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 § 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. Claim(s) 1- 4 and 6-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ciu et al ( eLife . 10 September 2020; 9:e 52253, p. 1-21) . Regarding claim 1, Ciu teaches a chip device comprising a cartridge housing; a central chamber embedded in the cartridge housing; at least one aperture fluidly connected to the central chamber; and a plurality of evenly spaced micropillars arranged in a substantially circular shape within the central chamber such that the central chamber is partitioned into at least a first inner region and a first outer region; wherein the first inner region comprises endothelial cells configured to mimic a venous sinus and the first outer region comprises endothelial cells and mesenchymal stromal cells configured to mimic a medullary cavity. (Refer to Figure A on page 3 and page s 1- 2) Regarding claim 2, the first inner region and the first outer region are concentric. (Refer to Figure A) Regarding claim 3, the central chamber comprises an additional second outer region adjacent and concentric to the first outer region, the second outer region being defined by a plurality of evenly spaced micropillars arranged in a substantially circular shape and comprising osteoblasts configured to mimic an endosteal region. (Refer to Figure A on page 3 and page 2) Regarding claim 4, the plurality of micropillars have a cross-sectional shape selected from the group consisting of: circular, ovoid, square, rectangular, triangular, trapezoidal, and polygonal. (Refer to Figure A on page 3 and page 2) Regarding claim 6, one or more sensors comprising capture molecules or probes positioned within the central chamber. (Refer to Figure A on page 4) Regarding claim 7, the capture molecule or probe is selected from the group consisting of: antibodies, antibody fragments, antigens, proteins, nucleic acids, oligonucleotides, peptides, lipids, lectins, inhibitors, activators, ligands, hormones, cytokines, sugars, amino acids, fatty acids, phenols, and alkaloids. (Refer to Figure 2 on page 4) Regarding claim 8, the one or more sensors are positioned between each of the micropillars. (Refer to Figure 2 on page 4) Regarding claim 9, the one or more sensors are localized surface plasmon resonance nanoplasmonic biosensors. (Refer to Figure 2) Regarding claim 10, the device is configured to replicate or mimic a bone marrow disease or disorder state selected from the group consisting of: leukemia, myeloma, anemia, infection, poisoning, and physical injury. (Refer to Figure 3) Regarding claim 11, a device replicating or mimicking a leukemia disease state comprises B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) cells in the first outer region. (Refer to Figure 1) Regarding claim 12, a method of determining leukemia treatment responsiveness , comprising thes steps of providing the device of claim 11; administering a leukemia treatment to the central chamber; and determining leukemia treatment responsiveness based on a measured change in the central chamber. (Refer to Figure 1) Regarding claim 13, the leukemia treatment is a chemotherapeutic selected from the group consisting of: nilotinib, prednisone, vincristine, daunorubicin, doxorubicin, cytarabine, L-asparaginase, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone, and nelarabine. (Refer to page 10) Regarding claim 14, the measured change is a quantity of live and dead B-ALL cells after 1-3 days treatment or more. (Refer to Figure 4) Regarding claim 15, the leukemia treatment is chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, and wherein the central chamber further comprises CAR T-cells in the first inner region. (Refer to Figure 2) Regarding claim 16, each of the cells in the central chamber are autologous cells. (Refer to Figure 1) Regarding claim 17, the measured change is a percent of leukemia cells relative to total cell population in the central chamber that is 5% or less, indicating responsiveness to CAR T-cell therapy. (Refer to Figures 1 and 2) Regarding claim 18, the measured change is a percent of leukemia cells relative to total cell population in the central chamber that is 25% or more, indicating non-responsiveness to CAR T-cell therapy. (Refer to Figures 1 and 2) Regarding claim 19, the measured change is a decrease in CD19 expression in B-ALL cells, indicating non-responsiveness to CAR T-cell therapy. (Refer to Figures 1 and 2 and pages 3-4) Regarding claim 20, the measured change is an increase in suppressor immune cells, indicating non-responsiveness to CAR T-cell therapy. (Refer to Figures 2-3) Regarding claim 21, the measured change is an increase in cytokine levels selected from the group consisting of: IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-2, and GZMB; indicating responsiveness to CAR T-cell therapy. (Refer to Figures 1 and 2 and pages 3-4) Regarding claim 22, the measured change is an increase in cytokine levels selected from the group consisting of: TGF-B, IL-10, M-CSF, and CCL2; indicating non-responsiveness to CAR T-cell therapy. (Refer to Figures 1 and 2 and pages 3-4) Regarding claim 23, t he measured change is an increase in surface markers selected from the group consisting of: CD154, CD69, and CD107a; indicating responsiveness to CAR T-cell therapy. (Refer to Figure 4) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 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 (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciu . Refer above for the teachings of Ciu . Ciu fails to teach the plurality of micropillars are evenly spaced by a distance between about 50 µm and 200 µm. However, Cui does teach guidance for the microfabrication of the chip and in as shown in figure A there is a scale bar with an image of the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Ciu such that the plurality of micropillars are evenly spaced by a distance between about 50 µm and 200 µm in order to achieve the desired distance between the micropillars. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1273 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am to 5pm, EST . 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 Charles Capozzi can be reached at 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. /JYOTI Mutreja / Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798