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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted o n 9/29/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Status Claim s 1-15 are pending and being examined. Claim Objections Claim s 2-1 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2-11 and 13 recite “The microfluidic system accord ing to claim 1” should read as “The microfluidic system according to claim 1 , ” ; claim 12 recites “The microfluidic system according to claim 1” should read as “The microfluidic system according to claim 11 , ”; and Claim 14 recites “The microfluidic system according to claim 13” should read as “The microfluidic system according to claim 13 , ”. 68 Specifically, a comma should follow the claim numbers of the dependent claim. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim s 5 and 13-14 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. Claim 5 recites the limitation " a plurality of microfluidic chambers " in line 2 . The limitation is unclear as to whether the plurality of microfluidic chambers is a separate/different structure from the plurality of fluidly connected microfluidic chambers in claim 1. Claim 5 is dependent upon claim 1 and comprises microfluidic chambers, thus for the purpose of prosecution the Examiner interprets that the microfluidic chambers of claim 5 is the same as the microfluidic chambers of claim 1. The Examiner suggests the Applicant recites “the plurality of microfluidic chambers further comprises a fluidly connected network”. Claim 13 recites the limitation “a microfluidic framework into which each microfluidic module may be received to form a system in accordance with according to any preceding claim” in lines 5-6. Claim 13 recites in the preamble “The microfluidic system according to claim 1”. The limitation is unclear because “a system” is already claimed and it is unclear if the Applicant intends to claim a different system from one of the other dependent claims. Specifically, the limitation is repetitive of the preamble and the examiner interprets that the system is in accordance with claim 1. The examiner suggests the Applicant recites “a microfluidic framework into which each microfluidic module may be received to form the microfluidic system”. Claim 14 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 13. 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 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. Claim(s) 1- 9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan et al (US 20110120562 A1; hereinafter “Tan”). Regarding claim 1, Tan teaches a microfluidic system (Tan; Abstract) comprising: a plurality of fluidly connected microfluidic chambers (Tan ; Fig. 1; para [38]; the examiner interprets the plurality of channels, upstream portion, downstream portion, and the reaction area as the microfluidic chambers. Each of these structures are separated by multiple vent valves as depicted in Fig. 1) , each microfluidic chamber comprising: a fluid sample inlet (Tan; Fig. 1; para [42]; each respective microfluidic comprises the fluid sample inlet as the fluid flows from left to right as depicted by the arrow in Fig. 1 , the examiner interprets the inlet as the portion after each vent as depicted in Figures 3 ) ; a fluid sample outlet (Tan; Fig. 1; para [42]; each respective microfluidic comprises the fluid sample outlet as the fluid flows from left to right as depicted by the arrow in Fig. 1 , the examiner interprets the outlet as the portion before each vent as depicted in Figures 3 ) ; a selectably closable valve operable to enable gas to be vented from the chamber (Tan; para [29]; a “vent valve” refers to a valve that comprises a port in fluid communication with a channel, and a mechanism that can be operated to open and close the port, wherein the vent valve exposes the channel interior to, or seals the channel interior from, an environment external to the channel interior ) ; a pressurisation system operable to apply an overpressure to one or more first microfluidic chambers being fluidly most upstream (Tan; para [92]; A pressure gradient can also be established by applying a positive pressure at one or more vent valves and a relatively smaller pressure, such as ambient pressure, at the outlet. For example, in FIGS. 4A-4C, outlet 202 may be exposed to ambient pressure. Positive pressure above ambient may be applied through an open vent valve 208 ) . Regarding claim 2, Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 1 , wherein each microfluidic chamber comprises a microfluidic reactor defining a processing volume and having a processing function ( Tan; para [40, 60, 61]; each respective chamber as described above provides a volume and function such as introducing the sample, incubating the sample, or mixing the sample ) , the microfluidic chambers being disposed fluidly successively to enable performance of these functions successively ( Tan; Fig. 1; each microfluidic reactor is separated by the vent valves ) . Regarding claim 3, Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 1 , wherein each microfluidic chamber includes additional inlets/outlets but is otherwise sealed to the ambient environment of the system (Tan; Fig. 2E, 2F ) . The channels, upstream portion, downstream portion, and reaction area comprise the valve incudes the venting outlet to the environment. Regarding claim 4, Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 1 , defining a fluid sample input side comprising one or more microfluidic chambers operable to receive a fluid sample to be processed (Tan; Fig. 1; the examiner interprets the sample input side as the left portion of the device which comprises the inlet 14, upstream portion) , a fluid sample output side comprising one or more microfluidic chambers from which a processed fluid sample can be output (Tan; Fig. 1; the examiner interprets the sample output side as the right portion of the device which comprises the outlet 92, waste containment region, and reaction area) , and a network of fluidly connected microfluidic chambers intermediately therebetween ( Tan; Fig. 1; the microfluidic chambers are separated and connected by the vents ) , with the pressurisation system being configured to be operable to apply an overpressure to the one or more microfluidic chambers on the fluid sample input side (Tan; para [92]; Positive pressure above ambient may be applied through an open vent valve 208, which would result in fluid flow in the direction of the arrows shown in FIG. 4A, as long as inlets 210 and 214 remained closed ) . Regarding claim 5, Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 1 , comprising a plurality of microfluidic chambers, the chambers comprising a fluidly connected network including: one or more input chambers being fluidly most upstream, each configured such that its fluid sample inlet is disposed to receive a fluid sample to be processed ( Tan; Fig. 1; para [27]; a n upstream portion 16 ) ; one or more output chambers being fluidly most downstream, each configured such that its fluid sample outlet is disposed to output a processed fluid sample ( Tan; Fig. 1; para [20]; fluids can be stored serially in a channel, and after closing a vent valve positioned along the channel, the fluids can flow sequentially towards the channel outlet ) ; a plurality of intermediate chambers, each fluidly disposed between a preceding and a succeeding chamber in the network, such that its fluid sample inlet is connected by a microfluidic pathway to the fluid sample outlet of the preceding chamber, and such that its fluid sample outlet is connected by a microfluidic pathway to a fluid sample inlet of a succeeding chamber (Tan; Fig. 1; the intermediate channels is interpreted as the channels separated by the vents between the inlet and outlet such as channel 12, downstream portion 18, and reaction area where arrow 52 shows fluid flow from the inlet to outlet) ; wherein the pressurisation system is operable to apply an overpressure to each input chamber (Tan; para [92]; Positive pressure above ambient may be applied through an open vent valve 208, which would result in fluid flow in the direction of the arrows shown in FIG. 4A ) . Regarding claim 6, Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 1 wherein each microfluidic chamber has a configuration of fluid sample inlet, fluid sample outlet, and selectively closable valve together so arranged that in use, in a condition where an overpressure is being generated at the inlet, where applicable through preceding chambers, that overpressure is equalised by venting of a gas from the chamber when the valve is in an open configuration, but when the valve is in a closed configuration that overpressure tends to cause fluid to be forced from the chamber into the fluid sample outlet and thereby to a succeeding chamber (Tan; para [92]; ) . Regarding claim 7, Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 1 , wherein the system is configured for a fixed operational orientation to the horizontal and each microfluidic chamber has a configuration of fluid sample inlet, fluid sample outlet, and selectively closable valve such that the valve is positioned uppermost, the fluid sample outlet lowermost, and the fluid sample inlet at an intermediate height (Tan; Fig. 1) . The limitation “ configured for a fixed operational orientation to the horizontal and each microfluidic chamber has a configuration of fluid sample inlet, fluid sample outlet, and selectively closable valve such that the valve is positioned uppermost, the fluid sample outlet lowermost, and the fluid sample inlet at an intermediate height ” is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed 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 Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The system disclosed by Tan teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of performing the intended use and/or function language of being configured for a fixed operational orientation to the horizontal and each microfluidic chamber has a configuration of fluid sample inlet, fluid sample outlet, and selectively closable valve such that the valve is positioned uppermost, the fluid sample outlet lowermost, and the fluid sample inlet at an intermediate height . The limitation is directed to the orientation of the device, thus if a user were to turn the device clockwise by 90 degrees, the limitations of the structures with respect to their position would be met. Regarding claim 8, Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 1 , wherein at least one of the plurality of fluidly connected microfluidic chambers comprises a microfluidic reactor having a first process functionality, and at least one other of the said microfluidic chambers comprises a microfluidic reactor having a second process functionality different from the first process functionality (Tan; para [40, 60, 61]; each respective chamber as described above provides a volume and function such as introducing the sample, incubating the sample, or mixing the sample), the microfluidic chambers being disposed fluidly successively to enable performance of these functions successively (Tan; Fig. 1; each microfluidic reactor is separated by the vent valves). Regarding claim 9, Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 1 , wherein the pressurisation system is additionally operable to apply an overpressure to one or more of the microfluidic chambers being fluidly most downstream (Tan; para [43]; These methods can be generally used to control the flow of any fluid within any channel by closing appropriate vent valves between the negative pressure source and the fluid one wishes to flow within the channel. For example, if transport of optional fluid 62 is desired, a negative pressure can be applied to outlet 92 while outlet 15 and vent valves 24 34, and 94 are closed (and while a valve upstream of fluid 62, such as vent valve 78 remains open) ) . The limitation “ operable to apply an overpressure to one or more of the microfluidic chambers being fluidly most downstream ” is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed 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 Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The system disclosed by Tan teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of performing the intended use and/or function language of being operable to apply an overpressure to one or more of the microfluidic chambers being fluidly most downstream. Regarding claim 11, Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 1 , wherein the pressurisation system comprises a source of gas under an overpressure relative to an ambient pressure of the system (Tan; para [ 31, 62]; It should be appreciated that environment 39 may be any suitable environment, including an ambient environment (e.g., the tube can be open to air) and a reservoir containing a fluid (e.g., a gas such as compressed air or nitrogen) … introducing a segment of gas into the channel, the fluid contained in the channel can divide into first and second portions which are separated by the segment of gas ). Regarding claim 15, Tan teaches a microfluidic method comprising: providing a microfluidic system according to any preceding claim; supplying a fluid sample to the one or more first microfluidic chambers being fluidly most upstream (Tan; Fig. 1; para [42]; each respective microfluidic comprises the fluid sample inlet as the fluid flows from left to right as depicted by the arrow in Fig. 1, the examiner interprets the inlet as the portion after each vent as depicted in Figures 3) ; operating the pressurisation system to apply an overpressure to the one or more first microfluidic chambers (Tan; para [92]; A pressure gradient can also be established by applying a positive pressure at one or more vent valves and a relatively smaller pressure, such as ambient pressure, at the outlet. For example, in FIGS. 4A-4C, outlet 202 may be exposed to ambient pressure. Positive pressure above ambient may be applied through an open vent valve 208 ) ; selectively operating the valves of the fluidly connected microfluidic chambers to cause the fluid sample to move successively between the microfluidic chambers ( Tan; para [29]; a “vent valve” refers to a valve that comprises a port in fluid communication with a channel, and a mechanism that can be operated to open and close the port, wherein the vent valve exposes the channel interior to, or seals the channel interior from, an environment external to the channel interior) . 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 for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 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. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Johnson et al (US 20160158758 A1; hereinafter “Johnson”). Regarding claim 10, Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 1, with the microfluidic chambers. Tan does not teach wherein the microfluidic chambers form a network including a microfluidic feedback pathway, optionally comprising one or more further microfluidic chambers in the feedback pathway, through which a fluid sample may be sent from a fluidly more downstream chamber to a fluidly more upstream chamber. However, Johnson teaches an analogous art of a microfluidic particle sorting system (Johnson; Abstract) comprising a plurality of microfluidic chambers forming a network (Johnson; Fig. 1; para [28]; particle processing system 10 is formed on a substrate 12 and includes a number of processing channels, illustrated as sorting channels 160 ) including a microfluidic feedback pathway (Johnson; para [75]; The recycling reservoir 191 receives the removed fluid from the filters 182 and 184, and the pump 190 returns the extracted fluid from the filters 182 and 184 to the chamber to 114 via fluid path 1121 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the network of Tan to comprise the microfluidic feedback pathway as taught by Johnson, because Johnson teaches that the reusing the fluid for subsequent processing (Johnson; para [75]). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Hsieh (US 20070207063 A1; hereinafter “Hsieh”). Regarding claim 12, Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 11, with the pressurisation system. Tan does not teach wherein the pressurisation system comprises an impeller, operable to push gas under an overpressure from the environment immediately external to the system into the system. However, Hsieh teaches a n analogous art of a device for controlling fluid sequence (Hsieh; Abstract) comprising microchambers (Hsieh; Fig. 1, 4A) and a pressurisation system operable to apply an overpressure to one or more first microfluidic chambers being fluidly most upstream (Hsieh; para [46]; the working fluids 400, 401, 402, and 403 within the different segments of the first fluid channel 302 are respectively driven one by one in a specific amount by means of either applying the positive pressure on the inlet tank 307 or applying the negative pressure on the outlet tank 308 … t he positive or negative pressure could be provided by one selected from a group consisting of a micro membrane actuator, an air pump, a centrifugal pump, and an evaporation ). Examiner notes that it is well known in the art that centrifugal pumps comprise impellers within the unit. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the pressurisation system of Tan which comprises the pump or the vacuum (Tan; para [93]) to be the centrifugal pump (Hsieh; para [46]) as taught by Hsieh as this is a known and suitable substitution for the pressurisation system in the art. O ne would have a reasonable expectation of success by substituting the pump of the pressurisation system to the claimed limitation as Hsieh teaches this substitution is a known and suitable in the art for applying positive or negative pressure to the microfluidic device (Hsieh; para [46]) . The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B). Claim s 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Solomon et al (US 20200055051 A1; hereinafter “Solomon”). Regarding claim 13, Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 1, with the microfluidic chamber. Tan does not teach the microfluidic system comprising: a plurality of microfluidic reactor modules, each including a microfluidic chamber; and a microfluidic framework into which each microfluidic module may be received to form a system in accordance with according to any preceding claim. However, Solomon teaches an analogous art of fluidic devices (Solomon; Abstract) comprising a plurality of microfluidic reactor modules (Solomon; Fig. 12), each including a microfluidic chamber a fluid sample inlet; a fluid sample outlet (Solomon; para [26, 53]; the fluidic device also includes one or more inlets and/or outlets (e.g., ports) that may perform as an inlet, an outlet, or both …first port 1 and second port 7); a selectably closable valve operable to enable gas to be vented from the chamber (Solomon; para [53]; an air control valve 5, a port for the air control valve into the atmosphere 6 ); and a microfluidic framework into which each microfluidic module may be received to form a system (Solomon; Fig. 12; para [58]; the fluidic device comprises multiple subunit fluidic devices in fluid communication with one another ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Tan to comprise the plurality of microfluidic reactor modules to form the system as taught by Solomon, because Solomon teaches that the subsequent fluidic devices can detect different antigens of interest based on the antibodies coated in the reaction wells (Solomon; para [46, 75]). Regarding claim 14, modified Tan teaches the microfluidic system according to claim 13 (the system of Tan is modified to comprise the plurality of microfluidic reactor modules as taught by Solomon) , wherein each microfluidic module is configured with sufficient structural similarity to be interchangeable within the framework and thereby form a fluidly continuous network of interchangeable modules ( Solomon; Fig. 12; para [21]). The examiner notes that Solomon teaches any number of fluidic devices may be positioned in parallel, thus modified Tan is capable of interchanging the framework based on the antigen that needs to be detected. The limitation “ configured with sufficient structural similarity to be interchangeable within the framework and thereby form a fluidly continuous network of interchangeable modules ” is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed 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 Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Austin Q Le whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7556 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm . 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 Duane Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1116 . 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. /A.Q.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1796 /DUANE SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759