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 .
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner notes claim 19 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/21/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/27/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernomorsky et al. (US 2014/0196550) in view of Tuuminen (US 5,474,742) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 9 to recite “wherein the webs are arranged symmetrically around a central axis of symmetry of the retention element, and the webs conically taper downwards from above, wherein the webs of a retention element are arranged rotationally symmetrically around the central axis of symmetry of the retention element on an outer edge of the respective opening of the support structure, and the webs are arranged at first edge sections of the edge and wherein the downwardly extending openings between the webs are arranged at second edge sections of the edge, such that mutually closest, adjacent edge sections of adjacent openings of the support structure are respectively second edge sections” and then argued that the combination of features now recited in claims 1 and 9 is not taught or suggested by the cited prior art, Chernomorsky and Tuuminen. See pages 9-11 of Remarks. Applicant argued the prior art does not tech the open gaps between webs face each other across the shortest path between neighboring wells. See page 9 of Remarks. The Examiner agrees; therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon (US 2020/0055790). Simon teaches a cell culture apparatus having an array of vessels connected to a plate and a tray plate having a plurality of wells for receiving the array of vessels. The embodiments of the apparatus most relevant to the instant claims are shown in Figures 3A-3G and 5A-6C; and described in Paragraphs 0056-0063.
Regarding claims 1 and 2 – As shown in Figures 3C-3E, Simon teaches a device with an upper region comprising a support structure (suspensory element 306) having respective openings (thru-holes 307) and respective corresponding retention elements (suspensory frame 300) which extend downwards with a taper from the respective openings (307) of the support structure (306), so that respective retention elements protrude into respective wells when the support structure (suspensory element 306) has been placed onto the top side of the multiwell plate, wherein a respective retention element (frame 300) comprises: multiple webs (bottom 301 and lateral 305 support lattice) which extend downwards from the support structure (suspensory element 306) and the ends of which are connected to one another at a bottom side of the apparatus by means of an annular connection element (bottom support lattice 301) which has a central opening (see Figs 3C and 3E), and comprises multiple openings (windows 302) between the webs (support lattices 301, 305), which openings (302) extend continuously from the support structure (306) right up to the connection element and which openings (302) furthermore extend continuously from the top side of the multiwell plate right up to the connection element when the support structure has been placed onto the top side of the multiwell plate.
With respect to the new amendments, the Examiner submits grouping the retention elements in an array as shown in Figure 5A would provide a plurality of retention elements in the array “wherein the webs of a retention element are arranged rotationally symmetrically around the central axis of symmetry of the retention element on an outer edge of the respective opening of the support structure, and the webs are arranged at first edge sections of the edge and wherein the downwardly extending openings between the webs are arranged at second edge sections of the edge, such that mutually closest, adjacent edge sections of adjacent openings of the support structure are respectively second edge sections”. The Examiner first notes that Applicant has reference specific elements of the device in the arguments, but has not claimed a specific additional structure (aside from the basic web structure) or shape for the first edge sections and second web sections. The Examiner then submits – with respect to Figure 5A of Simon – that each round opening of the corresponding structural element has an edge portion (if the openings were clocks, neighboring edge portions would be the points located at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock for the first two openings, respectively) that is the closest, adjacent edge section to the adjacent opening. The Examiner considers these points (at 3 and 9 on the clock) to be “the second edge sections” and the closest adjacent sections. In addition, any other two points (for example 2 o’clock and 10 o’clock) on the adjacent openings would be separated by a longer distance. The Examiner considers any of those points to be “first edge sections” that are located at distance from each other that is greater than the distance between the “second edge sections”. In addition, the openings of the web would be are facing each other – see Figure 3E. The Examiner submits then, that Simon teaches webs that are “arranged at second edge sections of the outer edge of the respective opening of the support structure, such that the mutually closest, adjacent edge sections of adjacent openings of the support structure are respectively second edge sections; and the shortest path between any two neighboring openings in the support structure, the portions of the circular edges that face each other must both be second edge sections (open gaps between webs) and not first edge sections at which webs are present” as argued by Applicant on page 9 of Remarks.
Regarding claim 3 – The Examiner submits a pipetting needle can be inserted downwards from above through the respectively corresponding opening (307) of the retention element (frame 300) along a central axis of symmetry of the retention element (frame 300) right up to the annular connection element (bottom support lattice 301).
Claims 1-3, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feygin et al. (US 6,315,957). Feygin teaches a filter pocket plate. The embodiments or portion of the device most relevant to the instant claims are shown in Figures 2-3 and described in columns 3-5.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 9 and 12 – As shown in Figures 2-3, Feygin teaches a device (pocket plate 220) with an upper region comprising a support structure (card or plate 222) having respective openings (holes 224) and respective corresponding retention elements (filter pockets 226) which extend downwards with a taper from the respective openings (224) of the support structure (222), so that respective retention elements (filter pockets 226) protrude into respective wells when the support structure (plate 222) has been placed onto the top side of the multiwell plate (330), wherein a respective retention element (pocket 226) comprises: multiple webs (reinforced mesh of filter pocket 226, see column 3, line 59 – column 4, line 6) which extend downwards from the support structure (plate 222) and the ends of which are connected to one another at a bottom side of the apparatus by means of an annular connection element (circular mesh bottom, see Figure 2) which has a central opening, and comprises multiple openings between the webs (openings in pocket 226, see Figure 2), which openings extend continuously from the support structure right up to the connection element and which openings furthermore extend continuously from the top side of the multiwell plate right up to the connection element when the support structure has been placed onto the top side of the multiwell plate.
With respect to the new amendments, the Examiner submits grouping the retention elements in an array as shown in Figures 2-3 would provide a plurality of retention elements in the array “wherein the webs of a retention element are arranged rotationally symmetrically around the central axis of symmetry of the retention element on an outer edge of the respective opening of the support structure, and the webs are arranged at first edge sections of the edge and wherein the downwardly extending openings between the webs are arranged at second edge sections of the edge, such that mutually closest, adjacent edge sections of adjacent openings of the support structure are respectively second edge sections”. The Examiner first notes that Applicant has referenced specific elements of the device in the arguments, but has not claimed a specific additional structure (aside from the basic web structure) or shape for the first edge sections and second web sections. The Examiner then submits – with respect to Figures 2-3 of Feygin – that each round opening of the corresponding structural element has an edge portion (if the openings were clocks, neighboring edge portions would be the points located at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock for the first two openings, respectively) that is the closest, adjacent edge section to the adjacent opening. The Examiner considers these points (at 3 and 9 on the clock) to be “the second edge sections” and the closest adjacent sections. In addition, any other two points (for example 2 o’clock and 10 o’clock) on the adjacent openings would be separated by a longer distance. The Examiner considers any of those points to be “first edge sections” that are located at distance from each other that is greater than the distance between the “second edge sections”. In addition, the openings of the web would be are facing each other – see Figures 2-3. The Examiner submits then, that Feygin teaches webs that are “arranged at second edge sections of the outer edge of the respective opening of the support structure, such that the mutually closest, adjacent edge sections of adjacent openings of the support structure are respectively second edge sections; and the shortest path between any two neighboring openings in the support structure, the portions of the circular edges that face each other must both be second edge sections (open gaps between webs) and not first edge sections at which webs are present” as argued by Applicant on page 9 of Remarks.
Regarding claims 3 and 13 – The Examiner submits a pipetting needle can be inserted downwards from above through the respectively corresponding opening of the retention element (filter pocket 226) along a central axis of symmetry of the retention element (226) right up to the annular connection element (bottom of mesh pocket).
Inventorship
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.
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.
Claims 6-13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 2020/0055790) in view of Root (US 5,650,323).
Simon teaches every element of claims 6-13, 16-18, and 20 except for the multiwell plate, the mount which can be gripped by a user, and the spacing elements on the bottom side of the support. Root teaches a system for growing and manipulating tissue cultures.
The embodiments of the device most relevant to the instant claims are shown in Figures 4-5 and 8-9A; and described in columns 3-6. As shown in the cited Figures, Root teaches a device (filter plate 58) comprising a support structure (top wall 60) having a plurality of openings with corresponding to a plurality of retention elements (array of filter wells 64) extending downward from the support structure (top wall 60). The plurality of retention elements (array of filter wells 64) are arranged in the pattern of a multiwell plate (40) such that when the device (filer plate 58) of Root is placed onto the multiwell plate (40), the retention elements (filter wells 64) protrude into respective wells (reservoir wells 44) of the multiwell plate (40). Root discloses the top wall (60) of the device (filter plate 58) includes a peripheral raised lip (62) about the edge and also a plurality of stepped shoulders (70) on the bottom surface surrounding the wells (64). The stepped shoulders (70) provide an alignment feature to ensure alignment of the filter wells (64) with the reservoir wells (44) and also provide a prescribed spacing between the top wall (60) and opening of the reservoir well (44). The stepped shoulders (70) also provide a prescribed spacing between the filter well (40) and reservoir well (44) elements including the bottom and sidewalls. See Figures 4, 7, 9-9A, 13, and column 5, line 40 – column 6, line 45.
Regarding claims 9 and 12 – Simon teaches every element of claim 9 except for the multiwell plate. Simon teaches a tray element (rack 601) having a common enclosure with windows in the side wall. See Figure 6A. Root teaches a multiwell plate (40) for containing the filter wells (64) of their filter plate (58). The multiwell plate has standard well plate dimensions for use with automated equipment such as analyzers and liquid transfer devices. See columns 4-5 of Root. In column 2, lines 22-37, Root teaches positioning each filter well into a reservoir well of the multiwell plate so those liquid may be provided in precise quantities in the reservoir wells The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the multiwell plate from Root with the device of Simon. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the microplate well from Root in order to provide an individual reservoir well for each retaining member and standard dimensions for use with automated equipment as taught by Root.
Regarding claim 6, 16 and 20 – The Examiner considers the peripheral raised lip (62) surrounding the top wall (60) to meet the limitation of a mount which can be gripped by a user. The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the lip element from Root with the device of Simon. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the lip to Simon in order to would provide an edge surface for gripping and contacting a side portion of the well plate as taught by Root.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 – Root teaches a plurality of spacing elements (stepped shoulders 70) on the bottom side of the support structure (top wall 60). The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the stepped shoulders from Root with the device of Simon. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the step[ped shoulders to Simon in order to provide a prescribed spacing between the top wall (60) and opening of the reservoir well (44), and also to provide a prescribed spacing between the filter well (40) and reservoir well (44) elements including the bottom and sidewalls as taught by Root. With respect to claim 7 and the spacing elements located on mount (lip 62), the Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to provide spacing elements on the lip. Root already teaches spacing elements on the bottom surface of the top wall located inside the lip (62). The Examiner submits it would be obvious to provide spacers on the lip as one of a finite number of predictable locations for placing spacing elements with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143, Section 1E – “Obvious to Try”. In addition, Root teaches a skirt (42) and pins (not shown – see column 6, lines 33-45) that extend upward from the panel (46) of the multiwell plate (40) and provide spacing between the panel surface (46) and support member (tope plate 60). The Examiner submits it would obvious to place the pins on the support plate instead of the panel surface (46)) to provide the same spacing. See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.). MPEP 2144.04, Section VI, A – “Reversal of Parts”.
Regarding claim 10 – Simon as described above in Paragraphs 6-9 teaches every element of claim 11 except for the specific gap distance between the retaining member and bottom wall of a well recited in the claim. The Examiner submits the Simon reference teaches a gap distance of at least 0.5 mm from the retention element to the bottom wall of the well in Paragraphs 0052 and 0060. The Examiner takes the position that the difference between the prior art and the claims is one of relative dimensions (the gap distance) and the claimed device would not perform different than the prior art. In Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case the claimed device would not perform the function of containing material and allowing fluid flow into the retention member differently than the cited prior art. See MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, A.
Regarding claim 11 – Simon as described above in Paragraphs 6-9 teaches every element of claim 11 except for the specific gap distance between the retaining member and side wall of a well recited in the claim. The Examiner submits the Simon reference is silent as to the gap distance from the retention element to the side wall of the well. The Examiner takes the position that the difference between the prior art and the claims is one of relative dimensions (the gap distance) and the claimed device would not perform different than the prior art. In Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case the claimed device would not perform the function of containing material and allowing fluid flow into the retention member differently than the cited prior art. See MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, A.
Regarding claim 13 – The Examiner submits a pipetting needle can be inserted downwards from above through the respectively corresponding opening (307) of the retention element (frame 300) along a central axis of symmetry of the retention element (frame 300) right up to the annular connection element (bottom support lattice 301).
Claims 6-8, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feygin et al. (US 6,315,957) in view of Root (US 5,650,323). Simon teaches every element of claims 6-8, 16-18, and 20 except for the mount which can be gripped by a user, and the spacing elements on the bottom side of the support. Root teaches a system for growing and manipulating tissue cultures. The embodiments of the device most relevant to the instant claims are shown in Figures 4-5 and 8-9A; and described in columns 3-6. As shown in the cited Figures, Root teaches a device (filter plate 58) comprising a support structure (top wall 60) having a plurality of openings with corresponding to a plurality of retention elements (array of filter wells 64) extending downward from the support structure (top wall 60). The plurality of retention elements (array of filter wells 64) are arranged in the pattern of a multiwell plate (40) such that when the device (filer plate 58) of Root is placed onto the multiwell plate (40), the retention elements (filter wells 64) protrude into respective wells (reservoir wells 44) of the multiwell plate (40). Root discloses the top wall (60) of the device (filter plate 58) includes a peripheral raised lip (62) about the edge and also a plurality of stepped shoulders (70) on the bottom surface surrounding the wells (64). The stepped shoulders (70) provide an alignment feature to ensure alignment of the filter wells (64) with the reservoir wells (44) and also provide a prescribed spacing between the top wall (60) and opening of the reservoir well (44). The stepped shoulders (70) also provide a prescribed spacing between the filter well (40) and reservoir well (44) elements including the bottom and sidewalls. See Figures 4, 7, 9-9A, 13, and column 5, line 40 – column 6, line 45.
Regarding claim 6, 16 and 20 – The Examiner considers the peripheral raised lip (62) surrounding the top wall (60) to meet the limitation of a mount which can be gripped by a user. The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the lip element from Root with the device of Feygin. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the lip to Feygin in order to would provide an edge surface for gripping and contacting a side portion of the well plate as taught by Root.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 – Root teaches a plurality of spacing elements (stepped shoulders 70) on the bottom side of the support structure (top wall 60). The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the stepped shoulders from Root with the device of Simon. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the stepped shoulders to Feygin in order to provide a prescribed spacing between the top wall (60) and opening of the reservoir well (44), and also to provide a prescribed spacing between the filter well (40) and reservoir well (44) elements including the bottom and sidewalls as taught by Root. With respect to claim 7 and the spacing elements located on mount (lip 62), the Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to provide spacing elements on the lip. Root already teaches spacing elements on the bottom surface of the top wall located inside the lip (62). The Examiner submits it would be obvious to provide spacers on the lip as one of a finite number of predictable locations for placing spacing elements with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143, Section 1E – “Obvious to Try”. In addition, Root teaches a skirt (42) and pins (not shown – see column 6, lines 33-45) that extend upward from the panel (46) of the multiwell plate (40) and provide spacing between the panel surface (46) and support member (tope plate 60). The Examiner submits it would obvious to place the pins on the support plate instead of the panel surface (46)) to provide the same spacing. See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.). MPEP 2144.04, Section VI, A – “Reversal of Parts”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hastings et al. (US 2007/0082390) teaches a scaffold handling system having an array of retention elements connected to a planar support element.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAYNE K HANDY whose telephone number is (571)272-1259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/DWAYNE K HANDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1798 July 06, 2026
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights