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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination herein.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim 19 is objected to.
Priority
The instant application claims no priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/06/2023, 11/03/2023, 06/13/2024, 11/01/2024, and 06/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 07/28/2022 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is object to because it recites “wherein the processor and the further processor a wirelessly interfaced”. This may be typographical error, as “a” should be “are” to make the phrase grammatically correct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 8, 10-11, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the electromagnetic field ". There no mention of an electromagnetic field in claims 4, 2, or 1, which claim 4 depends on. There is an electromagnetic field mentioned in claim 3. Claim 1 mentions a field (generally), but it is unclear if the field in Claim 1 is the same field as the electromagnetic field in claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the “cellular cells”. There is mention of cells in claim 1, which claim 8 depends. It is unclear what cellular cells are as they are not defined in the specification or if this is limiting cells referenced in claim 1. The metes and bounds of cellular cells are unclear rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the container characteristics ". There is no mention of a container in claims 10 or 1, which claim 10 depends on. There is mention of a container in claims 6-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 11 and 19 depend on Claim 10, and thus contain the above issues due to said dependence.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the user input ". There is no user mentioned in claim 15 or 1, which claim 15 depends on. There is a user mentioned in claim 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 depends on Claim 15, and thus contain the above issues due to said dependence.
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 1-5, 9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (2011, Nano Letters, Vol. 11: 3232-3238), in view of Kolesnikova et al. (2012, ACS Nano, Vol. 6, No. 11: 9585-9595). Italicized text from reference art.
Applicable claims include:
Claim 1. A method for controlling cellular adhesion with the aid of a digital computer, comprising: i. obtaining a metasurface on which cells of an artificially-grown material are located, wherein the metasurface comprises a plurality of structures associated with resonances that have a wavelength range of 250 nm-3 microns, wherein the resonances are one of localized or non-localized; ii. obtaining characteristics associated with the cells at one or more spatial locations of the metasurface at multiple time points and characteristics associated with the metasurface at the spatial locations at multiple time points via one or more sensors; iii. determining parameters of at least one field to be applied to the metasurface via at least one field generator based on the metasurface characteristics and cell characteristics determined at the multiple time points; and iv. controlling application of the at least one field via the at least one field generator to at least some of the structures of the metasurface based on the parameters, wherein the cells attached to those structures disengage from the structures due to the application of the field.
Claim 2. A method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more of electromagnetic sensors, hyperspectral imaging sensors, impedance sensors, chemical sensors, biosensors, optical sensors, acoustic sensors, electrochemical sensors, and volatile gas sensors.
Claim 3. A method according to claim 1, wherein the field comprises one or more of a magnetic, electric, and electromagnetic field.
Claim 4. A method according to claim 2, wherein the electromagnetic field comprises one or more of an ultraviolet wavelength, visible light wavelength, and infrared wavelengths.
Claim 5. A method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one field generator comprises one or more of an electrode, a magnet, wires, electromagnets, two-dimensional conductive material, organic conductive polymer, a halogen lamp, a laser, and an LED.
Claim 9. A method according to claim 1, wherein the metasurface comprises one or more repeating motifs.
Claim 17. A method according to claim 1, wherein the structures of the metasurface form one or more motifs.
Claim 18. A method according to claim 17, wherein the motifs comprise one or more of bow-tie shaped motif, a coil-shaped motif, a half-coil shaped motif, or a ribcage-shaped motif.
Regarding Claim 1, Kolesnikova et al. teach (Claim 1.i) obtaining a metasurface on which cells of an artificially-grown material are located (Page 9587, Column 1, Paragraph 2: Cells were found to firmly adhere to both gold nano particle (AuNP)-based surfaces (with uniform distribution of AuNPs and AuNP-stripes on the surface) revealing good cell adhesion). Kolesnikova et al. also teach (Claim 1.ii) obtaining characteristics of the cells at one or more locations of the metasurface at multiple time points (Page 9587, Column 1, Paragraph 3: The average number of cells/cm2 of the substrate was calculated on the basis of 10 different areas for each sample; Page 9587, Column 1, Paragraph 1: the morphological changes of fibroblast cell cultures were assessed during more than 3 weeks (with time intervals of ∼24 h)) and characteristics of the metasurface at the locations at multiple time points via sensors (Page 9586, Column 2, Paragraph 2: The optical properties of the prepared surfaces with uniformly distributed AuNPs were studied by UV-vis spectroscopy). The use of multiple forms of microscopy (UV and visible light) indicate the properties were studied at multiple time points. Kolesnikova et al. teach (Claim 1.iii) determining parameters of a field to be applied to the metasurface via a field generator based on the metasurface characteristics and cell characteristics determined at multiple time points (Page 9586, Column 2, Paragraph 3: The mechanism of laser-nanoparticle interaction can be mitigated and controlled by the second type of coatings used in this work. We designed stripes containing AuNPs wherein areas with and without nanoparticles were deposited alternatingly; Page 9586, Column 1, Paragraph 3: Application of gold nanoparticles (AuNP) is of great interest for tissue engineering; for example, they can be used for enhancing mechanical properties or for further functionalization with organic molecules to provide enhanced cell adhesion to the substrate surface). The nanoparticle characteristics (i.e., a metasurface) were designed to impact cell adhesion, measured during the experiment, and provided the basis for using the laser (i.e., a field). Kolesnikova et al. also teach (Claim 1.iv) controlling application of the field via the field generator to some of the structures of the metasurface based on the parameters, wherein the cells attached to those structures disengage from the structures due to the application of the field (Page 9587, Column 2, Paragraph 1: Cell Detachment from Uniform AuNP-Based Surfaces. Patterning of cells can be achieved by several methods, for example, by a desired distribution of nanoparticles or a specific laser beam profile. Here, we used the latter principle to show patterning by a laser beam with a ring-like profile). A laser/light beam contains electromagnetic fields.
Regarding Claim 2, Kolesnikova et al. teach the one or more sensors comprise optical sensors (Page 9586, Column 2, Paragraph 2: The optical properties of the prepared surfaces with uniformly distributed AuNPs were studied by UV-vis spectroscopy).
Regarding Claim 3, Kolesnikova et al. teach the field comprises one or more of a magnetic, electric, and electromagnetic field (Page 9587, Column 2, Paragraph 1: Here, we used the latter principle to show patterning by a laser beam with a ring-like profile). A laser/light contains electromagnetic fields.
Regarding Claim 4, Kolesnikova et al. teach the electromagnetic field comprises a visible light wavelength (Page 9587, Column 2, Paragraph 3: Remote activation of a uniform AuNP-based surface was conducted using a green laser (532 nm, continuous wave)). 532 nm is within the visible light spectrum.
Regarding Claim 5, Kolesnikova et al. teach the at least one field generator comprises one or more of an electrode, a magnet, wires, electromagnets, two-dimensional conductive material, organic conductive polymer, a halogen lamp, a laser, and an LED. (Page 9587, Column 2, Paragraph 1: Here, we used the latter principle to show patterning by a laser beam with a ring-like profile).
Kolesnikova et al. does not teach obtaining a metasurface, wherein the metasurface comprises structures associated with resonances of a wavelength range of 250 nm-3 microns, wherein the resonances are localized or non-localized (Claim 1.i). Kolesnikova et al. also does not teach the metasurface comprises one or more repeating motifs (Claim 9). Kolesnikova et al. also does not teach the structures of the metasurface form one or more motifs (Claim 17). Kolesnikova et al. also does not teach the motifs comprise one or more of bow-tie shaped motif, a coil-shaped motif, a half-coil shaped motif, or a ribcage-shaped motif (Claim 18).
Regarding Claim 1, Xu et al. teach (Claim 1.i) obtaining a metasurface, wherein the metasurface comprises structures associated with resonances that have a wavelength range of 250 nm-3 microns, wherein the resonances are localized or non-localized (Page 3233, Column 1, Paragraph 2: We demonstrate in this paper that commercial flexible plastic substrate is actually compatible for critical electron beam lithography nanofabrication with the least feature size down to 30 nm (See Page 3233, Column 2, Figure 1 for the picture of the metasurface utilized); the electric response resonances shift from 975 nm (1088 nm) to 542 nm (653 nm), while the magnetic response resonances shift from 1687 nm (>1700 nm) to 756 nm (902 nm) for Ag (Au) metamaterials, respectively).
Regarding Claim 9, Xu et al. teach the metasurface comprises one or more repeating motifs (See Page 3233, Column 2, Figure 1 for the picture of the metasurface utilized including a repeating motifs).
Regarding Claim 17, Xu et al. the structures of the metasurface form one or more motifs (See Page 3233, Column 2, Figure 1 for the picture of the metasurface utilized including a repeating motif).
Regarding Claim 18, Xu et al. teach the motifs comprise a ribcage-shaped motif (See Page 3233, Column 2, Figure 1 for the picture of the metasurface utilized including repeating a ribcage motifs). There was no explicit definition for a ribcage motif provided by the specification and a squared U shape was interpreted as a ribcage shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Kolesnikova et al. with Xu et al. because Xu et al. teach a a metasurface well suited as a biosensor for sensing cells, which was a major focus of Kolesnikova et al. (Page 3233, Column 1, Paragraph 2: We further demonstrate that this vis-IR Metaflex exhibits a very sensitive response to the strain, the dielectric media, and the surface chemical and biological local environment, suggesting that flexible metamaterials exhibit significant promise as excellent photonic devices for highly sensitive strain, chemical and biological sensing applications). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the methods from the references indicated above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would predict that the methods taught by Xu et al. could be readily added to the method of Kolesnikova et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because both are within the same technical field – using metasrufaces within systems that monitor and regulate cells. Accordingly, Claims 1-5, 9, and 17-18 taken as a whole would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., as applied above to claims 1-5, 9, and 17-18, in view of Kolesnikova et al., as applied above to claims 1-5, 9, and 17-18, and in further view of Terao et al. (2019, Scientific Reports, Vol. 9: 1-11). Italicized text from reference art.
Applicable claims include:
Claims 1-5, 9, and 17-18 are provided above.
Claim 6. A method according to claim 1, i. wherein the metasurface is comprised in a container in which the cells are deposited, further comprising: ii. determining using the one or more sensors characteristics associated with portions of the container other than the metasurface, wherein the parameters are further determined based on the container characteristics.
Claim 7. A method according to claim 6, wherein the metasurface is at least one of coated on a surface of the container and forms an integral part of the container.
Claim 12. A method according to claim 1, wherein the artificially-grown material comprises artificially-grown food.
Claim 13. A method according to claim 12, wherein the artificially-grown food comprises one or more of artificially-grown meat and artificially-grown plant-based food.
Regarding Claims 1-5, 9, and 17-18, these are taught by Kolesnikova et al. and Xu et al. (see above).
Regarding Claim 6, Terao et al. teach (Claim 6.i) wherein the metasurface is comprised in a container in which the cells are deposited (Page 8, Paragraph 2: In the experiments employing myoblasts, 3.5 × 106 cells in 100 mL growth medium were seeded into each chamber of an SCP, i.e., 3.5 × 106 cells in 100 mL and 1.75 × 107 cells in 500 mL were seeded into single-layer and 5-layer SCPs, respectively). The SCP that was utilized was the CellStack® Culture Chamber (Corning, NY, USA) (Page 7, Paragraph 7). The CellStack® Culture Chamber contains a metasurface (Corning® CellBIND® Surface) to enhance cell attachment by incorporating significantly more oxygen into the cell culture surface, rendering it more hydrophilic (wettable) and increasing surface stability, as evidenced by Corning (2021, Corning® CellSTACK® Culture Chambers, product brochure: 1-4). Additionally, it would be obvious to swap Corning® CellBIND® Surface with the metasurface proposed by Xu et al. or Kolesnikova et al. (see Regarding Claim 1). Terao et al. also teach (Claim 6.ii) determining using the one or more sensors characteristics associated with portions of the container other than the metasurface, and basing the parameters on the container characteristics (Page 7, Paragraph 7: The vibration characteristics of SCP (CellStack® Culture Chamber; Corning, NY, USA) were measured using a laser Doppler vibrometer). This measurement reflect modulating the vibrations for the entire container, not just the surface where the cells were growing (Page 7, Paragraph 7: The amplitude of vibration velocity, Av, was measured at the centers of cultivation layers and at the jig). It would be obvious to incorporate this measurement scheme when using the field taught by Kolesnikova et al. instead of the vibrations taught by Terao et al.
Regarding Claim 12. Terao et al. teach wherein the artificially-grown material comprises artificially-grown food (Page 4, Paragraph 2: We chose myoblasts because they are typical cells studied in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, such as in regeneration models of skeletal muscle tissue). Animal muscle tissue in this context is equivalent to synthetic meat.
Regarding Claim 13. Terao et al. teach wherein the artificially-grown food comprises one or more of artificially-grown meat and artificially-grown plant-based food (Page 4, Paragraph 2: We chose myoblasts because they are typical cells studied in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, such as in regeneration models of skeletal muscle tissue). Animal muscle tissue in this context is equivalent to synthetic meat.
Terao et al. do not teach the metasurface is at least one of coated on a surface of the container and forms an integral part of the container (Claim 7).
Regarding Claim 7, Kolesnikova et al. teach the metasurface is at least one of coated on a surface of the container and forms an integral part of the container (Page 9586, Column 2, Paragraph 2: To prepare substrates with uniform AuNP distribution, hydrophilic glass slides were covered by 8_10 nm positively charged gold nanoparticles from an aqueous colloid suspension). The gold nanoparticles are an integral part of the function of the container - for growing a cell culture (Page 9586, Column 1, Paragraph 3: Application of gold nanoparticles (AuNP) is of great interest for tissue engineering; for example, they can be used for enhancing mechanical properties or for further functionalization with organic molecules to provide enhanced cell adhesion to the substrate surface). Terao et al. teach where the metasurface is within a container used to grow cells (see Regarding Claim 6.i).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Kolesnikova et al. and Xu et al. with Terao et al. because Terao et al. teach novel and efficient methods for detaching cells used in stackable cell cultures (Page 2, Paragraph 4: In this study, we propose a new, efficient, and safe method of detaching large numbers of hiPSCs from all layers of an SCP system using RVs, which will contribute to the clinical and industrial application of hiPSCs), which was a major goal of Kolesnikova et al. The included methods shown to be more effective than others for the use of producing artificial animal meat (Page 7, Paragraph 1: After evaluating the vibration characteristics of the developed cell detachment system, we conducted detachment experiments with the mouse myoblast cell line C2C12 on single-layer and 5-layer SCPs to evaluate detachment efficiency, viability, and proliferation of the detached cells. Our results indicate that cells were detached more effectively by the RV method mediated by RVs of substrates than by the CE method of trypsinization). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the methods from the references indicated above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would predict that the methods taught by Terao et al. could be readily added to the method of Kolesnikova et al. and Xu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because both are within the same technical field – using metasrufaces within systems that monitor and regulate cells. Accordingly, Claims 1-7, 9, 12-13, and 17-18 taken as a whole would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., as applied above to claims 1-5, 9, and 17-18, in view of Kolesnikova et al., as applied above to claims 1-5, 9, and 17-18, and in further view of Park et al. (2008, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Vol. 99, No. 2: 455-467). Italicized text from reference art.
Applicable claims include:
Claims 1-5, 9, and 17-18 are provided above.
Claim 8. A method according to claim 1, i. wherein the metasurface is an integral part of a container in which the cellular cells are deposited, further comprising; ii. determining using the one or more sensors characteristics associated with portions of the container other than the metasurface at the multiple time points, wherein the parameters are further determined based on the container characteristics.
Claim 10. A method according to claim 1, i. wherein the cells on the metasurface are in a liquid medium, further comprising: ii. determining using the one or more sensors characteristics associated with the medium at the multiple time points, iii. wherein the parameters are further determined based on the container characteristics.
Regarding Claims 1-5, 9, and 17-18, these are taught by Kolesnikova et al. and Xu et al. (see above).
Regarding Claim 8, Kolesnikova et al. teach (Claim 8.i) wherein the metasurface is an integral part of a container in which the cellular cells are deposited (see regarding claim 7).
Kolesnikova et al. does not teach determining using sensors characteristics associated with portions of the container other than the metasurface at the multiple time points, wherein the parameters are further determined based on the container characteristics (Claim 8.ii). Kolesnikova et al. also does not teach the cells on the metasurface are in a liquid medium (Claim 10.i). Kolesnikova et al. also does not teach determining using the sensors characteristics of the medium at multiple time points (Claim 10.ii). Kolesnikova et al. also does not teach the parameters are further determined based on the container characteristics (Claim 10.iii).
Regarding Claim 8, Park et al. teach (Claim 8.ii) determining using the sensor characteristics associated with portions of the container other than the metasurface at the multiple time points, wherein the parameters are further determined based on the container characteristics (Page 462, Column 2, Paragraph 1: The outlet oxygen tension decreased from 118 mmHg at a medium flow rate of 18.0 mL/min to 45 mmHg at a flow rate of 5.0 mL/min (i.e., oxygen was measured overtime and is a measurement related to the solution within the chamber, not the metasurface)). The oxygen was critical to cell growth with precipitates the need for cell removal (Page 462, Column 2, Paragraph 2: The measured oxygen uptake rate used in the simulations was 0.98 nmol/s/106 hepatocytes for the hepatocytes cocultured with 3T3-J2 fibroblasts at the ratio 1:3 (H:F)).
