DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending in the instant application. Claims 6-10 have been withdrawn based upon Restriction/Election as discussed below. Claims 1-5, 11 and 12 are being examined on the merits in the instant application.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Advisory Notice
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All rejections and/or objections not explicitly maintained in the instant office action have been withdrawn per Applicants’ claim amendments and/or persuasive arguments.
Priority
The U.S. effective filing date has been determined to be 10/27/2020, the filing date of document KR 10-2020-0139899.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a New Matter rejection.
Scope of the Claimed Invention:
Applicant claims a microbot comprising: a spherical structure body; and a plurality of cells cultured on and attached to a surface of the spherical structure body, wherein the spherical structure body comprises: a spherical core comprising a biodegradable material; a plurality of biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles disposed on a first portion of a surface of the spherical core; and a plurality of drugs disposed on a second portion, different from the first portion, of the surface of the spherical core, and wherein the plurality of cells comprise a stem cell (instant claim 1).
Disclosure of the Instant Application:
Applicants arguments filed 10/14/2025 state that: “Applicant respectfully submits that the above amendments do not add new matter to the application and are fully supported by the specification. Support for the amendments may be found at least in the specification at page 6, line 15-page 7, line 24 and Figs. 1 A and 1 B.” (p. 4, paragraph 2). Applicants arguments further point to Figure 1B stating that: “The claimed microrobot 10 includes magnetic biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles 113 and the drug 112 both disposed inside of each of the cells 12. (see Applicant's FIG. lB and claim 1).” (p. 6, paragraphs 2-3, FIG 1B).
The instant Specification nowhere discloses “wherein the magnetic biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles and drug are both disposed inside of each of the cells.”
The instant Specification discloses that: “there is provided a microrobot a structure body having a three dimensional (3D) structure formed by mixing a biodegradable first material, biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles, and a drug, and cells cultured on a surface of the structure body three dimensionally.” [emphasis added](p. 3, lines 8-11), and that: “a method of manufacturing a microrobot, including forming a mixture by mixing a biodegradable first material, biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles, and a drug, forming a structure body having a 3D structure by performing ultraviolet (UV) irradiation on the mixture, and culturing cells on a surface of the structure body three-dimensionally by culturing the structure body and the cells.” [emphasis added](p. 3, lines 16-20).
The instant Specification discloses that: “the microrobot may attach cells to a surface of a structure body to enable targeted treatment, and deliver a sufficient number of cells to a target to improve the efficiency of the treatment.” [emphasis added](p. 4, lines 11-13).
The instant Specification discloses that: “The microrobot 10 may include a micro- or nano-sized structure body 11 formed by mixing a first material 111 that is photocurable and biodegradable, a drug 112, and biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles 113, and cells 12 cultured on a surface of the structure body 11.” (p. 6, lines 21-24). And that: “The cells 12 may be cultured on the surface of the structure body 11. For example, the cells 12 may be cultured along with the structure body 11 simultaneously in a U-bottom well treated with an ultra-low attachment (ULA) surface. Thus, the cells 12 may be attached to the surface of the structure body 11 in a 3D shape.” (p. 7, lines 21-24).
The instant Specification discloses that: “In step S13, the structure body 11 and the cells 12 may be simultaneously cultured in a U-bottom well treated with an ULA surface such that the cells 12 are three-dimensionally cultured on the surface of the structure body 11 to grow thereon.” “That is, the structure body 11 and the cells 12 may be simultaneously cultured in the U-bottom well with the ULA surface to allow the cells 12 to be attached onto the surface of the structure body 11 in a 3D form.” “According to an example embodiment, culturing the cells 12 on the surface of the structure body 11 may provide a sufficient number of stem cells. In addition, the structure body 11 and the cells 12 may be stably attached to each other, and thus a loss of the cells 12 during migration in the body may be prevented.” [emphasis added](p. 8, lines 10-19).
