CTNF 18/557,860 CTNF 85549 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1/a2 as being anticipated by Battrell et al. (US 2016/0193603 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Battrell et al. teach: 1. A microfluidic device, comprising: a flow channel (e.g., 800; 1200); and at least one reaction chamber (e.g., 802, 804, 805, 806; 1202, 1207, 1208, 1210), comprising: a chamber inlet (e.g., 801; 1201) connecting the at least one reaction chamber to the flow channel (see Figs. 8A, 14A for example); a first region (i.e., regions of 802; 1202) adjacent the chamber inlet (see Figs. 8A, 14A for example); a second region (i.e., regions of 804, 805; 1205, 1207, 1208) spaced from the chamber inlet by the first region (see Figs. 8A, 14A for example); a vent channel (e.g., 803, 807; 1203, 1211); and a reaction reagent (e.g., 822, 1222) disposed on at least one inner surface of the second region (see Figs. 8B, 14C). Regarding claims 2-8, Battrell et al. teach: 2. The microfluidic device according to claim 1, wherein the reaction chamber comprises a plurality of reaction reagents (see i.e., Multiple separate spots may be printed using a roll-type or sheet-type process in each chamber ¶ 0141) disposed on the at least one inner surface of the second region (see Figs. 8B, 14C). 3. The microfluidic device according to claim 1, wherein the microfluidic device comprises a plurality of reaction chambers (e.g., 802, 804, 805, 806; 1202, 1207, 1208, 1210), with a reaction reagent (e.g., 822, 1222) disposed on at least one inner surface of a second region of each reaction chamber (see Figs. 8B, 14C). 4. The microfluidic device according to claim 1, wherein the reaction chamber further comprises a capillary pressure barrier (e.g., 812; 1033; 1209) defining a boundary between the vent channel and the first and second regions of the reaction chamber (see Figs. 8A, 10A, 14A for example). 5. The microfluidic device according to claim 1, wherein the reaction reagent is a single stranded oligonucleotide (¶ 0097). 6. The microfluidic device according to claim 1, wherein the device further comprises a film applied to the at least one inner surface of the second region (e.g., foil coated layers ¶ 0111). 7. The microfluidic device according to claim 6, wherein the film comprises polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate, cellulose, polyester, polyester, polyethylene terephthalate, polyurethane or combinations thereof (see ¶ 0111, 0119 for example). 8. The microfluidic device according to claim 1, wherein one or both of a reagent and an enzyme is disposed with the reaction reagent (see i.e., A variety of dried reagents, such as a fluorescent probe, enzyme, buffer or control analyte, may be placed within chambers of a microfluidic device ¶ 0009). With regard to limitations in claims 4, 6, 7, 8 (e.g., capillary pressure barrier defining a boundary; thermally dissolvable or degradable; cleaving reagent and a degrading enzyme, etc.), these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex , 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that 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 Ex Parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley , 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb , Inc. , 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault , 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See In re Young , 75 F.2d *>996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto , 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN KWAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7072. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 4:30 am - 2:30 pm 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, CHARLES CAPOZZI can be reached at (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. /DEAN KWAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798 DEAN KWAK Primary Examiner Art Unit 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/557,860 Page 2 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/557,860 Page 3 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/557,860 Page 4 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/557,860 Page 5 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/557,860 Page 6 Art Unit: 1798
Prosecution Insights