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 .
1.Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 26-28 in the reply filed on June 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
2.Claims 26-28 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 26, line 4, --of—should be inserted after “outside”. At lines 5 and 6 of claim 26, “the trans-wall molecules” lacks antecedent basis. Are these the same as the “flow-through molecules” set forth at line 5 of the claim? If so, consistent language should be used for the same elements being claimed. Also, the last four lines of claim 26 are confusing. It is unclear exactly what relation the confining of solutions to the outside of a specific channel has to immobilizing a local channel wall with enzymes and hence the recitation of these aspects separated by the term “or” is indefinite. Claim 26, last line, are the “vascular networks” the same as the “vascular-like channel system” set forth at line 1 of the claim? Again, consistent terminology should be used in the claims when referring to the same elements. Further, applicant uses the term “immobilized” at line 3 of claim 26 and “immobilizing” at line 5 thereof with respect to the channels or channel wall. However, the immobilizations are clearly different and this needs to be clarified in the claims—ie, a clear line of distinction should be made between these two different immobilizations.
3.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.
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the article entitled “Aquabots” by Zhu et al, ACS Nano 2022, 16, 13761-13770 (see page 13766, left side, under the heading “Interfacial Functionalization”).
Zhu et al (see the last 2 lines of the left column of page 13766) discloses microfluidic channels that are semipermeable and functionalized by enzymes which allow for the breakdown of glucose. See lines 8-17 under the heading “Interfacial Functionalization” at page 13766, left side for the discussion of glucose breakdown and the transport of byproducts across the membrane wall. It is clear that solutions are confined to the exterior of the channel and that the channel is immobilized with an enzyme to alter flow through molecules that would facilitate the simulation of glucose absorption and metabolism in vascular networks since it is glucose that is being metabolized and the byproduct flowing through the membrane to the interior thereof. Also, it would be either inherent or obvious that the functionalizing of the membrane—with enzyme-- would occur at different regions of the channel since these regions would be the ones where glucose breakdown occurs The only claimed aspect apparently missing from Zhu et al is a solid substrate supporting the channels and affixed thereto. Given that Zhu et al prints the materials in the same manner as the instant to form the channels, it is submitted as completely obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a substrate onto which the materials are printed in Zhu et al to facilitate the formation of the channels. Indeed, there would almost have to be some form of substrate onto which the channel material is printed or otherwise it would be impossible to print the material. The materials recited in instant claim 27 are well known in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and such would have been obvious material selections for the channels in Zhu et al dependent on the exact physical properties desired for the channels. Instant claim 28 is submitted to have been within the skill level of the art in Zhu et al to facilitate the use of the channels as desired.
4.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights