Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/335,353

GAS FLOW REGULATION FOR A CELL CULTURE INCUBATOR

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Jun 01, 2021
Examiner
EDWARDS, LYDIA E
Art Unit
1796
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Xcell Biosciences Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
64%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
419 granted / 700 resolved
-5.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
736
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
49.1%
+9.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§112
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 700 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 on 09/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 27-47 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. Regarding claim 27, the limitation: “maintaining the chamber oxygen level to the set hypoxic oxygen level and the total gas pressure to the set positive pressure level independently of each other, wherein maintaining the chamber oxygen level at the set hypoxic oxygen level comprises regulating the chamber oxygen level without altering the total gas pressure, and wherein maintaining the positive pressure level at the set positive pressure level comprises regulating the total gas pressure without altering the chamber oxygen level” is unclear. The hypoxic oxygen level and the total gas pressure are naturally different parameters. In addition, the oxygen pressure will naturally affect the total gas pressure. What does applicant mean by: set hypoxic oxygen level and the total gas pressure to the set positive pressure level independently of each other? Regarding claim 27, the term “hypoxic” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hypoxic” is not defined by the claim, the specification as filed does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The word hypoxic generally means low oxygen level. However, the word hypoxic indicates different levels of low oxygen in different environments (anerobic/aerobic incubator, tissues, blood, water, etc.). The specification as filed discloses that hypoxic level may range from 0.1 to 21% oxygen depending on what microenvironment the system maybe simulating ( see paragraphs 14 and 72), 21% oxygen level is considered normal level in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels in incubators are important for cell growth and differentiation. Most cell culture laboratories maintain incubator environments with 20% oxygen and 5% carbon dioxide. What does applicant consider hypoxic condition for oxygen in a cell culture incubator? Thus, the specification as filed does not appear to provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree for the state of low oxygen. Claims 28-47 depend on independent claim 27 and is therefore, rejected for the same reason. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi US 2001/0021529 as cited in the IDS filed 08/11/2021 in view of West US 2005/0158701. Regarding claim 27, Takagi discloses a method of regulating a gas flow system within an enclosed environmental chamber (culture chamber 20/culture box 42) that is within a cell culture incubator (culture apparatus 1) comprising: providing a gas flow system (gas mixture/concentration regulating apparatus 36) within the cell culture incubator comprising: a pressure sensor (a pressure sensor 112) to measure a total gas pressure within the enclosed environmental chamber and to convey a sensed pressured signal a nitrogen source [172] to provide nitrogen to the enclosed environmental chamber as discussed in at least paragraph 115; a vent to release gas from the enclosed environmental chamber (…pressure relief valve 26 by tubes 50A, 50B, 50C, 50D and 50E. The tubes 50A, 50D, 50E constituting gas absorption portion 41 (FIG. 1) are formed of a vent tube made of an elastomer material or the like capable of absorbing gas inside the culture box 42. Paragraph 103); and a control system (main control apparatus 230) to receive, and the sensed pressured signal from the pressure sensor as discussed in at least paragraph 119; regulating the total gas pressure within the enclosed environmental chamber as discussed in at least paragraphs 121-130; and the pressure level to the set positive pressure level independently of each other. Takagi also discloses wherein external atmospheric air provide a source of oxygen discussed in at least paragraph 12. Takagi does not explicitly disclose an oxygen sensor to measure a chamber oxygen level within the enclosed environmental chamber and to convey a sensed oxygen signal; an air injection pump to provide external atmospheric air to the enclosed environmental chamber; wherein the control system (main control apparatus 230) receives a sensed oxygen signal from an oxygen sensor; regulating the chamber oxygen level within the enclosed environmental chamber to a set hypoxic oxygen level that is less than 20.9% oxygen; and maintaining the chamber oxygen level to the set hypoxic oxygen level. Takagi also does not explicitly disclose setting a set positive pressure level greater than 14.7 PSI. West discloses an integrated bioreactor monitor and control system comprising: bioreactors [105, 110, 220 and 220’], a pressure sensor as discussed in at least paragraphs 49, 56 and 63, an oxygen sensor [205, 205’ and 180] to measure a chamber oxygen level within the enclosed environmental chamber and to convey a sensed oxygen signal as discussed in at least paragraphs 33, 45, 49 and 75; a control system (controller 120 and control system 221) receives a sensed pressured signal from the pressure sensor and a sensed oxygen signal from an oxygen sensor as discussed in at least paragraphs 49, 63, 78 and 103; regulating the chamber oxygen level within the enclosed environmental chamber as discussed in at least paragraphs 70-78; and an air injection pump (a pump control system 240/gas control system 235) to provide external atmospheric air to the enclosed environmental chamber as discussed in at least paragraphs 54, 69 and 90. Also see whole document. The control system of West is capable of operating with any desired input values but does not explicitly disclose the set hypoxic oxygen level that is less than 20.9% oxygen and a set positive pressure level greater than 14.7 PSI. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the user input the desired hypoxic oxygen and positive pressure levels to provide the desired conditions for a specific organism cultured within the chambers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takagi with a pressure sensor and an oxygen sensor, a control system and an air injection pump as taught by West in order to implement a controlled process that benefits from monitoring conditions of the process and controlling factors affecting the process, which allows for appropriate growth conditions for the cells and/or tissue cultures. Further, the combination of Takagi and West is capable of maintaining the chamber oxygen level to the set hypoxic oxygen level and the total gas pressure to the set positive pressure level independently of each other, wherein maintaining the chamber oxygen level at the set hypoxic oxygen level comprises regulating the chamber oxygen level without altering the total gas pressure, and wherein maintaining the positive pressure level at the set positive pressure level comprises regulating the total gas pressure without altering the chamber oxygen level. Conclusion Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYDIA EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-3242. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30-5:30 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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached on (571)272-7129. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /LYDIA EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 01, 2021
Application Filed
Dec 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 18, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569807
METHOD FOR SIMULTANEOUSLY REMOVING HIGH-LOAD SULFUR DIOXIDE AND NITROGEN OXIDE IN WASTE GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12545879
BIOPROCESS DEVICE ASSEMBLY AND INOCULATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12545877
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CELL CULTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12532881
TISSUE PACKAGING AND METHOD OF USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12529022
HUMAN ORGAN-ON-CHIP MODELS FOR PREDICTIVE SCREENING
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
64%
With Interview (+4.1%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 700 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month