The instant Specification discloses that: “The microrobot 10 may store therein a drug, and thus drug treatment may act only on a target. In addition, the microrobot 10 may have the cells 12 attached to the surface of the structure body 11, rather than being fixed between the structure bodies 11, thereby enabling targeted treatment. Further, the microrobot 10 may deliver a sufficient number of cells 12 to the target, and thus improve the efficiency of the treatment.” (p. 9, lines 3-7).
Discussion:
Applicants point to Figures 1A-1B and page 6 lines 21-24 for support for the limitation “a plurality of biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles disposed on a first portion of a surface of the spherical core; and a plurality of drugs disposed on a second portion, different from the first portion” However, the disclosure throughout makes clear throughout that the structured body (11) is composed of a biodegradable first material, biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles, and a drug and that cells are cultured on the surface of the structured body. However, the text describing Figures 1A and 1B clearly states that the cells are cultured on the surface of the structure body: “The microrobot 10 may include a micro- or nano-sized structure body 11 formed by mixing a first material 111 that is photocurable and biodegradable, a drug 112, and biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles 113, and cells 12 cultured on a surface of the structure body 11.” (p. 6, lines 21-24). And Figure 2 makes clear that the mixture of first material (GelMA), drug, and magnetic nanoparticles are mixed prior to photcuring (Figure 2). It does not appear the this process would result in “a plurality of biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles disposed on a first portion of a surface of the spherical core; and a plurality of drugs disposed on a second portion, different from the first portion of the surface” Given that there is no written description support for the limitation: “a plurality of biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles disposed on a first portion of a surface of the spherical core; and a plurality of drugs disposed on a second portion, different from the first portion” the claims are properly rejected for lack of written description by inclusion of new matter as claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2-5 and 12 inherit the new matter introduced into claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 12 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI (WO-2017/222321-A1; US-2019/0359928-A1 relied on as English language translation herein) in view of Ceylan et al. (“3D-Printed Biodegradable Microswimmers for Theranoistic Cargo Delivery and Release,” 2019; American Chemical Society, ASC Nano, Vol. 13, pp. 3353-3362); Nichols et al. (“Cell-laden microengineered gelatin methacrylate hydrogels,” 2010; ELSEVIER; Biomaterials, Vol. 31, pp. 5536-5544); Yue et al.1 (“Synthesis, properties, and biomedical application of gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels,”2015; ELSEVIER; Biomaterials, Vol. 73, pp. 254-271); WANG (US 2017/0143830; published May 2017).
Applicants Claims
Applicant claims a microbot comprising: a spherical structure body; and a plurality of cells cultured on and attached to a surface of the spherical structure body, wherein the spherical structure body comprises: a spherical core comprising a biodegradable material; a plurality of biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles disposed on a first portion of a surface of the spherical core; and a plurality of drugs disposed on a second portion, different from the first portion, of the surface of the spherical core, and wherein the plurality of cells comprise a stem cell (instant claim 1).
Determination of the scope
and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01)
CHOI teaches a microbot-based biomimetic system (see whole document), and particularly “for delivering a drug or cell, organizing microorgans, and controlling fluid flow. The microrobot-based biomimetic system according to one aspect of the present invention comprises: a network for interconnecting microorgans constituting a biometric organ model; a microrobot for delivering a targeted drug or cell while moving in the network; and a magnetic field control unit for controlling an operation of the microrobot.” (abstract).
CHOI teaches that: “a microrobot configured to move within the network to perform target-directed delivery of a drug or cell, and a magnetic field controller configured to control operation of the microrobot.” ([0012]), and “can deliver a drug or cell to an in vivo local portion in a network of various body organ models interconnected in the biometric system, thereby monitoring physiological responses to and effects of a new drug.” ([0013]). And further that: “microrobots are moved by a magnetic field applied from the outside. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to provide an additional inlet and channel for guiding a micro-tissue into an artificial organ chamber, and the positions of the microrobots constituting various artificial organs including three-dimensional cultured cells can be precisely controlled to accurately load the microrobots at a target position.” ([0014]).
CHOI teaches that “The bio-scaffold type microrobot 100a is a porous bio-scaffold of a three-dimensional structure and can be configured in a hexahedral, cylindrical, elliptical, polygonal, or conical shape.” ([0035]). And that: “For example, the bio-scaffold type microrobot 100a is manufactured in lithography using a photocurable polymer and is thus formed as a porous bio-scaffold type microrobot of a micro-sized three-dimensional structure, which facilitates cell or drug delivery in the network 300 of the biometric system.” And further that: “The bio-scaffold type microrobot 100a, which is a porous scaffold, loads a three-dimensional cultured cell or a drug into the internal space of the scaffold having gaps and moves in the network 300.” ([0037])(instant claim 2, “the structured body is formed in a porous structure”; instant claim 3).
CHOI teaches that: “As another example, the microrobots 100a, 100b, and 100c configured to perform cell or drug delivery may be formed of a biodegradable material. In this case, coating the surfaces of the microrobots is avoided to ensure smooth in vivo bio-degradation. Instead, the scaffold is constructed with a mixture of iron oxide nanoparticles, which are a biocompatible magnetic material, and another bio-degradable material.” [emphasis added]([0041])(instant claim 1, “: a structure body having a three-dimensional (3D) structure formed by mixing a biodegradable first material, biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles”). CHOI further teaches that: “The above-described magnetic materials exhibit a certain intensity of magnetism and are composed of metals which have low corrosiveness. For example, iron, cobalt or neodymium may be used alone or in combination in addition to the above-described magnetic materials, and the entirety or a part of the outer circumferential surfaces of the microrobots 100a, 100b, and 100c configured to perform cell or drug delivery may be coated therewith.” ([0042]).
CHOI teaches that: “As shown in FIG. 1, regarding the brain 200c, a spherical microrobot 100d includes spherical scaffolds. The spherical microrobot 100d has a cell provided in a gap formed between the scaffolds and thus three-dimensionally cultures the cell.” ([0047]):
PNG
media_image1.png
365
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(instant claim 1, “a spherical structure body; and a plurality of cells cultured on and attached to a surface of the spherical structure body” ). CHOI further teaches that: “The microrobot pumps 100f and 100g are formed of or coated with a magnetic material (Fe2O3, Fe3O4, etc.).” ([0053])(instant claim 12).
Ascertainment of the difference between
the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the rejected claims and the teachings of CHOI is that CHOI does not expressly teach (1) the cells are stem cells; (2) the inclusion of a drug and cells cultured on the surface of the structured 3D body, inclusion of a photoinitiator (claim 5) or the biodegradable first material is gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA).
While CHOI does not expressly teach delivery of a drug and a cell together, it would have clearly been prima facie obvious to combine the two, for example, a drug that positively directs cell growth (cell growth factors) or adhesion (e.g. RGD cell adhesion peptide).
Ceylan et al. teaches 3D-Printed biodegradable microswimmers for theranostic cargo delivery and release (see whole document), and particularly that: “The present study reports a hydrogel-based, magnetically powered and controlled, enzymatically degradable microswimmer, which is responsive to the pathological markers in its microenvironment for theranostic cargo delivery and release tasks. We design a double helical architecture enabling volumetric cargo loading and swimming capabilities under rotational magnetic fields and a 3D-printed optimized 3D microswimmer ([…]) using two-photon polymerization from a magnetic precursor suspension composed from gelatin methacryloyl and biofunctionalized superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles.” [emphasis added](abstract). The examiner notes that CHOI teaches that: “The microbots may include a helical-scaffold type microbot 100c to perform a corkscrew motion to secure a larger propulsion force.” ([0032]).
Ceylan et al. teaches that: “We accomplish the fabrication of magnetically powered, environmentally responsive microswimmers by 3D printing of a nanocomposite magnetic precursor. The precursor comprises iron oxide nanoparticles dispersed in gelatin methacryloyl, a photo-cross-linkable semisynthetic polymer derived from collagen. Gelatin also contains target cleavage sites for MMP-2, thereby appealing as a biodegradable structural material for microrobots. We show that upon the enzymatic breakdown of the microswimmer network, anti-ErbB 2 antibody-tagged magnetic contrast agents are released into the local environment for targeted cell labeling of ErbB 2 overexpressing SKBR3 cancer cells, thereby promising follow-up evaluation strategy of the preceding therapeutic intervention. Altogether, the findings of the present work represent a leap toward in vivo mobile microrobots that are capable of sensing, responding to the local microenvironment, and performing specific diagnostic or therapeutic tasks using their smart composite material architectures in physiologically complex environments.” (p. 3354, col. 2, lines 7-25).
Nichols et al. teaches cell-laden microengineered gelatin methacrylate hydrogels (see whole document), and particularly that: “The cellular microenvironment plays an integral role in improving the function of microengineered tissues. Control of the microarchitecture in engineered tissues can be achieved through photopatterning of cell-laden hydrogels. However, despite high pattern fidelity of photopolymerizable hydrogels, many such materials are not cell-responsive and have limited biodegradability. Here, we demonstrate gelatin methacrylate (GelMA) as an inexpensive, cell-responsive hydrogel platform for creating cell-laden microtissues and microfluidic devices. Cells readily bound to, proliferated, elongated, and migrated both when seeded on micropatterned GelMA substrates as well as when encapsulated in microfabricated GelMA hydrogels.” [emphasis added](abstract).
Nichols et al. teaches that: “As specific microarchitectural features of the cell niche and the micromechanical environment have been demonstrated to be vital to controlling cell differentiation [6-9], researchers have sought materials with improved biological, chemical and mechanical properties.” (p. 5536, col. 1, lines 5-9). The examiner notes that References [6-9] of Nichols et al. are directed to stem cells (instant claim 1, “wherein the plurality of cells comprises a stem cell.”).
Nichols et al. further teaches that: “Gelatin methacrylate (GelMA) is a photopolymerizable hydrogel comprised of modified natural ECM components, making it a potentially attractive material for tissue engineering applications. Gelatin is inexpensive, denatured collagen that can be derived from a variety of sources, while retaining natural cell binding motifs, such as RGD, as well as MMP-sensitive degradation sites. Addition of methacrylate groups to the amine-containing side groups of gelatin can be used to make it light polymerizable into a hydrogel that is stable at 37 °C. Long term cell viability, and limited encapsulated cell elongation, have been demonstrated.” [emphasis added]. And “We hypothesized that as a light polymerizable hydrogel based on collagen motifs, GelMA could successfully be micropatterned into a variety of shapes and configurations for tissue engineering and microfluidic applications, while retaining its high encapsulated cell viability and cell-responsive elements (i.e. binding and degradation). In this report, we investigated the surface and 3D cell binding, cell elongation and migration properties of GelMA microgels. In addition, we investigated whether cell-laden GelMA could be made into perfusable microchannels which could be seeded with endothelial cells, for creating perfusable engineered tissues.” (p. 5537, col. 1, paragraphs 2-3).
Nichols et al. teaches that: “HUVECs2 were chosen as a model cell type for the potential application of GelMA in vascularized tissue engineering as well as to explore the compatibility of GelMA with a human cell type. HUVECs readily bound to GelMA surfaces of all concentrations with roughly the same affinity following initial seeding.” (p. 5540, col. 1, lines 5-10). And further teaches selective adhesion onto micropatterned GelMA surfaces (p. 5541, §3.6), and particularly that: “Following GelMA micropattern fabrication and incubation in DPBS to remove uncrosslinked gelatin from PEG surfaces, HUVEC cells (2 x 106 cells/mL) were pipetted onto the surface and incubated for 12 h to allow for adhesion to occur, washed with DPBS to remove non-adherent cells, then incubated for an additional 12 h to demonstrate persistence. As demonstrated, HUVEC cells bound only to GelMA surfaces, and not to PEG surfaces, quickly creating a confluent monolayer on GelMA patterns (Fig. 7).” (instant claim 1, “cells cultured on a surface of the structure body three-dimensionally.”).
Nichols et al. further teaches that: “One advantage of GelMA is the presence of binding sites distributed throughout the hydrogel on all polymer chains, potentially improving the probability of cell binding. Cells easily bound to, and formed a monolayer on GelMA surfaces, and elongated and migrated within GelMA demonstrating its positive cell-binding behavior.” (p. 5543, col. 1, lines 37-42). And that: “Overall we present evidence that GelMA would be suitable for a number of tissue engineering applications. For instance, GelMA allowed rapid cell adhesion, proliferation and migration on the surface of micropatterns. This could make GelMA well suited for controlled 2D cell interaction or cell shape studies by providing a rapid technique to create selectively binding regions of GelMA on PEG surfaces.” (p. 5543, col. 2, lines 1-7).
Nichols et al. concludes that: “In this report we demonstrated the use of GelMA for microscale tissue engineering applications, highlighting the unique properties that make GelMA an attractive material for creating cell-laden microtissues. The physical properties of GelMA were demonstrated to be controllable through variation of the degree of methacrylation and the gel concentration yielding a tunable range of mechanical and swelling properties for different applications. GelMA was easily patterned down to 100 µm resolution with the fidelity and robustness needed to perform as a cell-laden microgel or as a microfluidic device, similar to other commonly used hydrogels. However, unlike other synthetic UV crosslinkable hydrogels, cells readily adhered to, migrated within, proliferated and organized both on 2D and in 3D GelMA micropatterns. These data suggest that GelMA could be used for many microscale applications where other hydrogels are not well suited, such as for creating endothelial-lined vasculature within engineered tissues.” (p. 5543, §Conclusion).
Yue et al. (cited by Ceylan as reference 26, p. 3354, col. 2, lines 10-13), teaches that: “GelMA hydrogels closely resemble some essential properties of native extracellular matrix (ECM) due to the presence of cell attaching and matrix metalloproteinase responsive peptide motifs, which allow cells to proliferate and spread in GelMA-based scaffolds.” (abstract, lines 2-5)(instant claim 1, “cells cultured on and attached to a surface”).
Yue et al. teaches that: “GelMA undergoes photoinitiated radical polymerization (i.e. under UV light exposure with the presence of a photoinitiator) to form covalently crosslinked hydrogels. As the hydrolysis product of collagen, the major component of ECM in most tissues, gelatin contains many arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) sequences that promote cell attachment, as well as the target sequences of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) that are suitable for cell remodeling.” [emphasis added](p. 255, col. 1, 3rd paragraph, lines 1-8).
Yue et al. teaches that: “We have reviewed several important aspects of GelMA-based hydrogel systems for biomedical applications. GelMA is developed from a natural polymer gelatin via one-step chemical modification. The introduction of photocrosslinkable methacryloyl substitution groups enables convenient and fast gelation upon exposure to light irradiation at the presence of photoinitiators. Many physical parameters of GelMA hydrogels, such as mechanical properties, pore sizes, degradation rates, and swell ratio can be readily tailored by changing the degree of methacryloyl substitution, concentration of the GelMA prepolymer, initiator concentration, and UV exposure time. Moreover, the resulting GelMA hydrogels retain the excellent biocompatibility and bioactivity of gelatin, such as promoting adhesion, spreading, and proliferation of various cell lines, due to the existence of cell adhesive RGD motifs and MMP-degradable amino acid sequences.” (p. 269, col. 1, lines 1-15)(instant claim 2)..
