is considered a relative term which renders the claim s indefinite. The term “ substantially ” is not defined by the claim s , 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. The claims are directed to thin-layer chromatography which is in the art involves measurements ranges anywhere between 10 - 6 and 10 -21 or less. Thus, it is not clear from the specification or the claims what applicant considers “substantially” . Claims 6 and 7 recite “the microchannel”. This does not agree in number with the “one or more microchannels” recited in parent claim 1. The examiner recommends applicant change th ese recitations to ---the one or more microchannels-- for clarity. Similarly, c laim s 13 -15 recite “the device comprises a microchannel”. It is not clear if applicant is referring to the “one or more microchannels” previously recited in claim 1. The examiner suggest changing “a single microchannel” to --wherein the one or more microchannels comprises a single microchannel-- for clarity. Claim 32 recites “ a method for thin layer chromatography of the contents of a single cells, a group of cells or a microsample using the device of claim 1 ” . This language is confusing and indefinite. It is not clear if this claim is directed to a method of using the device of claim 1? If so, it does not contain any steps of using the device. This same logic applies to claim 36, which does not include any method steps. Also, “ the contents including a single cell, a group of cells or microsample” lack s antecedent basis since claim 1 does not positively recite any contents as a part of the device. In addition, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 32 recites the broad recitation “ a microsample or plurality of cells ” , and the claim also recites “ a single cell ” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Similarly , “the contents” as recited in claims 35-37 are not positively recited as part of the TLC device and therefor lack antecedent basis. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim s 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recite s that the fluid flow is driven by capillary action. Cl aim 4 recites the capillary fluid flow is driven by intermolecular forces . The very definition of “capillary action” is the ability of fluid to flow in narrow spaces against gravity, which is created by intermolecular forces such as cohesion and adhesion. Thus, claim 4 does not further limit the inherent properties of capillary action already set forth in claim 1. Claim 15 recites “ each microchannel comprises a porous substantially homogeneous microband ” . This limitation is r ecited in claim 1 from which claim 15 depends. Thus, claim 15 does not further limit the subject matter from which it depends. The examiner recommends applicant simply delete “each microchannel comprises a porous substantially homogeneous microband ” from c laim 15 to overcome this rejection . A pplicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 1-13, 15, 16, 32, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gilton (US 2006/0211151). Note: The instant apparatus type claims 1-15 contain a large amount of functional/process/intended use language. One example includes but is not limited to the recitation in claim 1, “microbands adapted for fluid flow driven by capillary action”. F unctional/process language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function or intended use, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims. 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 MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g)). Note: it has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense (see MPEP § 2114 .04) . Regarding claim 1 , Gilton teaches a thin layer chromatographic (TLC) device (see para [0007] et seq.) , comprising a non-porous substrate 12 ( formed of silicon, gallium arsenide, indium phosphide, or another materia l; see para [0044] et seq.) having one or more microchannels (reads on column 14 etched into a surface of substrate 12 ), each etched microchannel includes a porous, exposed, substantially homogeneous microband ( matrix 16; see para [0068] et seq. , ) adapted for fluid flow driven by capillary action . Regarding claim 2 , Gilton teaches wherein the porous microband is a monolithic porous silica microband ( 16, see para [0048] et seq.) Regarding claim 3, this is considered a function/process/intended use recitation and although it is not necessary, Gilton does teach t he fluid flow is capillary fluid flow combined with electrophoresis (see para [0030] et seq.) Regarding claim 4, this is considered a function/process/intended use recitation and although it is not necessary, Gilton does teach the fluid flow is capillary fluid flow driven by intermolecular forces (i.e., inherent in capillary action). Regarding claim 5, this is considered a function/process/intended use recitation and although it is not necessary, Gilton teaches the fluid flow is not driven by hydrodynamic centrifugal force or pressure-driven fluid flow (that is the use of a pump or centrifuge is not required to drive the fluid flow in Gilton, at best it is merely suggested as an optional migration facilitator besides electrophoresis and capillary action, see para [0048] et seq.) Regarding claims 6 and 13, Gilton teaches the microchannel is formed in the non-porous substrate form of surface such as silicon, gallium arsenide, indium phosphide, or another material (see abstract and para [0045] et seq.) Note the optional functional/process as claimed does not need to be taught due to the on conditional “or” followed by the process of form ing on top of the non-porous substrate followed by cladding laterally with non-porous walls. Regarding claim 7, Gilton teaches the at least one microchannel 14 is straight (see Figs . 