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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-10, 16, 18-20, 27, 29, 32-37, 51-54, 56 and 69-71 are currently pending. Claims 6 and 69-71 have been amended by Applicants’ amendment filed 04-13-2026. No claims have been added or canceled by Applicant’s amendment filed 04-13-2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group V, claims 69-71, directed to a system for performing high throughput screening, in the reply filed December 1, 2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 16, 18-20, 27, 29, 32-37, 51-54 and 56 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 1, 2025.
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The claims will be examined insofar as they read on the elected species.
A complete reply to the final rejection must include cancellation of nonelected claims or other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144) See MPEP § 821.01.
Therefore, claims 69-71 are under consideration to which the following grounds of rejection are applicable.
Priority
The present application filed September 11, 2023, is a 35 U.S.C. 371 national stage filing of
International Application No. PCT/IB2022/05224, filed March 9, 2022, which claims the benefit of US Provisional Patent Application 63291637, filed December 20, 2021; and US Provisional Patent Application 63160641, filed March 12, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 22, 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the IDS accompanies this Office Action.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
Applicants’ amendment and arguments filed April 13, 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or
objection not specifically addressed below are herein withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The rejection of claims 70 and 71 is withdrawn under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing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 due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, in the reply filed 04-13-2026.
In view of the withdrawn rejection, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 69 and 71 is withdrawn under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/102(a2) as being anticipated by Abate et al. (hereinafter “Abate”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200261879, published August 20, 2020; effective filing date September 29, 2017).
Abate does not specifically exemplify the fluorous dispersion oil recited in claim 1.
In view of the withdrawn rejection, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 69-71 is withdrawn under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abate et al. (hereinafter “Abate”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200261879, published August 20, 2020; effective filing date September 29, 2017) in view of Cayer et. al. (hereinafter “Cayer”) (US Patent No. 11919000, issued March 5, 2024; filed October 9, 2020; effective filing date October 10, 2019).
The combined references of Abate and Cayer do not specifically exemplify the fluorous dispersion oil recited in claim 1.
In view of the withdrawn rejection, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
Maintained Objections/Rejections
Product-by-Process
Claims 69-71 are determined to include product-by-process claims. The structural elements of the solid supports including the PEGA co-polymer resin, the thin-shelled bead, and the core-shell bead are not considered to limit the solid supports of the system as recited in claims 69-71, such that it is assumed that equivalent solid supports are obtainable by multiple routes. The burden is placed upon the applicants to establish a patentable distinction between the claimed and referenced products. Moreover, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP §2113.
Claim Objection
The rejection of claims 69 is maintained because of the following informalities: Claim 69 recites the term “wt %” and "w/w ratio” in claim 69, lines 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 and 20, where an abbreviation should be spelled out in the first encounter of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing Objection
The objection to the drawings is maintained as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
Figure 1b: appears to illustrate a plurality of picoliter droplets, each comprising a UPC-E barcode (e.g., printed barcodes comprising linear lines), as opposed to, nucleic acid barcodes. The presence of UPC-E barcodes in each microdroplet is not identified in the as-filed Specification, filed September 11, 2023.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants essentially assert that: (a) the Applicants believe that one of ordinary skill would understand that the UPC-E barcodes are for illustrative purposes and represent the encoded beads within the droplets as noted in paragraph [0014] of the application as filed (Applicant Remarks, pg. 14, Drawing Objection).
Regarding (a), the drawing as filed does not correspond to the teachings of the as-filed Specification, filed September 11, 2023. The as-filed Specification teaches that Figure 1B illustrates picoliter droplets that are encoded (See; paragraph [0071]). However, this is not illustrated in the drawings as filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 69-71 are maintained under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 69 is indefinite for the use parentheses to comment on or qualify part of the sentences, i.e., (FC-72) and (HFE-7500). It is unclear whether the limitations in parentheses are meant to be limitations in the claims or whether they are only suggestions, examples of a preferred embodiment, or synonym. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
Claim 69 is indefinite because the claim contains the trademark/trade names “FC-72” and “HFE-7500” such as recited in claim 69, lines 8, 9, 11, 12, 18 and 19. Where a trademark or trade name (research designation) is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe perfluorocarbon oils and/or hydrofluoroethers and, accordingly, the identification/descriptions are indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution the terms FC-72 is interpreted to refer to perfluorohexane; and HFE7500 is interpreted to refer to 3-ethoxy-perfluoro-2-methylhexane
Claim 70 is indefinite for the recitation of the term “the first and second electrodes” such as recited in claim 70, lines 8 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the first and second electrodes” in the claim because claim 70, line 7 recites the term “a first electrode and a second electrode”.
Claim 72 is indefinite insofar as it ultimately depends from instant claim 69.
New Objections/Rejections
Claim Objections
Claims 69-71 are objected to because of the following informalities: a clean copy of the claims is requested because Applicant has made a multitude of changes to the claims resulting in significant portions of the recitation being lined-through, such that the claims are visually challenging to the Examiner, and it is difficult for the Examiner to correctly decipher the claimed invention.
If the claims are substantially amended in response to this Office Action, the Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provide a clean copy of the amended 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 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 69-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinschmidt et al. (hereinafter “Kleinschmidt”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210088424, published March 25, 2021; filed September 23, 2020) in view of Swager et. al. (hereinafter “Swager”) (US Patent No. 11229892, issued January 25, 2022; also US20190184356, published June 20, 2019) as evidenced by Scienion (Scienion, 2015, 1-2). This is a new rejection necessitated by amendment of the claims in the response filed 04-13-2026.
Regarding claim 69, Kleinschmidt teaches systems and methods to create stable emulsions with low rates of exchange of molecules between microdroplets (Abstract). Kleinschmidt teaches that the microfluidic device of the present invention is capable of controlling the direction and flow of fluids and entities within the device, wherein the term "flow" means any movement of liquid or solid through a device or in a method of the invention, and encompasses without limitation any fluid stream, and any material moving with, within or against the stream, whether or not the material is carried by the stream, such as the movement of molecules, beads, cells or virions through a device or in a method of the invention, e.g. through channels of a microfluidic chip of the invention, comprises a flow (paragraph [0080], lines 1-11). Kleinschmidt teaches that the first liquid, which is dispersed in globules, is referred to as the discontinuous phase, whereas the second liquid is referred to as the continuous phase or the dispersion medium (interpreted as a dispersion phase; and a continuous phase, claim 69) (paragraph [0084], lines 9-12). Kleinschmidt teaches that classes of surfactants include fluorosurfactants, wherein materials developed are capable of stabilizing an emulsion or droplet library include an EA surfactant, such as a Krytox-PEG-Krytox, wherein the EA surfactant is a nonionic tri-block copolymer surfactant was developed to avoid issues that the ionic surfactants (e.g., RR, see below) (interpreted as a triblock copolymer droplet stabilizer, claim 69) (paragraph [0102], lines 1-10). Kleinschmidt teaches that the fluorosurfactant can be a block copolymer consisting of one or more perfluorinated polyether (PFPE) blocks and one or more polyethylene glycol (PEG) blocks (interpreted to encompass di-block and tri-block copolymers, claim 69) (paragraph [0053], lines 16-19). Kleinschmidt teaches that the carrier fluid can be an oil (e.g., decane, tetradecane or hexadecane) or fluorocarbon oil that contains a surfactant (e.g., a non-ionic surfactant such as a Span surfactant) as an additive (such as between about 0.2 and 5% by volume, more preferably about 2%) (interpreted as encompassing 70% wt % or more; and each ranging between 10-90% w/w, claim 69) (paragraph [0093]). Kleinschmidt teaches that the oil-surfactant formulation for the application of library emulsions is R-oil (HFE-7500) mixed with 2 wt % EA surfactant ("REA20"), wherein the concentrations of EA or RR surfactant at 0.1 wt% or lower to 5% or greater (interpreted as encompassing 70% wt % or more; and each ranging between 10-90% w/w, claim 69) (paragraph [0105], lines 1-5). Kleinschmidt teaches that oils include but are not limited to, HFE-7500, which provides superior droplet stability; as well as, HFE-7100, HFE-7200, and HFE-7600, where these can be used as stand-alone oil or components of oil mixtures to optimize emulsion properties and performance (interpreted as a mixture including 2-(trifluoromethyl)-3-ethoxy-dodecafluorohexane (HFE-7500); and an average fluorine content of about or >70%, claim 69) (paragraph [0098], lines 10-16). Kleinschmidt teaches that another class of oil is perfluoroalkylamines, which are perfluorinated oils based on perfluoroalkyl amine structures produced by 3M as Fluorinert Electronic Liquids (FC-oils), wherein Fluorinert products differ by variations in alkyl chain length, branch structure, and combinations of different structures or pure oils, which offer potential as stand-alone oils or as components of oil mixtures to optimize emulsion properties and performance, such that examples include Fluorinert FC-3283, Fluorinert FC-40, wherein other oils in the Fluorinert series can be used for stand-alone oils or components of oil mixtures to optimize emulsion properties and performance (interpreted as a mixture of oils including 2-(trifluoromethyl)-3-ethoxydodecafluorohexane (FC-3283), perfluorooctane (FC-77 of FC-3280), and perfluorohexane (FC-72); and an average fluorine content of about or >70%, claim 69) (paragraph [0099]). With respect to the ratio of each oil within the mixture of oils present in the system, per MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” Kleinschmidt teaches that CdSe-ZnS core-shell QDs exhibit size-dependent tunable photoluminescence (PL) with narrow emission bandwidths (FWHM-30 to 45 nm) that span the visible spectrum and broad absorption bands (interpreted as a solid support, and a core-shell bead, claim 69) (paragraph [0152]). Kleinschmidt teaches paramagnetic beads, and encapsulating porous and/or other biomaterials such as liposomes, vesicles, and other emulsions (interpreting paramagnetic beads as core-shell beads and solid supports; and interpreting liposomes/vesicles as thin-shell beads and solid supports, claim 69) (paragraph [0208], line 6). Kleinschmidt teaches the manipulation of individual cells or particles can be accomplished in a streaming fluid, such as in a cell sorter device, using dielectrophoresis (interpreting dielectrophoresis as a sorter, claim 69) (paragraph [0137], lines 13-15). Kleinschmidt teaches that the device can analyze and/or sort cells based on the level of expression of selected cell markers, such as cell surface markers, which have a detectable reporter bound thereto, in a manner similar to that currently employed using fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) machines (interpreting FACS as a sorter, claim 69) (paragraph [0180], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 70, Kleinschmidt teaches that the microfluidic device comprises one or more analysis units including at least one inlet channel, at least one main channel, and at least one inlet module (interpreted as an inlet channel, claim 70) (paragraph [0066], lines 1-6). Kleinschmidt teaches that the sorting module can be in fluid communication with branch channels which are in fluid communication with one or more outlet modules (collection module or waste module), such that for sorting applications, at least one detection module cooperates with at least one sorting module to divert flow via a detector-originated signal (interpreted as a first and second outlet channel, claim 70) (paragraph [0066], lines 9-14). Kleinschmidt teaches that sample inlet channel can intersect the main channel such that the sample solution is introduced into the main channel at an angle perpendicular to a stream of fluid passing through the main channel, such that the sample inlet channel and main channel intercept at a T-shaped junction; i.e., such that the sample inlet channel is perpendicular (90 degrees) to the main channel. However, the sample inlet channel can intercept the main channel at any angle, and need not introduce the sample fluid to the main channel at an angle that is perpendicular to that flow (interpreted as channels meeting at a junction, claim 70) (paragraph [0120]). Kleinschmidt teaches producing a suitable electric field, which can be AC, DC, etc. are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein an electric field is produced by applying voltage across a pair of electrodes, which can be positioned on or embedded within the fluidic system (for example, within a substrate defining the channel or microfluidic channel), and/or positioned proximate the fluid such that at least a portion of the electric field interacts with the fluid, wherein the electrodes can be fashioned from any suitable electrode material or materials known to those of ordinary skill in the art, including, but not limited to, silver, gold, copper, carbon, platinum, copper, tungsten, tin, cadmium, nickel, indium tin oxide ("ITO"), etc., as well as combinations thereof (interpreted as a first and second electrode, which can receive a voltage or no voltage, claim 70) (paragraph [0132]). Kleinschmidt teaches electrodes and patterned electrically conductive layers are described in WO 2007/081385; U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0137163; WO 2008/063227 and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0003142 and can be associated with any module of the device (inlet module, coalescence module, mixing module, delay module, detection module and sorting module) to generate dielectric or electric forces to manipulate and control the droplets and their contents (paragraph [0133]). Kleinschmidt teaches that the electric field generator can be constructed and arranged (e.g., positioned) to create an electric field applicable to the fluid, such that an electric field can be applied to fluidic droplets to cause the droplets to experience an electric force, such that the electric force exerted on the fluidic droplets can be, in some cases, at least about 10 N/micrometer (interpreted as a first state and a second state, claim 70) (paragraph [0135]). Kleinschmidt teaches placing these pairs of electrodes at a symmetric channel split can allow precise bi-directional control of droplet within a device; and using the same principle, only with asymmetric splits, can allow single ended control of the droplet direction in the same manner (interpreted as applying a voltage to one electrode without applying a voltage to the other electrode, claim 70) (paragraph [0134, lines10-14). Kleinschmidt teaches that the detection apparatuses can be optical or electrical detectors or combinations thereof, wherein suitable detection apparatuses include optical waveguides, microscopes, diodes, light stimulating devices, (e.g., lasers), photomultiplier tubes, and processors (e.g., computers and software), and combinations thereof, which cooperate to detect a signal representative of a characteristic, marker, or reporter, and to determine and direct the measurement or the sorting action at the sorting module (interpreting processors as controllers, claim 70) (paragraph [0143], lines 13-21). Kleinschmidt teaches that the sensor can detect capacitance, inductance, etc., of a fluidic droplet and/or the portion of the fluidic system containing the fluidic droplet, such that the sensor can be connected to a processor, which in tum, cause an operation to be performed on the fluidic droplet, for example, by sorting the droplet (interpreting processors as controllers, claim 70) (paragraph [0147], lines 7-12).
Regarding claim 71, Kleinschmidt teaches reservoirs and wells used for loading one or more samples onto the microfluidic device of the present invention, include but are not limited to, syringes, cartridges, vials, Eppendorf tubes and cell culture materials (e.g., 96 well plates), wherein a reservoir can facilitate introduction of molecules or cells into the device and into the sample inlet channel of each analysis unit (interpreted as comprising a microwell array plate, claim 71) (paragraph [0128]). Kleinschmidt teaches microdroplets in water-in-oil emulsions as microreactors (interpreted as microdroplets, claim 71) (paragraph [0025], lines 1-2). Kleinschmidt teaches an optical detector, such as a microscope, which can be coupled with a computer and/or other image processing or enhancement devices to process images or information produced by the microscope using known techniques (interpreted as encompassing a fluorescence microscope; and an imager, claim 71) (paragraph [0143], lines 13-21). Kleinschmidt teaches compartmentalization of assays in wells of microtiter plates for use in screening platforms, and reducing assay volumes to below 1-2 mL; as well as, robotic handling, droplet handling technology, and fluid-handling technology (interpreted as encompassing automated microcapillary-based sampling device, claim 71) (paragraphs [0003], lines 21 and 34; and [0024]).
Kleinschmidt does not specifically exemplify a microcapillary-based droplet-sampling device (claim 71, in part).
Regarding claim 71 (in part), Swager teaches emulsions comprising an outer phase, a plurality of droplets dispersed within the outer phase, wherein the plurality of droplets comprise two or more components, wherein the two or more components are substantially miscible at a first temperature, and wherein the two or more components are substantially immiscible at a second temperature (col 1, lines 45-52). Swager teaches that the temperature required varied depending on the solutions, wherein the solutions were emulsified either in bulk by shaking or by coaxial glass capillary microfluidics and cooled to induce phase separation (interpreted as a microcapillary device, claim 71) (col 9, lines 39-43). Swager teaches that for microfluidics, syringe pumps were used to inject the outer phase and inner phase using a glass capillary microfluidic device made from an outer square capillary and inner cylindrical capillary pulled to a 30 μm tip using a Micropipette Puller (interpreted as a microcapillary-based droplet sampling device, claim 71) (col 9, lines 46-51), wherein automated, non-contact microcapillary, low-volume dispensing devices such as the sciFLEXARRAYER-S1 are known in the art as evidenced by.Scienion (pg. 1, col 1). Swager teaches that the term “component” generally refers to a portion of a droplet comprising a group of substantially similar molecules, a group of substantially similar compounds, and/or a phase (e.g., a non-aqueous phase, an aqueous phase); and that each component can occupy at least about 1 vol %, at least about 2 vol %, at least about 5 vol%, at least about 10 vol%, at least about at least about 90 vol %, at least about 95 vol %, or at least about 99 vol % of the total volume of the two or more components, wherein at least one of the two or more components comprises a fluorocarbon including fluorinated compounds such as perfluoroalkanes, such as perfluorohexanes, perfluoro-octane, perfluorodecalin, perfluoromethyl-cyclohexane; perfluoroalkenes, such as perfluorobenzene; perfluoroalkynes, and branched fluorocarbons (e.g., perfluorotributylamine), where additional suitable fluorocarbons include 2-(trifluoromethyl)-3-ethoxydodecafluorohexane (interpreted as a mixture of perfluorohexanes, perfluorooctane, and HFE-7500, claim 69) (col 5, lines 8-12, 17-23, 46-50 and 59-60).
It is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; the court held that, "…a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950)”. Therefore, in view of the benefits of a microfluidic system comprising an automated capillary microfluidic device as exemplified by Swager, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microfluidic system comprising a microfluidic device, a field generator, sorter, detection modules, sensors, processors, particle manipulators, reservoirs, inlet modules, channels, outlet modules, etc. as disclosed by Kleinschmidt to include the glass capillary microfluidic device as taught by Swager with a reasonable expectation of success in using the microcapillary device to automatically remove a sample droplet/emulsion within the system for analysis; to remove droplets, particles and/or contaminants that can affect the microfluidic system; and/or to reintroduce cells, particles, or molecules to the device for additional coalescence, analysis or sorting.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, the claims are properly
rejected under 35 USC §103(a) as obvious over the art.
Conclusion
Claims 69-71 are rejected.
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 AMY M BUNKER whose telephone number is (313) 446-4833. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (6am-2:30pm).
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, Heather Calamita can be reached on (571) 272-2876. 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.
/AMY M BUNKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights