DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Upon further considerations, the prior restriction requirement has been vacated with respect to the Invention II (claim 12). It is noted that claim 11, as amended previously, covers the scope of the non-elected claim 12 (later canceled by the applicants). Further note that claims drawn to the subject matter of the previously withdrawn claim 12 of the present application presented in a continuation or divisional application may be subject to provisional statutory and/or non-statutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215,170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-4 and 6-11, as amended, as well as the newly added claims 19-20, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to the amended claim 1, it is unclear from the claim language what structural features must define the ‘rotation axis’ as recited. Applicants are further reminded that, lacking a clear-cut particular definition in the as-filed specification, the term ‘rotation axis’, has been assigned its plain meaning, that is, ‘an imaginary line around which an object rotates’. However, this phrase is construed as a physical structural component by the instant claim language, and it is not clear in the given context whether or not some unspecified structural component must function as the ‘rotation axis.
Referring to the newly added claim 19, it is unclear from the claim language how the intended ‘accessibility’ of the cavity can be achieved via the components (i.e., ports) that are not even included as part of the claimed apparatus.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because, while the original disclosure supports the container being of cylindrical shape, the above listed claims read on containers of other shapes, not sufficiently and adequately supported by the original disclosure. Therefore, the instant claims at issue are not commensurate in scope with the original specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al., US 4912048.
With respect to claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 19-20, Smith discloses a device for enhanced cell growth, comprising, as shown in Figures 5-6, a cylindrical container 70 made of a biologically inert material and having wall 86, bottom 72 and lid 84, together forming a cavity of the container; the container defining a rotation axis and further comprising micro-wells / recessions90 [‘structured surface’] arranged at the wall within the cavity parallel to the axis, capable to function as recited. It is further emphasized that the features not positively recited as part of the claimed invention, such as the two ports in claims 19-20, including all associated details, are not accorded patentable weight when evaluated for patentability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9-1 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st and 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
All of the Applicant s arguments have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Natalia Levkovich whose telephone number is (571)272-2462. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 2.00 pm-10:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jill A Warden can be reached on 571-272-1267. 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.
/NATALIA LEVKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights