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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-11, 13-16, 23-26, 28-30, and 33 are pending in the instant application. Applicants have previously elected Group I, drawn to an apparatus adapted for passaging of cultured cells, comprising: a mesh; and a housing. Claims 14-16, 23-26, and 28-30 remain withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5, 10-11, 13, and 33 are under examination in the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 5 are understood to be directed to an apparatus comprising a mesh and a housing. This apparatus is capable of passaging cultured cells. The recitation “adapted for passaging of cultured cells” is an intended use that does not limit the structure of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, claims are being interpreted as being drawn to any device the comprises a mesh and housing and is capable of passaging cells.
Status of Prior Rejections/Response to Arguments
RE: Rejection of claim(s) 1-5, 10-11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jovanovich
(WO2019178164A1, filed on 03/12/2019):
Applicants have traversed the rejection asserting that Jovanovich fails to teach that the mesh is made of wires having a circular diameter. Applicants have further amended claim 1 to recite “wherein the wires are made of tungsten alloy”, which is not disclosed by Jovanovich.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 10-11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tanaka et al.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-11, 13, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovich (WO2019178164A1, filed on 03/12/2019), in view of Tanaka et al. (US Patent No. 9,236, 212 B2, filed on 05/15/2012, and issued on 01/12/2016).
Regarding claim 1, Jovanovich teaches an apparatus for processing tissue and other samples encoding
cellular spatial position information (Title). Jovanovich specifically teaches in claim 1 a system comprising a
perforated specimen holder configured to support a frozen tissue specimen, wherein the specimen holder comprises
a plurality of perforations having a size sufficient to permit the passage of cells or nuclei. Jovanovich teaches in claim 9 that the specimen holder comprises a mesh, e.g., a stainless-steel mesh, polymer mesh, metal mesh, strainer.
Additionally, Figures 3 and 5 of Jovanovich show perforated substrate 250, which can be mesh or strainer mesh comprising metal, stainless steel.
However, Jovanovich fails to teach that the mesh comprises wires having a circular diameter and made of tungsten alloy.
However, Tanaka et al. complements Jovanovich by teaching tungsten wires are widely used because of their high strength properties (tensile strength) and hardness (anti-friction, wear-resistance) and improving processing ability (workability) by heightening ductility (column 1, lines 33-37 and column 5, lines 1-6). Figure 9 of Tanaka et al. shows that the wires are circular.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mesh of Jovanovich and made it out of circular tungsten wires with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to have done so since tungsten alloy has physical and mechanical properties including ductility and tensile strength that makes it optimal to be used in making the mesh as taught by Tanaka et al.
Regarding claim 2: Following discussion of claim 1 above, Figures 3 and 5 of Jovanovich show perforated substrate 250, which can be mesh or strainer mesh comprising metal, stainless steel, which appears to be a square
grid.
Regarding claim 3: Following discussion of claim 2 above, Jovanovich further teaches in claims 1 and 10 that the perforations have a diameter of about 20 pm to about 100 pm, e.g., about 20 pm to about 50 pm or about 50 pm to about 100 pm, e.g. about 30 microns, such that the size is sufficient to permit the passage of single cells and moving the cell aggregates through a mesh. Although Jovanovich does not specifically teach that the mesh comprises square grids of about 200 microns, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perforations diameter of the mesh of Jovanovich such that the mesh comprises square grids of about 200 microns with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to have optimized the diameter of the perforations in the mesh to permit the passage of single cells since Jovanovich establishes that the perforations size would have required only routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 5 and 33, Jovanovich teaches an apparatus for processing tissue and other samples encoding cellular spatial position information (Title). Jovanovich specifically teaches in claim 1 a system comprising a perforated specimen holder configured to support a frozen tissue specimen, wherein the specimen holder comprises a plurality of perforations having a size sufficient to permit the passage of cells or nuclei. Jovanovich teaches in claim 9 that the specimen holder comprises a mesh, e.g., a stainless-steel mesh, polymer mesh, metal mesh, strainer. Additionally, Figures 3 and 5 of Jovanovich show perforated substrate 250, which can be mesh or strainer mesh comprising metal, stainless steel.
However, Jovanovich fails to teach that the mesh comprises wires having a circular diameter and are at least 5μm or 5-10μm in diameter.
However, Tanaka et al. complements Jovanovich by teaching that tungsten wires can be made thin and have a fine diameter of 20μm such that they are processed by performing heat treatment and swaging processing as illustrated in FIG. 2 (claim6 and column 3, lines 10-14). Figure 9 of Tanaka et al. shows that the tungsten wires are circular. Tanaka et al. further teaches that tungsten alloy is specifically used to make thin wires because of their high strength properties (tensile strength) and hardness (anti-friction, wear-resistance) and improving processing ability (workability) by heightening ductility (column 1, lines 33-37 and column 5, lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mesh of Jovanovich and made it out of circular thin tungsten wires with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to have done so since tungsten alloy has physical and mechanical properties including ductility and excellent durability when used in conditions of high temperature that makes it optimal to be made thin and strong enough to be used in making the mesh as taught by Tanaka et al. Also, although Tanaka et al. does not specifically teach that the wires are of at least 5μm, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mesh of Jovanovich such that the mesh comprises wires of at least 5μm with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to have optimized the diameter of the wires to produce wires thin and durable enough for chopping cell aggregates and retain the tensile strength to prevent deformation of the mesh since Tanaka et al. establishes that the tungsten wire thickness would have required only routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 10-11: as set forth above under Claim Interpretation, the apparatus in claim 1 is not
structurally limited to an apparatus to be used only for passaging the cultured cells, but it is drawn to any apparatus
that is capable of passaging any cultured cells, so the cells are also not limited to be neurospheres or neurospheres
are induced pluripotent stem cell derived neurospheres as recited in claims 10-11, respectively.
Regarding claim 13: Following discussion of claim 1 above, Jovanovich teaches Figures 3 and 5 of
Jovanovich show perforated substrate 250, which can be mesh or strainer mesh comprising metal, which appears to be a square grid and the figures show the spacing between the metal wires that form the grid shape of the perforated substrate, such that the large cell aggregates are cut as they pass through the mesh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANAN ISAM ABUZEINEH whose telephone number is (571)272-9596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, CHRISTOPHER BABIC can be reached at (571)272-8507. 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.
Hanan Isam Abuzeineh
/H.I.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1633
/CHRISTOPHER M BABIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1633