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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Preliminary Remarks
The amendment filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended, claims 6-9 and 13-20 are non-elected and withdrawn from consideration; no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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.
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 1-3, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4789,601 A-Banes and further in view of US 10,101,336 B2-Bergo.
Regarding claim 1, Banes discloses a multiwell plate (culture plate 10, col. 5, line 3, Fig. 1) for a cell population in a liquid medium (col. 5, lines 1-2), the multiwell plate (culture plate 10, Fig. 1) comprising: a frame having a frame surface (rectangularly shaped structure--frame including a flat upper surface 12—frame surface, col. 5, lines 5-7, Fig. 1) and frame sides extending from the frame surface (side walls 13,14, and end walls 15,16, col. 5, line 8, Fig. 1);
Banes discloses a plurality of wells (wells, 18, col. 5, lines 10-11, Fig. 1), each well (well 18, Fig. 1) having an open end (well 18 is shown in Fig. 1 as having an open end, col. 5, lines 10-11, Fig. 1) a closed end opposite the open end (bottom surface of well bases 22, col. 5, line 36, Fig. 1) and at least one wall (wall 20, col. 5, lines 16-18, Fig. 1); between the open end and the closed end;
Banes discloses wherein the open end of each of the wells (wells 18 is shown in Fig. 1 as having an open end, col. 5, lines 10-11, Fig. 1) is surrounded by the frame surface (frame surface 12, col. 5, lines 5-7, Fig. 1);
Banes discloses wherein the closed end (bottom surface of well bases 22, col. 5, line 36, Fig. 1) comprises a well surface between and contacting the at least one wall (well surface—wall 20, col. 5, lines 16-18, Fig. 1);
Regarding claim 1, Banes teaches the invention discussed above. Further, Banes teaches a continuous anchor ring (anchor ring 24, col. 5, lines 18-19, Figs. 1-2) on the well surface of the closed end of one or more of the wells (bottom surface of well bases 22, Figs. 1-2, col. 5, lines 18-19). However, Banes does not explicitly teach a raised height of the continuous ring from the well surface forming a continuous boundary on the well surface, the raised height forming a microchamber volume.
For claim 1, Bergo teaches an invention relating to the field of high throughput biological assays and more specifically to the field of microarrays and analysis of microarrays by spectrographic methods. The embodiments disclosed herein also relate to the field of live cell microarrays (col. 1, lines 17-21) and Bergo teaches various shapes and dimensions of microwells (col. 15, lines 20-21), specifically, Fig. 4A of Bergo shows a cross-section of a microwell having a raised height of the continuous ring from the well surface, shown below in annotated Fig. 4A), further, the raised height forms a microchamber volume, which reads on the instant claim limitation of a raised height of the continuous ring from the well surface forming a continuous boundary on the well surface.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the plate 10 of Banes and further include a raised height of the continuous ring from the well surface, the raised height forming a microchamber volume as taught by Bergo, because Bergo suggest the shape and dimension of the microwell allow for securing a sample or bead of an assay (col. 15, lines 20-23).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Banes discloses wherein the at least one continuous ring (anchor ring 24, col. 5, lines 18-19, Figs. 1-2; that is, ring 24 is oriented on the bottom well surface 22 of well 18, where cell culture occurs) is configured to define at least one cell seeding area on the well surface.
Regarding claim 3, Banes discloses wherein the multiwell plate (plate 10, Fig. 1) comprises more than one continuous ring (anchor ring 24, col. 5, lines 18-19, Figs. 1-2, where the plate 10 comprises a plurality of wells 18, each well 18 comprises anchor rings 24, shown in Figs. 1-2) configured to define more than one cell seeding area.
Regarding claim 10, Banes discloses a method of seeding cells (col. 3, lines 20-21) in a central portion of a culture well (well 18, Figs. 1-2), the method comprising: a liquid medium (col. 9, lines 44-49) comprising cells into the at least one cell seeding area on the well surface (well base 22, col. 5, line 18, Fig. 1) of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, Banes discloses further comprising incubating the culture well after seeding with cells (col. 7, lines 66-68, and col. 8, lines 1-2; col. 9, lines 50-51).
Regarding claim 12, Banes discloses wherein the incubated cells are substantially free of incubator induced edge effects (col. 7, lines 66-68, and col. 8, lines 1-2; col. 9, lines 50-51). Further, Banes discloses the base of well 18 includes an anchor ring 24, Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 60-63).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US4789601A-Banes.
Regarding claim 4, Banes teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Banes teaches at least one continuous ring (ring 24), also discussed above. However, Banes does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one continuous ring has a height of about 0.01 mm to about 2 mm.
For claim 4, Banes discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one continuous ring has a height of about 0.01 mm to about 2 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include at least one continuous ring has a height of about 0.01 mm to about 2 mm, since applicant has not disclosed that having the dimensions of a continuous ring of the well surface solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the ring disclosed above in Banes.
Regarding claim 5, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one continuous ring has an inner diameter of about 0.5 mm to about 6.0 mm. Further, Banes teaches at least one continuous ring (ring 24), also discussed above. However, Banes does not explicitly teach at least one continuous ring has an inner diameter of about 0.5 mm to about 6.0 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include at least one continuous ring has an inner diameter of about 0.5 mm to about 6.0 mm, since applicant has not disclosed that having the dimensions of a continuous ring of the well surface solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the ring disclosed above in Banes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On the top of page 5 of applicant’s remarks, the status of the claims are discussed and claim 1 of the instant application is recited. On the middle of page 5 of applicant’s remarks, applicant cite claims 1-3 and 10-12 were rejected under U.S.C. 103 over Banes and view of Bergo. Applicant also cite claims 4-5 were rejected under U.S.C. 103 in view of Banes. Applicant also asserts “neither Banes nor Bergo disclose or suggest a well having a continuous ring located on the bottom of the well that has a raised height that forms a microchamber volume when interfaced with an assay analysis instrument.”
On the bottom of page 5, applicant asserts Banes does not teach a raised height of a continuous ring from a well surface. Applicant asserts “Figure 3 of Banes show well base 22 is completely flat and does not include a raised continuous ring as required by claim 1, let alone a continuous ring that forms a microchamber volume when interfaced with an assay analysis instrument”. In response, the latter argument is not found to be persuasive because as noted below in annotated Fig. 3 of Banes, ring 24 does have a raised portion as seen below in the encircled region of annotated Fig. 3. Additionally, Banes a vacuum apparatus suitable for use in association with the culture plate 10 shown in FIG. 1 (col. 3, lines 7-9). Moreover, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 of the instant application, the secondary reference, Bergo, teaches a raised height of the continuous ring from the well surface forming a continuous boundary on the well surface, and Bergo teaches the use of an analysis instrument, in the case of Bergo, the latter is a mass spec instrument (col. 13, lines 12-1
PNG
media_image2.png
564
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
On the top of page 6, applicant discusses a summary of the invention of the secondary reference, Bergo. On the middle of page 6, applicant asserts “it would not have been obvious to modify the wells discloses in Banes in view of the well shapes discloses in Bergo.” Applicant further asserts, “Banes, for instance, is not directed to positioning a bead within a well and this there would be no forseeable reason or advantage to combine Banes with Bergo as asserted in the Office Action.” In response, to applicant's argument that Banes, for instance, is not directed to positioning a bead within a well and this there would be no forseeable reason or advantage to combine Banes with Bergo is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Banes teaches the following “the polyorganosiloxane compositions of the present invention may likewise be used on the sides of culture vessels as individual discrete particles or beads to which cells can adhere, or in any of a number of other ways that will be immediately evident to one (col. 8, lines 23-28). Additionally, the primary reference of Banes, relates to bead assays and the secondary reference, Bergo, also relates to bead arrays as well. Furthermore, both references are relevant because they relate to cell culture plates, as well as that of the claimed invention, which also relates to cell culture well plates.
On toward the bottom of page 6, applicant asserts “similar to Banes, Bergo fails to disclose or disclose a well that includes a continuous ring having a raised height from the well surface that forms a microchamber volume with interfaced with an assay analysis instrument. Further, applicant asserts, “instead, Bergo discloses a well that is divided into 3 equal-height cylinders that would fail to form a microchamber with an analysis instrument as required in claim 1.” In response, the latter argument is also not found persuasive because as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Bergo and shown in annotated Fig. 4A of Bergo, a continuous ring is formed in the well of the device and as a result, a microchamber is formed. As discussed above in this section, an analysis instrument (mass spec) is taught in Bergo in conjunction with the device discussed above in the rejection. Additionally, the “3 equal-height cylinders” of the well of Bergo as asserted by applicant, is actually a three-dimensional solid support which comprises a plurality of analytical sites, where each site is coupled to a reactive site (col. 3, lines 5-7).
On the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7 of their remarks, applicant discusses the background of their invention. On the middle of page 7, applicant continues to discuss the claimed invention and they discuss addressing an issue that the claimed invention attempts to solve. Lastly, applicant asserts there is a difference between Banes and Bergo and the “problem being solved by the present disclosure and each fail to disclose or suggest a continuous ring on a well surface that has a raised height as required by the claims.” In response, as discussed above in this section and the rejection above, the features of claim 1 stand reject under the relied upon prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENORA A. ABEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/L.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799