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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The list of claims reads as “1-25. (Cancelled)” on Pg. 5 between claims 21 and 26. Examiner believes this is a typo and should read “22-25. (Canceled)”.
Claim 26 recites “of each microfluidic clel culture system” on Pg. 6, line 21. Examiner believes it should recite “of each microfluidic cell culture system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Status of Claims
Claims 2-4,7,10-11,14-16, 21 and 26-30 are pending.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9,12-13,17-20 and 22-25 has been canceled.
Claims 2-4, 7, 10, 11, 14-16, 21, 26, 29, and 30 have been amended.
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 26, 2-4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 28, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zenhausern et. al. (WO 2019191685 A1) in view of Kanamori et. al. (WO 2017154899), machine translation, Yang (TW I302941 B), machine translation, and Vulto et. al. (JP 2019-517808 A), machine translation.
Regarding Claim 26, modified Zenhausern teaches “A method for transporting microfluidic cell culture systems” (Abstract and [0113], Provided are automated cell culture systems and related in vitro cell culture methods. As desired, any one or more bioreactors 33 can be shipped to a remote testing facility. As desired, the integrated system 1901 with bioreactor 33 integrated therein and undergoing tissue culture (including monitoring and/or contrail via computer 1902 in wireless connection thereto, can be shipped together to a remote testing facility.); “wherein each microfluidic cell culture system” (Para [0003] Provided herein are automated modular, microfluidics-based animal- microbial co-culture systems, including for human-microbial co-culture systems.); “comprising at least one microfluidic structure” (Para [0064] The device assembly may comprise a multiple layered microfluidic reactor,); “wherein the at least one microfluidic structure comprises:- a cell culture chamber for holding a medium for culturing cells” (Paras [0006] and [0012], The systems presented herein achieve such co-culture models by having a convenient and reliable bioreactor assembly and disassembly by specially designed screw-in and/or clamping packaging so that different cell types may be confined to different chambers. Fluid flow and cell culture media composition may be independently controlled and introduced to each chamber.); “the cell culture chamber comprising a microfluidic inlet opening and a microfluidic outlet opening:- a first reservoir in fluid communication with the cell culture chamber via the microfluidic inlet opening; and- a second reservoir in fluid communication with the cell culture chamber via the microfluidic outlet opening” (Fig. 21 and Para [0127] , Perfusion chamber (cell culture chamber), arrow going into chamber (inlet), other side showing a valve and entering a waste (outlet), immune cells (first reservoir), waste (second reservoir), fresh medium (medium that goes into the channel).); “wherein the microfluidic cell culture system further comprises a detachable seal for sealing the at least one microfluidic structure” (Para [0122], The user 59 also needs to establish a complex logistics to: set-up and seed the bioreactors 33 one week before irradiation, pack and ship (e.g., via a vehicle 605) the sealed bioreactors 33 to test facility, receive the sealed bioreactors, unseal the bioreactors 33, and restore the perfusion flow, proceed to irradiation, and perform the assays at test facility. ); “wherein the first and second reservoir of the at least one microfluidic structure are in fluid communication with each other via the cell culture chamber” (Fig. 21).
Zenhausern does not teach “wherein the microfluidic cell culture system is configured such that the first and second reservoir of the at least one microfluidic structure are in fluid communication with each other via a communication channel that does not comprise the cell culture chamber, wherein the communication channel is bidirectional”.
Kanamori teaches a cell culture device and cell culture method in addition “wherein the microfluidic cell culture system is configured such that the first and second reservoir of the at least one microfluidic structure are in fluid communication with each other via a communication channel that does not comprise the cell culture chamber,” (Page 9, The communication channel 24 has one end connected to the bottom of the main chamber 2c of the second liquid storage chamber 2B and the other end connected to the bottom of the main chamber 1c of the first liquid storage chamber 1B. The communication channel 24 can guide the culture medium C2 from the second liquid storage chamber 2B to the first liquid storage chamber 1B.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zenhausern to incorporate the teachings of Kanamori wherein the microfluidic cell culture system is configured such that the first and second reservoir of the at least one microfluidic structure are in fluid communication with each other via a communication channel that does not comprise the cell culture chamber. Doing so allows the reservoirs to still be in fluid contact with each other and also frees up the microfluidic culture channel in the process.
Yang teaches a micro-domain fluid coverage ratio control device; in particular, to a micro-domain fluid covering that maintains a constant fluid pressure in a reaction chamber during a fluid cover ratio change in addition to teaching “wherein the communication channel is bidirectional” (Page 3, second fluid 18 and the second fluid 19 to move bidirectionally in the communication conduits 13 and 14, as indicated by arrows A and B to change the first fluid.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zenhausern as to incorporate the teachings of Yang wherein the communication channel is bidirectional. Doing so allows for fluid to travel from each reservoir back and forth which would allow each reservoir to interchangeably fill each other.
Zenhausern further teaches “wherein the method comprises the steps of - providing one or more microfluidic cell culture systems,” (Abstract, Para [13], method for cell culture in microchambers.) but does not explicitly teach the method for transportation of the systems.); “transporting” (Para [121], set-up including pack and ship the sealed bioreactors, receiving the sealed bioreactor, unseal the bioreactors, and restore the flow). A bioreactor is a type of cell culture system and therefore it has a method of transportation.
Zenhausern does not teach “wherein the at least one microfluidic structures of each microfluidic cell culture system comprises: a solidified medium, and optionally,
Vulto teaches methods of generating blood vessels in cell aggregates with microfluidic devices, microfluidic cell culture devices and kits in addition to “wherein the at least one microfluidic structures of each microfluidic cell culture system comprises: a solidified medium, and optionally,” (Abstract, Pages 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, and 17, Microfluidic channel having an inlet and an outlet, An extracellular matrix comprising an extracellular matrix having a living tissue disposed on the top surface thereof. The term "living tissue" includes organoids, tissue biopsies, tumor tissue, excised tissue material and embryos. Organoid compartment extending into the microfluidic layer in fluid communication with the microfluidic channel contains a gel precursor. The reservoir may be of substantially the same form or configuration as the wells of the organoid compartment. The gel precursor may be hydrogel, collagen, and soft agar.) Therefore the microfluidic channel is the cell culture chamber which has the extracellular matrix with living tissue present. The living tissue includes organoids which are in a compartment with gel precursor which contains a soft agar and hydrogel which teaches to the solidified medium.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zenhausern to incorporate the teachings of Vulto wherein the at least one microfluidic structures of each microfluidic cell culture system comprises: a solidified medium, and optionally,
Further Zenhausern teaches “sealing the one or more microfluidic cell culture systems and - transporting the sealed microfluidic cell culture systems” (Para [0122], The user 59 also needs to establish a complex logistics to: set-up and seed the bioreactors 33 one week before irradiation, pack and ship (e.g., via a vehicle 605) the sealed bioreactors 33 to test facility, receive the sealed bioreactors, unseal the bioreactors 33, and restore the perfusion flow, proceed to irradiation, and perform the assays at test facility.);
Regarding Claim 2 modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 as above but does not teach “wherein a fluidic resistance through the communication channel between the first and second reservoir is lower than a fluidic resistance through the cell culture chamber between the first and second reservoir, preferably wherein the fluidic resistance through the communication channel is at least 5 times lower than the fluidic resistance through the cell culture chamber” However, it would have been clearly within
the ordinary skills of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Zenhausern by having such resistance, since Kanamori teaches such resistance is dependent on commercially available pressure control device and the pressure
resistance of the cells (Page 11, It is considered that the realistic pressure range for driving the cell culture device is determined by the pressure range adjustable by a commercially available pressure control device and the pressure resistance
of the cells.) In addition, It would have been a matter of an obvious engineering choice, to better adjust fluidic resistance in order to achieve optimal cell culture results.
Regarding Claim 3 modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 as above but does not teach “wherein the communication channel is configured to exchange a gaseous medium, such as nitrogen, oxygen or air, between the first reservoir and the second reservoir.” is the capability of the device. Modified Zenhausern discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the communication channel within the device with the first and second reservoir as claimed, such communication channel are said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein. However, Kanamori does teach air within the communication channel via a downstream port within (Page 16, It is explanatory drawing of a Laplace valve. Specifically, it is a schematic view when the culture medium flows into the communication channel from the downstream port via the Laplace valve. It is explanatory drawing of a
Laplace valve. Specifically, a schematic view when the Laplace valve is functioning when air flows into the downstream port is shown.)
Regarding Claim 4 modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 but does not teach “wherein the microfluidic structure comprises one or more capillary pressure barriers, such as phase guides, arranged in the cell culture chamber to define one or more subvolumes within the cell culture chamber”
Vulto teaches “wherein the microfluidic structure comprises one or more capillary pressure barriers, such as phase guides, arranged in the cell culture chamber to define one or more subvolumes within the cell culture chamber” (Page 11 and 14, the capillary pressure barrier can be referred to as a confinement phase guide. The first subvolume comprising at least a portion of the microfluidic channel. It contains a capillary pressure barrier that divides into two subvolumes. The third sub-volume comprises a portion of the microfluidic channel.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zenhausern to incorporate the teachings of Vulto wherein the microfluidic structure comprises one or more capillary pressure barriers, such as phase guides, arranged in the cell culture chamber to define one or more subvolumes within the cell culture chamber. Doing so allows for added space to ensure the cells within the chamber/ channel have adequate space, volume and limited waste which provides the best environment for the cell culturing.
Regarding Claim 7 Modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 as above in addition to “wherein the one or more subvolumes are in fluid communication with the first and second reservoir of the at least one microfluidic structure or wherein the one or more subvolumes are in fluid communication with one or more further reservoirs comprised by the at least one microfluidic structure, wherein each of said one or more further reservoirs of the at least one microfluidic structure are in fluid communication with another reservoir of the at least one microfluidic structure via a further communication channel.” Modified Zenhausern teaches within claim 4 that the one or more subvolumes are within the cell culture chamber and as taught within claim 26 the cell culture chamber is in fluid communication with the first and second reservoir.
Regarding Claim 10 modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 as above in addition to “wherein the cell culture chamber comprises one or more cells and/or tissues.” (Fig. 21).
Regarding Claim 11 modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 as above but does not teach “wherein the first and second reservoirs and/or the cell culture chamber are provided with a reversible solidifying medium comprising a solidifying agent and an aqueous medium.”
Vulto teaches “wherein the first and second reservoirs and/or the cell culture chamber are provided with a reversible solidifying medium comprising a solidifying agent and an aqueous medium.” (Pages 4, 6, 8, 16, and 17, organoid compartment extending into the microfluidic layer in fluid communication with the microfluidic channel contains a gel precursor. The reservoir may be of substantially the same form or configuration as the wells of the organoid compartment. The gel precursor may be hydrogel, collagen, and soft agar.) Therefore the agar within the organoid compartment teaches a reversible solidifying medium, which by definition could comprise a solidifying agent and an aqueous medium, within the reservoirs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zenhausern to incorporate the teachings of Vulto wherein the reservoirs and/ or the cell culture chamber have a reversible solidifying medium. Doing so allows for a solid surface to be created within the chamber or reservoirs in which the cells can grow and form colonies which aids in the cell culture of the system.
Regarding Claim 14 modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 as above but does not teach “wherein the communication channel comprises a passage provided in the at least one microfluidic structure or a recess provided in a surface of the at least one microfluidic structure facing an inner side of the detachable seal wherein the passage and the recess are configured for connecting in fluid communication the first reservoir with the second reservoir of the at least one microfluidic structure.”.
Kanamori teaches “wherein the communication channel comprises a passage provided in the at least one microfluidic structure or a recess provided in a surface of the at least one microfluidic structure facing an inner side of the detachable seal wherein the passage and the recess are configured for connecting in fluid communication the first reservoir with the second reservoir of the at least one microfluidic structure.”. (Page 4 and 10, the liquid introduction channel 5 (passage) can guide the liquid medium from the first liquid storage chamber 1 to the outer surface side of the culture solution storage chamber 3). Therefore the introduction channel also known as a passage teaches to communication channel having a passage within the microfluidic structure. In addition, it further teaches the capability recitation within the claim in that allows for the fluid connection between each reservoir.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zenhausern to incorporate the further teachings of Shinji wherein a passage or recess is provided within the structure. Doing so allows for additional areas to place additional connections or to allow for a connection between two parts of the structure. Adding areas within the structure which are further capable of fluid transfer or connections could increase the volume of fluid or they number of different fluids within the device.
Regarding Claim 15 modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 as above and the recitation “wherein the detachable seal is configured to airtight seal the at least one microfluidic structure” is capability of the detachable seal. Modified Zenhausern teaches a detachable seal which is able to function as claimed. The remaining of the claim “and wherein the detachable seal is configured to be located relative to the at least one microfluidic structure such that an inner side of the seal is located at a distance from the reservoirs of the at least one microfluidic structure.” is already taught within modified Zenhausern within claim 26 as above as the seal is located within the device that also has the reservoirs which would be at some distance of each other.
Regarding Claim 28 modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 in addition to “wherein the method further comprises the step of. - after transporting the microfluidic cell culture system, unsealing the one or more microfluidic structures;” (Para [141], set-up includes pack and ship the sealed bioreactors, receive the sealed bioreactors, unseal the bioreactors.).
Further the claim recitation “optionally, allowing the solidified solidifying medium inside the one or more microfluidic structures to liquefy; and – optionally, adding fresh cell culture medium to the reservoirs.” recites an optional method step which is not required as claimed.
Regarding Claim 29 modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 but does not teach “wherein the one or more microfluidic cell culture systems are provided as a kit of parts comprising one or more microfluidic structures and a seal, and wherein sealing the one or more microfluidic cell culture systems comprises assembling the kit of parts.”
Vulto teaches “wherein the one or more microfluidic cell culture systems are provided as a kit of parts comprising one or more microfluidic structures and a seal, and wherein sealing the one or more microfluidic cell culture systems comprises assembling the kit of parts.” (Page 24 and 9, provides kits and products for using the cell culture devices and assay plates. The kit comprises a cell culture device or assay plate. The channels within the microfluidic culture devices has rubber material on substrate to form a seal.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zenhausern to incorporate the teachings of Vulto wherein the microfluidic structure is part of a kit. Doing so allows for greater use of the structure and system. Kit would make it more user friendly in that I could contain all of the needed parts all together and when ready to use the kit could be opened and ready for use. Multiple kits can be placed together to increase the about of cells which are able to be cultured.
Regarding claim 30, Modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 as above in addition to “wherein the structure of living cells or living tissue disposed adjacent to or inside an extracellular matrix, at least partially embedded in a solidified reversible solidifying medium” within claim 26 in the solidified medium. However Zenhausern does not teach “is a tubular structure of living cells or living tissue.”.
Vulto teaches “a tubular structure of living cells or living tissue.” (Page 6, The term "living tissue" includes organoids, tissue biopsies, tumor tissue, excised tissue material and embryos.) Therefore, the organoids, tumor tissue, and embryos can all be tubular in structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modify Zenhausern to incorporate the teachings of Vulto wherein the living tissue is tubular in structure. Doing so allows for a system which can culture cells which include tubular structure. Having a system which allows for this structure allows for the system to house a large number of living tissues which have the tubular structure.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zenhausern et. al. (WO 2019191685 A1) in view of Kanamori et. al. (WO 2017154899), machine translation, Yang (TW I302941 B), machine translation, and Vulto et. al. (JP 2019-517808 A), machine translation as applied to claim 26 and further view of Freeman (US 6653124 B1).
Regarding Claim 16 modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 as above and Zenhausern further teaches “wherein the microfluidic cell culture system comprises a plurality of the microfluidic structures” (Paras [0003], [0064] Provided herein are automated modular, microfluidics-based animal- microbial co-culture systems, including for human-microbial co-culture systems. microfluidic reactor. Microfluidic bioreactor.)
Further modified Zenhausern does not explicitly teach “and wherein one or more of the reservoirs of one microfluidic structure is in fluid communication with one or more reservoirs of one or more of the other microfluidic structures.”
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zenhausern to include one or more of the reservoirs from one microfluidic structure to be in fluid communication with one or more reservoirs from another microfluidic structure because Freeman teaches fluid communication between reservoirs within one microfluidic structure with (Claim 1, one or more reagent reservoirs in fluid communication with the one or more fluid conduits, wherein the valve regulates the flow of fluids between the one or more microchambers and the one or more reagent reservoirs adapted to exchange nutrients, oxygen and remove excretions; and the one or more microchambers adapted to contain cells is substantially planar.) and use of known technique to improve similar apparatus in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C). Which the apparatus is similar in that it’s the same apparatus just a duplication of the apparatus and the connecting of the parts within the duplication.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zenhausern et. al. (WO 2019191685 A1) in view of Kanamori et. al. (WO 2017154899), machine translation, Yang (TW I302941 B), machine translation, and Vulto et. al. (JP 2019-517808 A), machine translation as applied to claim 26 above and further view of Delamarche et. al. (KR 20120012793 A), machine translation.
Regarding Claim 21 modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26. However modified Zenhausern does not teach “wherein at least a part of the detachable seal comprises - a semipermeable barrier configured to allow exchange from the microfluidic cell culture system to its external environment and/or vice versa, wherein the semipermeable barrier is configured to be impermeable for a one or more predefined substances or quantities such as a gaseous medium, humidity, heat, moisture, a particle, a microbe, electricity, radiation and/or a virus; and/or- a vent, preferably a one-way vent, for providing fluid communication from the reservoirs of the at least one microfluidic structure to the external environment of the microfluidic cell culture system and/or vice versa.”
Delamarche teaches a microfluidic cell culture device and “wherein at least a part of the detachable seal comprises- a semipermeable barrier configured to allow exchange from the microfluidic cell culture system to its external environment and/or vice versa, wherein the semipermeable barrier is configured to be impermeable for a one or more predefined substances or quantities such as a gaseous medium, humidity, heat, moisture, a particle, a microbe, electricity, radiation and/or a virus; and/or- a vent, preferably a one-way vent, for providing fluid communication from the reservoirs of the at least one microfluidic structure to the external environment of the microfluidic cell culture system and/or vice versa.” (Page 8, The cell chamber and the cover are preferably designed to seal the wells (no air is trapped, if possible excess liquid / air is moved out of the sealed areas through vents.) Therefore the vent allows liquid to pass through it which is the claimed capability of device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zenhausern to incorporate the teachings of Delamarche wherein the detachable seal comprises a one-way vent. Doing so allows for either extra material (fluid, gas, or solid) to either enter or exit depending on how the vent is set up within the seal and structure. Having a structure that is further able to control the exchange of material within it increases the functionality of the device. For example the device could be further able to allow fluid communication from the reservoirs to outside of the system/ structure.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zenhausern et. al. (WO 2019191685 A1) in view of Kanamori et. al. (WO 2017154899), machine translation, Yang (TW I302941 B), machine translation, and Vulto et. al. (JP 2019-517808 A), machine translation as applied to claim 26 above and further in view of Jung et. al. (WO 2014178692 A1), machine translation.
Regarding Claim 27 modified Zenhausern teaches all of claim 26 but does not teach “wherein the solidifying medium replaces all or part of any cell culture medium present in the microfluidic structure.”
Jung teaches a microfluidic multi-well based cell culture test equipment and also teaches “wherein the solidifying medium replaces all or part of any cell culture medium present in the microfluidic structure.” (Page 3, The cell analysis method includes (a) injecting a mixed solution of a liquid medium containing the solidifying agent and a biological material into the inlet to fill the microfluidic channel, and solidifying the mixed solution to form a solid thin film.) Therefore the solidifying agent replaces at least part of the medium present in the microfluidic structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified to incorporate the teachings of Jung wherein the solidifying medium replaces all of part of any cell culture medium in the structure. Doing so allows the system to be comprised of a solidifying medium.
Response to Amendments
Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome claim objections and 112b rejections and such are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/14/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the prior 103 rejections are moot since independent claim 1 was cancelled and the claims are now directed to a method.
Examiner agrees and the prior 103 rejections set forth in the final office action have been withdrawn and new rejections are made based on the claim amendments.
Applicant argues that Zenhausern teaches channels isolated from one another and does not include reservoirs in communication with the channels.
Examiner disagrees and points to Fig. 21 of Zenhausern that shows placement of cells near a valve which teaches the reservoirs.
Applicant further argues pressure differences encountered during aircraft takeoff and landing.
Examiner points out that this is not part of the method step but rather transportation is. Examiner maintains that the current rejection teaches all of the positively claimed features. Examiner points out that a bidirectional communication channel taught within the present invention would solve the deficiencies in Zenhausern. Examiner agrees that Zenhausern does not teach the bidirectional communication channel, however the additional cited prior art teaches the bidirectional communication channel and motivation to modify Zenhausern.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VELVET E HERON whose telephone number is (571)272-1557. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 on (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.
/V.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798