1 -4 ) . Regarding claims 8-9, 11 and 12, Gilton teaches the porous microband s 16 (formed in the microchannel) have a width from about 1 to about 1000 micrometers. Specifically Gilton teaches the width and depth of the microband is measured in micrometers (see para [0055] et seq.) Regarding claim 10, Gilton teaches the porous microband s 16 has a length substantially co-terminous with the length of the device ( the microband 16 extends the entire channel which includes along the entire length of the device, see Figs. 1-4) . Regarding claim 15, Gilton teaches the device comprises from two to about 1,000,000 microchannels (at least four microchannels are shown in the Fi g s . 1-4 ) . Regarding claim 16, Gilton teaches a method for fabricating a thin layer chromatography device as outlined in para [0060] et seq.) Claim 32, as best understood, Gilton teaches a method of using the thin layer chromatograph ic device of claim 1 by providing a microsample ( Gilton teaches using a sample having a volume as small as about one femtoliter ; see para [0022] et seq.) Claim s 35 and 37 , as best understood, Gilton teaches the contents are biological analytes selected from the group consisting of fatty acids, amino acids , peptides, lipopeptides, vitamins, hormones, proteins, carbohydrates, enzyme substrates, and metabolites (see para [0073] et seq.) Claim 36, as best understood, Gilton teaches a method for thin layer chromatography of analytes in a sample having a volume from about 1 zL to about 100 nL using the device c laim 1 (specifically a sample having a volume as small as about one femtoliter ; see para [0022] et seq.) Claim s 1-16 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimadzu Corp. (JP3136960, hereinafter “Shimadzu” ) . Note: The instant apparatus type claims 1-15 contain a large amount of functional /process/intended use language. One example include s but not limited to the recitation in claim 1, “microbands adapted for fluid flow driven by capillary action” . F unctional/process language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function or intended use, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims. 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 MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g)). Note: it has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense (see MPEP § 2114 .04) . Regarding claim 1, Shimadzu teaches a thin layer chromatographic (TLC) device, comprising : a non-porous substrate (e.g., glass, quartz, plastic, ceramic, metal plate or the like) having one or more microchannels formed on its surface, each microchannel comprising a porous, exposed, substantially ho mogeneous microband adapted for fluid flow driven by capillary action (see under “Best-Mode” section of Shimadzu teaches “ a TLC plate 1 that includes a flat rectangular substrate 2 made of quartz, and a thin plate-like lid 10 made of PDMS (polydimethylsiloxane), which is mounted in close contact with one surface (upper surface) of the substrate 2. including t hree grooves 3a, 3b, and 3c (microchannels) extending in parallel to each other are formed on the upper surface of the substrate 2, that is, the close contact surface of the lid body 10. Inside each of the grooves 3a, 3b, and 3c, a stationary phase is formed. The carrier layer 8 is formed by applying silica gel (corresponds to the claimed monolithic porous silica microband) . As an example, the width of the grooves 3a, 3b, and 3c is 100 μm, the depth is 50 μm, the length is 50 mm, and the thickness of the carrier layer 8 is 50 to 100 μm, but is not limited thereto. In FIG. 1C, the carrier layer 8 (microband) covers the entire bottom surface and both side surfaces of the groove 3a. However, for example, the carrier layer 8 may cover only the bottom surface or may be filled in the entire groove 3a (forming homogenous microbands adapted for fluid flow driven by capillary action). Shimadzu teaches the grooves 3a, 3b (microchannels) are “ exposed ” to the outside through the openings 12a, 12b, and 12c of the lid body 10 . Shimadzu teaches The analysis procedure is as follows. First, the person in charge of analysis drops a different (or the same) sample at each sample spot position on the TLC plate 1 using a glass capillary. Usually, the dropping amount is about 0.1 to 0.5 μL (10 to 100 pg by weight). Thereafter, as shown in FIG. 2, the TLC plate 1 is installed upright in the solvent tank 20 in which a predetermined amount of the developing solvent 21 is stored so that the developing solvent suction ports 7a, 7b, 7c are located downward. As a result, the developing solvent suction ports 7 a, 7 b and 7 c of each microchannel are immersed in the developing solvent 21. As a result, the developing solvent rises in each microchannel by capillary action , and further rises with each component in the sample existing at the sample spot position. At this time, the moving speed differs depending on the property of each component . Regarding claim 2, Shimadzu teaches the porous microband is a monolithic porous silica microband ( Shimadzu teaches various materials used to form the microband , for example, silica gel, alumina, cellulose, diatomaceous earth and the like can be appropriately selected and used , Tech Solution section) . Regarding claim 3 , this is considered a function/process/intended use recitation and although it is not necessary, Shimadzu does teach t he fluid flow is capillary fluid flow combined with electrophoresis through the use of electrodes 6a, 6b, and 6c along the microband s . Regarding claim 4, this is considered a function/process/intended use recitation and although it is not necessary, Shimadzu does teach the fluid flow is capillary fluid flow driven by intermolecular forces (i.e., capillary action ). Regarding claim 5, this is considered a function/process/intended use recitation and although it is not necessary, Shimadzu teaches the fluid flow is not driven by hydrodynamic centrifugal force or pressure-driven fluid flow (no use of pump or centrifuge is disclosed in Shimadzu) . Regarding claim s 6 and 13 , Shimadzu teaches the microchannel is form ed in the non-porous substrate surface made from glass, quartz, plastic, ceramic, metal plate, or the l ike . Note the optional functional/process does not need to be taught due to the on conditional “or” form on top of the non-porous substrate followed by cladding laterally with non-porous walls. Regarding claim 7, Shimadzu teaches the microchannel is straight (see Fig. 1a and Fig. 2) . Regarding claims 8-9, 11 and 12, Shimadzu teaches the porous microband (formed in the microchannel) has a width from about 1 to about 1000 micrometers. Specifically Shimadzu teaches the width of the grooves 3a, 3b, and 3c is 100 μm, the depth is 50 μm, the length is 50 mm, and the thickness of the carrier layer 8 is 50 to 100 μm, but is not limited thereto . Regarding claim 10, Shimadzu teaches the porous microband has a length substantially co-terminous with the length of the device ( the microband 8 may be filled in the entire channel which includes along the entire length of the device) . Regarding claim 14, Shimadzu teaches the device may include a single microchannel , “ TLC plate according to the present invention, only one microchannel may be provided on the substrate ”. Regarding claim 15, Shimadzu teaches the device comprises from two to about 1,000,000 microchannels (at least three microchannels are shown in the Figures) . Regarding claim 16, Shimadzu teaches a method for fabricating a thin layer chromatography device, comprising; (a) forming one or more microchannels in a non-porous substrate; (b) forming a fully enclosed microchannel using a detachable sealing material; (c) filling the one or more enclosed microchannels with a flowable porous microband precursor composition; (d ) subjecting the non-porous substrate having one or more microchannels filled with a flowable porous microband precursor composition to conditions to that convert the composition to a porous microband to provide a thin layer chromatography device; and (e) detaching the sealing material to expose the porous microbands to provide a thin layer chromatography device. Specifically, Shimadzu teaches a stencil (metal mask) in which a flow path pattern including grooves 3a, 3b, 3c and recesses 4a, 4b, 4c, etc. formed on the substrate 2 is cut out is produced. (2) Next, a positive resist (for example, AZP4620) is applied to the surface of a quartz plate substrate, and the flow pattern of the stencil is transferred to the resist. (3) Next, using the resist as a mask, the substrate is shaved by reactive ion etching (RIE) to form grooves 3a, 3b, and 3c including recesses 4a, 4b, and 4c. (4) Thereafter, the stencil is overlaid on the substrate 2 on which the grooves 3a, 3b, and 3c are formed, and a carrier such as silica gel is applied to the inner surfaces of the grooves 3a, 3b, and 3c (or other methods such as spraying). The carrier layer 8 is formed. When the stencil is overlaid on the substrate 2, the alignment marks provided on the stencil are transferred onto the substrate so that the grooves 3a, 3b, 3c and the flow path pattern are not misaligned. Next the the lid body 10 on which the openings 11a, 11b, 11c, 12a, 12b, and 12c are formed is stacked on the surface of the substrate 2 and pressed to be brought into close contact. Claim 32, as best understood, Shimadzu teaches a method of using a microsample in the thin layer chromatograph ic device of claim 1 . Th e recitation of “microsample” does not require a biological sample. Moreover, Shimadzu teaches channel dimensions having a width of 100 μm, depth is 50 μm, and thickness of the microband layer 8 between 50 to 100 μm . Thus, it inherent that the sample sizes used in the Shimadzu device are micro samples, especially since the it is known in the art that sample volumes used on TLC devices are usually less than 1 mL. Citations to art In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well. Conclusion No claims are allowed. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include: Piechotta et al., teach a method for producing a miniaturized separation column for chromatographic purposes including a porous stationary phase anchored in the column, including the following steps: (a) preparing a fiat substrate of silicon, glass, glass ceramic or ceramic; (b) etching at least one channel structure into the fiat substrate; (c) introducing a non-porous precursor material for the porous stationary phase into at least one portion of the channel structure(s); (d) forming a porous, three-dimensional network from the precursor material; and (e) fluid-tight covering of the channel structure(s) on the top side of the flat substrate. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2374 . The examiner can normally be reached between FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:30am-7pm EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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. E-mail communication Authorization Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /P. Kathryn Wright/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798