WANG teaches living cells, such as red blood cells (RBCs) loaded with magnetic nanoparticles and drugs for treatment of disease, particularly “FIG. 7 shows schematic preparation of multicargo loaded RBC micromotors towards theranostic applications. RBC cells are concurrently loaded with QDs imaging nanocrystals, the anti-cancer drug doxorubicin (DOX), and magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles through a hypotonic dilution based encapsulation method. (see whole document, particularly the abstract, Figure 7; [0015]). WANG teaches that: “As used herein, "cell" means any living cellular organism, or the intact cell membrane thereof, which can be permeabilized to receive and retain magnetic particles. An exemplary cell is a red blood cell (RBCs, also referred to as erythrocytes), white blood cells, macrophages, pluripotent stem cells (native, induced or engineered). In embodiments, the cell can have an average diameter of 0.1-100 µm, 1-50 µm, or 6-8 µm.” ([0025])(instant claim 1, “wherein the plurality of cells comprises a stem cell”).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a spherical microbot for cell and drug delivery, as suggested by CHOI, and to utilize GelMA (gelatin methacryloyl or gelatin methacrylate), as suggested by Ceylan et al. and Nichol et al., based on the advantageous properties of GelMA including photocrosslinking, cell adhesion, among others; the cell being attached to the surface of the GelMA via the “many arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) sequences that
promote cell attachment”, as suggested by Yue et al. in order to deliver cells to a site of action, and further to include magnetic nanoparticles and drug in the cells as suggested by WANG, and the cell being a stem cell as suggested by Nichol et al. and WANG.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: “However, even assuming that Choi discloses the spherical microrobot 100d including spherical scaffolds and the cells provided in the gap formed between the scaffolds, Choi is completely silent on "a plurality of cells cultured on and attached to a surface of the spherical structure body, wherein the spherical structure body comprises: a spherical core comprising a biodegradable material; a plurality of biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles disposed on a first portion of a surface of the spherical core; and a plurality of drugs disposed on a second portion, different form the first portion, of the surface of the spherical core," as recited in claim 1.” And that: “Referring to the annotated Fig. 1 and the relevant descriptions of Choi below, at the most, Choi merely discloses that the spherical microrobot 1 00d may include the spherical support and the cells included in the gaps formed between the spherical support, but not on the surface of the spherical support, that the spherical support may be coated with a magnetic layer, and that the magnetic layer of the spherical support contribute to the positioning of the spherical microrobot 100d when a magnetic field is applied to the spherical microrobot 100d” (p. 10, paragraphs 1-2).
In response the examiner notes that Figure 100d clearly does show cells on the surface:
PNG
media_image2.png
460
892
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the circles with arrows pointed at the microbot and the large arrow showing the resulting microbot covered with cells. Furthermore, Nichol et al. clearly teaches surface adhesion on GelMA surfaces (see, e.g., p. 5539, col. 2, §3.4).
Applicant further argues that: “Furthermore, besides briefly mentioning that the cells may be included in the gaps formed between the spherical support, Choi is completely silent on "wherein the plurality of cells comprise a stem cell," as recited in claim 1.” (p. 13, 1st paragraph).
In response the examiner cites Nichol et al. teaching that: “As specific microarchitectural features of the cell niche and the micromechanical environment have been demonstrated to be vital to controlling cell differentiation [6-9], researchers have sought materials with improved biological, chemical and mechanical properties.” (p. 5536, col. 1, lines 5-9). The examiner notes that References [6-9] of Nichols et al. are directed to stem cells (instant claim 1, “wherein the plurality of cells comprises a stem cell.”). And WANG clearly teaches “As used herein, "cell" means any living cellular organism, or the intact cell membrane thereof, which can be permeabilized to receive and retain magnetic particles. An exemplary cell is a red blood cell (RBCs, also referred to as erythrocytes), white blood cells, macrophages, pluripotent stem cells (native, induced or engineered). In embodiments, the cell can have an average diameter of 0.1-100 µm, 1-50 µm, or 6-8 µm.” ([0025])(instant claim 1, “wherein the plurality of cells comprises a stem cell”). It would have been prima facie obvious to utilize a stem cell as the cell in the spherical microbot of CHOI as one of ordinary skill in the art would have clearly appreciated that stem cells can be differentiated into a great variety of tissue cell types, by definition, stem cells are undifferentiated cells. CHOI disclosing that: “guiding a micro-tissue into an artificial organ chamber, and the positions of the microrobots constituting various artificial organs including three-dimensional cultured cells can be precisely controlled to accurately load the microrobots at a target position.” [emphasis added]([0014]).
Conclusion
Claims 1-5 and 12 are pending and have been examined on the merits. Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)(new matter); and claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. No claims allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVAN A GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-5868. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5 PM PST.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571) 272-0827. 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.
/IVAN A GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
1 Of Record as cited by the examiner on 12/20/2023, PTO-892, NPL citation No. “W”.
2 Immortalized human umbilical vein endothelial cells (p. 5538, §2.7).