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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 responsive to communications on 04/23/2024 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are under examination on their merits.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney et al. (US20190233878A1, PGPub of US10837047B2 on IDS 05/24/2024) in view of Hindson et al. (US9,388,465B2, 2016, on IDS 05/24/2024).
In regards to claims 1 and 15, Delaney (who is noted is the same instant applicant) teaches methods comprising providing pluralities of charged species (particles, e.g., cell beads, tags etc.; it is noted that the specification does not define “charged particle” and therefore, has been broadly interpreted as referring to any charged particle) and a plurality of biological particles (paragraphs [0010, 0012, 0057, 0092, 0247-0252]; Figs. 2 and 10). Delaney teaches that the mixture comprises a complex (coupling) comprising a charged particle of the plurality of charged particles couple to a biological particle of the plurality of biological particles (paragraphs [0010, 0012, 0057, 0092, 0247-0252]; Figs. 2 and 10). Delaney teaches that the biological particle comprises a cell or organelle (paragraphs [0010, 0012, 0065]). Delaney teaches that the biological sample complexes are isolated from other complexes and that the method allows the biological samples to be partitioned and processed separately (paragraph [0003]; Figs. 2 and 10), and therefore, prevented from adhering to another biological particle of the plurality of biological particles.
Delaney teaches that the complexes may be isolated (paragraph [0003]), but is silent as to the process.
However, Delaney also teaches that the fluid channels in which the complexes are contained can be controlled by centrifugal force or gravity flow (paragraph [0077]). Additionally, as taught by Hindson (who is noted is also the same applicant), it was known in the art that barcode containing beads can be isolated by sedimentation, including density gradient centrifugation specifically (Summary, column 1; columns 11 and 12). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to isolate complexes based at least in part on the density of the complex, including sedimentation, because the prior art specifically teaches that this is a known technique for isolating these structures. Furthermore, because Delaney teaches that the complexes may be subject to centrifugation and Hindson teaches that sedimentation/density gradient centrifugation may be use to separate these particles, it could have been done with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 2, Delaney teaches that the organelle is a cell nucleus (paragraphs [0010, 0012, 0065]).
In regards to claim 3, Delaney teaches that the plurality of charged particles can be positively charged (paragraphs [0010, 0012, 0250-0251]).
In regards to claim 4, Delaney teaches that there may be at least 1000 barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) (paragraph [0159]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
In regards to claims 5 and 6, Delaney teaches that the one more barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) may include sequences that are the same for all nucleic acid molecules coupled to a given bead and/or sequences that are different across all nucleic acid molecules coupled to the given bead (paragraphs [0110, 0159]), and therefore may be both homogeneous and heterogeneous.
In regards to claim 7, Delaney teaches that the beads (charged particles) can have a heterogeneous (different) sizes (paragraph [0101]).
In regards to claim 8, as above, Delaney teaches that the one more barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) may include sequences that are different across all nucleic acid molecules coupled to the given bead (paragraph [0110]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since they have different sequences (which have different masses and are subject to gravity) they would have different weights.
In regards to claim 9, Delaney teaches that the charged particle comprises charged particles having different functional groups (paragraphs [0247, 0251, 0258—261]).
In regards to claim 10, Delaney teaches that the charged particle (e.g., a bead) can have a diameter of about 50 µm (paragraph [0101]).
In regards to claims 11-13, Delaney teaches that molecular tags (a species of charged particle) may be proteins or oligonucleotides (paragraph [0057, 0067, 0121]). Delaney teaches that the oligonucleotides can be from about 6 to about 20 nucleotides (paragraph [0157]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an oligonucleotide of about 6 to about 20 nucleotides comprises a diameter of no more than 1/2 the diameter of a cell.
In regards to claim 14, Delaney teaches that at least two or more barcodes (a species of charged particle) may be couple to the biological particle (paragraph [0156]; referencing Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 16, Delaney teaches that the charged particle coupled to the biological particle is partitioned (Figs. 2 and 10).
In regards to claims 17 and 18, Delaney teaches that the charged particle (nucleic acid barcode) coupled to the biological particle is partitioned and coupled to nucleic acid molecule of the biological particle (Fig. 2; paragraph [0057]). It is noted that, as above, since the charged particle broadly refers to any charged particle, and since nucleic acid barcodes are charged, they read on both of these limitations.
In regards to claims 19-20, Delaney teaches that reagents (moieties) may be included which capture intracellular molecules from the cell (e.g., oligonucleotides that capture mRNA) (paragraph [0271]).
Therefore, the combined teachings of Delaney and Hindson render the invention unpatentable as claimed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,065,688 B2 in view Hindson et al. (US9,388,465B2, 2016, on IDS 05/24/2024).
Claims 4-14 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,065,688 B2 in view Hindson et al. (US9,388,465B2, 2016, on IDS 05/24/2024) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Delaney et al. (US20190233878A1, PGPub of US10837047B2 on IDS 05/24/2024).
Although the instant claims and the claims of the patent are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because both are drawn to methods comprising contacting biological particles (a nucleus) with a plurality (positively) charged particle (a functionalized polymer or nucleic acid barcode) which is partitioned (preventing from adhering to another particle).
In regards to isolating by density and sedimentation, Hindson (who is noted is also the same applicant), teaches it was known in the art that barcode containing beads can be isolated by sedimentation, including density gradient centrifugation specifically (Summary, column 1; columns 11 and 12). Therefore, it would have been predictably obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art would to isolate complexes based at least in part on the density of the complex, including sedimentation.
In regards to the remaining claims, these are all known embodiments as taught by Delaney as discussed above.
Specifically, Delaney teaches that there may be at least 1000 barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) (paragraph [0159]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Delaney teaches that the one more barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) may include sequences that are the same for all nucleic acid molecules coupled to a given bead and/or sequences that are different across all nucleic acid molecules coupled to the given bead (paragraphs [0110, 0159]), and therefore may be both homogeneous and heterogeneous. Delaney teaches that the beads (charged particles) can have a heterogeneous (different) sizes (paragraph [0101]). Delaney teaches that the one more barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) may include sequences that are different across all nucleic acid molecules coupled to the given bead (paragraph [0110]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since they have different sequences (which have different masses and are subject to gravity) they would have different weights. Delaney teaches that the charged particle comprises charged particles having different functional groups (paragraphs [0247, 0251, 0258—261]). Delaney teaches that the charged particle (e.g., a bead) can have a diameter of about 50 µm (paragraph [0101]). Delaney teaches that molecular tags (a species of charged particle) may be proteins or oligonucleotides (paragraph [0057, 0067, 0121]). Delaney teaches that the oligonucleotides can be from about 6 to about 20 nucleotides (paragraph [0157]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an oligonucleotide of about 6 to about 20 nucleotides comprises a diameter of no more than 1/2 the diameter of a cell. Delaney teaches that at least two or more barcodes (a species of charged particle) may be couple to the biological particle (paragraph [0156]; referencing Fig. 2). Delaney teaches that the charged particle coupled to the biological particle is partitioned (Figs. 2 and 10).Delaney teaches that the charged particle (nucleic acid barcode) coupled to the biological particle is partitioned and coupled to nucleic acid molecule of the biological particle (Fig. 2; paragraph [0057]). It is noted that, as above, since the charged particle broadly refers to any charged particle, and since nucleic acid barcodes are charged, they read on both of these limitations. Delaney teaches that reagents (moieties) may be included which capture intracellular molecules from the cell (e.g., oligonucleotides that capture mRNA) (paragraph [0271]).
It would have been predicably obvious to incorporate these embodiments because Delaney is the same inventive entity and because Delaney indicates that they are suitable for isolating biological particles and charged particles as discussed above.
Claims 1, 15, and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,851,700 B1 in view Hindson et al. (US9,388,465B2, 2016, on IDS 05/24/2024).
Claims 2-14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,851,700 B1 in view Hindson et al. (US9,388,465B2, 2016, on IDS 05/24/2024) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Delaney et al. (US20190233878A1, PGPub of US10837047B2 on IDS 05/24/2024).
