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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies (Chinese application 201911349190.7 filed 12/24/2019) of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements dated 6/16/2022 and 8/7/2023 have been considered and made of record.
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, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stojanov (US 2015/0011000).
NOTE: The instant claim language is devoid of the transitional phrase "comprising", "consisting essentially of" and "consisting of". As a result, the language “is provided with” will be interpreted the same as the transitional phrase “comprising”.
With respect to claim 1, the reference of Stojanov discloses:
A carrier (1, 20) (Figs. 1 and 2), configured for cryopreservation of a tissue, wherein the carrier is provided with at least one freezing cavity (holding vessel)(4) and a plurality of flow guiding holes (porous material)(2)(¶[0103]), the plurality of flow guiding holes are communicated with a contact surface of the freezing cavity in contact with the tissue, the plurality of flow guiding holes are configured to vacuum liquid on a surface of the tissue and enable the liquid to be discharged out of the freezing cavity through the plurality of flow guiding holes (¶[0126]).
With respect to claim 2, the contact surface of the freezing cavity (holding vessel)(4) in contact with the tissue comprises a bottom surface and a side surface adjacent to the bottom surface, the side surface has a slope relative to the bottom surface (Fig. 1d)(¶[0104]).
With respect to claim 4, the carrier (20) is provided with a plurality of freezing cavities (4), the plurality of freezing cavities are arranged at intervals along an axial direction of the carrier (Fig. 2a) (¶[0109]).
With respect to claims 8 and 11, the reference of Stojanov discloses:
A vacuumizing device (washing station)(30), configured to cooperate with the carrier according to claim 1 to vacuum liquid on a surface of a tissue (¶[0126]), the vacuumizing device comprising a mounting seat (top surface of the washing station (30)) and a vacuum pump (¶[0126]); wherein the mounting seat is provided with a placement cavity (drain)(31) for the carrier to be placed; the vacuum pump is in communication with the plurality of flow guiding holes on the carrier through the placement cavity so as to vacuum the liquid on the surface of the tissue placed on the carrier.
With respect to claim 10, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the shape of the placement cavity is considered to match the shape of the carrier (Figs. 4a and 4c).
With respect to claim 13, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the system would be structurally capable of being used with ovarian tissue (¶[0098]).
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.
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 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojanov (US 2015/0011000).
The reference of Stojanov has been discussed above with respect to claims 1, 2 and 8.
With respect to claim 3, while the reference of Stojanov does not specifically disclose the specific shapes of claim 3, the reference teaches the desire to have “converging” sidewalls (¶[0104]).
As a result, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimal sidewall shaped based on design considerations such as the size and shape of the tissue to be positioned within the holding cavity while maintaining the efficiency of the system.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, while the reference of Stojanov does not specifically disclose the specific hole shapes of claims 5 and 6, the reference discloses that many types of porous materials can be used (¶[0103]).
As a result, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimal hole shape based on design considerations such as the size and shape of the tissue to be positioned within the holding cavity while maintaining the efficiency of the system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojanov (US 2015/0011000) in view of Yang et al. (CN 108541702 and corresponding English language machine translation).
The reference of Stojanov has been discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 7 differs by reciting that the carrier includes an information recorder.
The reference of Yang et al. discloses that it is known in the art to provide a carrier for a cryopreserved sample with an information recorder (RFID) (English language abstract).
In view of this teaching and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the carrier of the reference of Stojanov with an RFID structure for the known and expected result of providing patient information associated with the carrier structure as is conventional in the art as evidenced by the reference of Yang et al.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojanov (US 2015/0011000) in view of Inui et al. (US 2019/0141986).
The reference of Stojanov has been discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 11.
Claim 12 differs by reciting that the system includes an absorbent structure positioned between the carrier and the placement cavity.
The reference of Inui et al. discloses that it is known in the art to contact a carrier structure for a cryopreservation sample with a structure including an absorbent material to facilitate the absorbing excess vitrification solution (¶0008]).
In view of this teaching and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the washing station of the reference of Stojanov with an absorbent material to contact the guiding holes for the known and expected result of providing an art recognized means for aiding in the removal of excess solution from the sample held within the cavity as evidenced by the reference of Inui et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a vacuumizing device, in the claimed environment or scope of claim, that includes a membrane configured to vacuum-package the carrier, wherein the membrane is provided with an opening, the mounting seat is provided with a vacuum packaging port thereon, and the vacuum packaging port is connected to the opening and the vacuum pump, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference of Qian (CN 210939356) is cited as prior art which pertains to the use of a sealing bag for a carrier of ovarian tissue. The reference does not teach or fairly suggest vacuum sealing the bag and/or a membrane structure and vacuum mounting device structure required of claim 9.
The reference of Fukuda (JP 2005040073) is cited as prior art that pertains to the use of an absorptive material to remove liquid from a cell carrier structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H BEISNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1269. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/William H. Beisner/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1799
WHB