Although the instant claims and the claims of the patent are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because both are drawn to methods comprising contacting biological particles (a nucleus or a cell) with a plurality charged particle (a nucleic acid barcode) which is partitioned the biological particles into single cells (preventing from adhering to another particle).
In regards to isolating by density and sedimentation, Hindson (who is noted is also the same applicant), teaches it was known in the art that barcode containing beads can be isolated by sedimentation, including density gradient centrifugation specifically (Summary, column 1; columns 11 and 12). Therefore, it would have been predictably obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art would to isolate complexes based at least in part on the density of the complex, including sedimentation.
In regards to the remaining claims, these are all known embodiments as taught by Delaney as discussed above.
Specifically, Delaney teaches that there may be at least 1000 barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) (paragraph [0159]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Delaney teaches that the one more barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) may include sequences that are the same for all nucleic acid molecules coupled to a given bead and/or sequences that are different across all nucleic acid molecules coupled to the given bead (paragraphs [0110, 0159]), and therefore may be both homogeneous and heterogeneous. Delaney teaches that the beads (charged particles) can have a heterogeneous (different) sizes (paragraph [0101]). Delaney teaches that the one more barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) may include sequences that are different across all nucleic acid molecules coupled to the given bead (paragraph [0110]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since they have different sequences (which have different masses and are subject to gravity) they would have different weights. Delaney teaches that the charged particle comprises charged particles having different functional groups (paragraphs [0247, 0251, 0258—261]). Delaney teaches that the charged particle (e.g., a bead) can have a diameter of about 50 µm (paragraph [0101]). Delaney teaches that molecular tags (a species of charged particle) may be proteins or oligonucleotides (paragraph [0057, 0067, 0121]). Delaney teaches that the oligonucleotides can be from about 6 to about 20 nucleotides (paragraph [0157]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an oligonucleotide of about 6 to about 20 nucleotides comprises a diameter of no more than 1/2 the diameter of a cell. Delaney teaches that at least two or more barcodes (a species of charged particle) may be couple to the biological particle (paragraph [0156]; referencing Fig. 2). Delaney teaches that the charged particle coupled to the biological particle is partitioned (Figs. 2 and 10).Delaney teaches that the charged particle (nucleic acid barcode) coupled to the biological particle is partitioned and coupled to nucleic acid molecule of the biological particle (Fig. 2; paragraph [0057]). It is noted that, as above, since the charged particle broadly refers to any charged particle, and since nucleic acid barcodes are charged, they read on both of these limitations. Delaney teaches that reagents (moieties) may be included which capture intracellular molecules from the cell (e.g., oligonucleotides that capture mRNA) (paragraph [0271]).
It would have been predicably obvious to incorporate these embodiments because Delaney is the same inventive entity and because Delaney indicates that they are suitable for isolating biological particles and charged particles as discussed above.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-49 of U.S. Patent No. 10,590,244 B2 in view Hindson et al. (US9,388,465B2, 2016, on IDS 05/24/2024).
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,590,244 B2 in view Hindson et al. (US9,388,465B2, 2016, on IDS 05/24/2024) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Delaney et al. (US20190233878A1, PGPub of US10837047B2 on IDS 05/24/2024).
Although the instant claims and the claims of the patent are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because both are drawn to methods comprising contacting biological particles (a nucleus or a cell) with a plurality charged particle (a gel or nucleic acid barcode) which is partitioned the biological particles into single cells (preventing from adhering to another particle).
In regards to isolating by density and sedimentation, Hindson (who is noted is also the same applicant), teaches it was known in the art that barcode containing beads can be isolated by sedimentation, including density gradient centrifugation specifically (Summary, column 1; columns 11 and 12). Therefore, it would have been predictably obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art would to isolate complexes based at least in part on the density of the complex, including sedimentation.
In regards to the remaining claims, these are all known embodiments as taught by Delaney as discussed above.
Specifically, Delaney teaches that there may be at least 1000 barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) (paragraph [0159]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Delaney teaches that the one more barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) may include sequences that are the same for all nucleic acid molecules coupled to a given bead and/or sequences that are different across all nucleic acid molecules coupled to the given bead (paragraphs [0110, 0159]), and therefore may be both homogeneous and heterogeneous. Delaney teaches that the beads (charged particles) can have a heterogeneous (different) sizes (paragraph [0101]). Delaney teaches that the one more barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) may include sequences that are different across all nucleic acid molecules coupled to the given bead (paragraph [0110]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since they have different sequences (which have different masses and are subject to gravity) they would have different weights. Delaney teaches that the charged particle comprises charged particles having different functional groups (paragraphs [0247, 0251, 0258—261]). Delaney teaches that the charged particle (e.g., a bead) can have a diameter of about 50 µm (paragraph [0101]). Delaney teaches that molecular tags (a species of charged particle) may be proteins or oligonucleotides (paragraph [0057, 0067, 0121]). Delaney teaches that the oligonucleotides can be from about 6 to about 20 nucleotides (paragraph [0157]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an oligonucleotide of about 6 to about 20 nucleotides comprises a diameter of no more than 1/2 the diameter of a cell. Delaney teaches that at least two or more barcodes (a species of charged particle) may be couple to the biological particle (paragraph [0156]; referencing Fig. 2). Delaney teaches that the charged particle coupled to the biological particle is partitioned (Figs. 2 and 10).Delaney teaches that the charged particle (nucleic acid barcode) coupled to the biological particle is partitioned and coupled to nucleic acid molecule of the biological particle (Fig. 2; paragraph [0057]). It is noted that, as above, since the charged particle broadly refers to any charged particle, and since nucleic acid barcodes are charged, they read on both of these limitations. Delaney teaches that reagents (moieties) may be included which capture intracellular molecules from the cell (e.g., oligonucleotides that capture mRNA) (paragraph [0271]).
It would have been predicably obvious to incorporate these embodiments because Delaney is the same inventive entity and because Delaney indicates that they are suitable for isolating biological particles and charged particles as discussed above.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/342,226 in view Hindson et al. (US9,388,465B2, 2016, on IDS 05/24/2024).
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/342,226 in view Hindson et al. (US9,388,465B2, 2016, on IDS 05/24/2024) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Delaney et al. (US20190233878A1, PGPub of US10837047B2 on IDS 05/24/2024).
Although the instant claims and the claims of the copending Application are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because both are drawn to methods comprising contacting biological particles (a nucleus or a cell) with a plurality charged particle (a gel or nucleic acid barcode) which is partitioned the biological particles into single cells (preventing from adhering to another particle).
In regards to isolating by density and sedimentation, Hindson (who is noted is also the same applicant), teaches it was known in the art that barcode containing beads can be isolated by sedimentation, including density gradient centrifugation specifically (Summary, column 1; columns 11 and 12). Therefore, it would have been predictably obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art would to isolate complexes based at least in part on the density of the complex, including sedimentation.
In regards to the remaining claims, these are all known embodiments as taught by Delaney as discussed above.
Specifically, Delaney teaches that there may be at least 1000 barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) (paragraph [0159]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Delaney teaches that the one more barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) may include sequences that are the same for all nucleic acid molecules coupled to a given bead and/or sequences that are different across all nucleic acid molecules coupled to the given bead (paragraphs [0110, 0159]), and therefore may be both homogeneous and heterogeneous. Delaney teaches that the beads (charged particles) can have a heterogeneous (different) sizes (paragraph [0101]). Delaney teaches that the one more barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) may include sequences that are different across all nucleic acid molecules coupled to the given bead (paragraph [0110]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since they have different sequences (which have different masses and are subject to gravity) they would have different weights. Delaney teaches that the charged particle comprises charged particles having different functional groups (paragraphs [0247, 0251, 0258—261]). Delaney teaches that the charged particle (e.g., a bead) can have a diameter of about 50 µm (paragraph [0101]). Delaney teaches that molecular tags (a species of charged particle) may be proteins or oligonucleotides (paragraph [0057, 0067, 0121]). Delaney teaches that the oligonucleotides can be from about 6 to about 20 nucleotides (paragraph [0157]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an oligonucleotide of about 6 to about 20 nucleotides comprises a diameter of no more than 1/2 the diameter of a cell. Delaney teaches that at least two or more barcodes (a species of charged particle) may be couple to the biological particle (paragraph [0156]; referencing Fig. 2). Delaney teaches that the charged particle coupled to the biological particle is partitioned (Figs. 2 and 10).Delaney teaches that the charged particle (nucleic acid barcode) coupled to the biological particle is partitioned and coupled to nucleic acid molecule of the biological particle (Fig. 2; paragraph [0057]). It is noted that, as above, since the charged particle broadly refers to any charged particle, and since nucleic acid barcodes are charged, they read on both of these limitations. Delaney teaches that reagents (moieties) may be included which capture intracellular molecules from the cell (e.g., oligonucleotides that capture mRNA) (paragraph [0271]).
It would have been predicably obvious to incorporate these embodiments because Delaney is the same inventive entity and because Delaney indicates that they are suitable for isolating biological particles and charged particles as discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/795,976 in view Hindson et al. (US9,388,465B2, 2016, on IDS 05/24/2024).
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/795,976 in view Hindson et al. (US9,388,465B2, 2016, on IDS 05/24/2024) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Delaney et al. (US20190233878A1, PGPub of US10837047B2 on IDS 05/24/2024).
Although the instant claims and the claims of the copending Application are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because both are drawn to methods comprising contacting biological particles (a nucleus or a cell) with a plurality charged particle (a gel or nucleic acid barcode) which is partitioned the biological particles into single cells (preventing from adhering to another particle).
In regards to isolating by density and sedimentation, Hindson (who is noted is also the same applicant), teaches it was known in the art that barcode containing beads can be isolated by sedimentation, including density gradient centrifugation specifically (Summary, column 1; columns 11 and 12). Therefore, it would have been predictably obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art would to isolate complexes based at least in part on the density of the complex, including sedimentation.
In regards to the remaining claims, these are all known embodiments as taught by Delaney as discussed above.
Specifically, Delaney teaches that there may be at least 1000 barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) (paragraph [0159]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Delaney teaches that the one more barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) may include sequences that are the same for all nucleic acid molecules coupled to a given bead and/or sequences that are different across all nucleic acid molecules coupled to the given bead (paragraphs [0110, 0159]), and therefore may be both homogeneous and heterogeneous. Delaney teaches that the beads (charged particles) can have a heterogeneous (different) sizes (paragraph [0101]). Delaney teaches that the one more barcode sequences (a species of charged particle) may include sequences that are different across all nucleic acid molecules coupled to the given bead (paragraph [0110]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since they have different sequences (which have different masses and are subject to gravity) they would have different weights. Delaney teaches that the charged particle comprises charged particles having different functional groups (paragraphs [0247, 0251, 0258—261]). Delaney teaches that the charged particle (e.g., a bead) can have a diameter of about 50 µm (paragraph [0101]). Delaney teaches that molecular tags (a species of charged particle) may be proteins or oligonucleotides (paragraph [0057, 0067, 0121]). Delaney teaches that the oligonucleotides can be from about 6 to about 20 nucleotides (paragraph [0157]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an oligonucleotide of about 6 to about 20 nucleotides comprises a diameter of no more than 1/2 the diameter of a cell. Delaney teaches that at least two or more barcodes (a species of charged particle) may be couple to the biological particle (paragraph [0156]; referencing Fig. 2). Delaney teaches that the charged particle coupled to the biological particle is partitioned (Figs. 2 and 10).Delaney teaches that the charged particle (nucleic acid barcode) coupled to the biological particle is partitioned and coupled to nucleic acid molecule of the biological particle (Fig. 2; paragraph [0057]). It is noted that, as above, since the charged particle broadly refers to any charged particle, and since nucleic acid barcodes are charged, they read on both of these limitations. Delaney teaches that reagents (moieties) may be included which capture intracellular molecules from the cell (e.g., oligonucleotides that capture mRNA) (paragraph [0271]).
It would have been predicably obvious to incorporate these embodiments because Delaney is the same inventive entity and because Delaney indicates that they are suitable for isolating biological particles and charged particles as discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH (PAUL) MIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-0341. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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, James (Doug) Schultz can be reached at (571) 272-0763. 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.
/JOSEPH PAUL MIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Prosecution Insights