Regarding Claim 10, Park et al. teach (Claim 10.i) the cells on the metasurface are in a liquid medium (Page 459, Column 1, Paragraph 2: All static conditions used 3 mL of culture medium per substrate which was changed daily). This involved a metasurface for growing cells (Page 458, Column 2, Paragraph 2: The glass substrates, either with or without the microfabricated grooves, were placed in 60-mm tissue culture dishes). Additionally, it would be obvious to swap the metasurface proposed by Park et al. with the metasurface of Xu et al. to add additional sensor capabilities. Park et al. also teach (Claim 10.ii) determining using the sensors characteristics associated with the medium at the multiple time points (Page 462, Column 2, Paragraph 1: The outlet oxygen tension decreased from 118 mmHg at a medium flow rate of 18.0 mL/min to 45 mmHg at a flow rate of 5.0 mL/min (i.e., oxygen was measured over time and is related to the solution within the chamber)). Park et al. also teach (Claim 10.iii) the parameters are further determined based on the container characteristics (Page 7, Paragraph 7: A key issue for the success of this bioreactor is to maintain uniform medium volume flow rates through the horizontal channels over the grooved substrates. The flow rate in each channel in this bioreactor is networked and therefore affects the flow rates in other channels). The channels that control the flow rate impact cell growth which impact the properties of the fields needs to alter cell adherence to a surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Kolesnikova et al. and Xu et al. with Park et al. because Park et al. teach methods for collecting data related to monitoring cells on a metasurface that impacts decisions related to the growth of the cell culture and would be beneficial for the decision making processes related to the progress of the cell culture (Page 456, Column 1, Paragraph 2: These results demonstrate that this radial flow bioreactor with stacked microgrooved substrates is capable of protecting the hepatocytes from the detrimental effects of high shear stresses while maintaining stable liver-specific functions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the methods from the references indicated above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would predict that the methods taught by Park et al. could be readily added to the methods of Kolesnikova et al. and Xu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because all are within the same technical field – using a metasruface within systems that monitor and regulate cells. Accordingly, Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 17-18 taken as a whole would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., as applied above to claims 1-5, 9, and 17-18, in view of Kolesnikova et al., as applied above to claims 1-5, 9, and 17-18, and in further view of Park et al., as applied above to Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 17-18, and Ball and Patrick (US 20200283713 A1). Italicized text from reference art.
Applicable claims include:
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 17-18 are provided above.
Claim 11. A method according to claim 10, wherein the application of the field is triggered based on the medium characteristics at one of the time points.
Claim 14. A method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving user input, wherein the parameters are further determined based on the user input.
Claim 15. A method according to claim 1, i. wherein the user input comprises an identification of a portion of the material that needs to disengage from the metasurface, further comprising: ii. selecting those of the structures to which the at least one field is applied based on the user input.
Claim 16. A method according to claim 15, wherein the disengagement of the identified portions causes at least some of the identified portions to stack up on top of further portions of the material.
Claim 19. A method according to claim 11, wherein the obtaining of the metasurface and cell characteristics and controlling the application of the at least one field by the at least one field generator is performed by a processor separate from a further processor performing a determination of the parameters, wherein the processor and the further processor a wirelessly interfaced.
Claim 20. A method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the metasurface and cell characteristics, controlling the application of the at least one field, and performing the determination of the parameters is performed by a single device.
Regarding Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 17-18, these are taught by Kolesnikova et al., Xu et al., and Park et al. (see above).
Regarding Claim 15, Kolesnikova et al. teach (Claim 15.i) an identification of a portion of the material that needs to disengage from the metasurface (Page 9592, Column 2, Paragraph 5: A laser beam passing through a pinhole was settled on the sample surface through a lens (the focal distance 10 cm)). The parameters of the lens were adjusted to impact only a certain portion of the metasurface.
Kolesnikova et al. do not teach the application of the field is triggered based on the medium characteristics at one of the time points (Claim 11). Kolesnikova et al. also do not teach receiving user input, wherein the parameters are further determined based on the user input (Claim 14). Kolesnikova et al. also do not teach selecting those of the structures to which the at least one field is applied based on the user input (Claim 15.ii). Kolesnikova et al. also do not teach the disengagement of the identified portions causes at least some of the identified portions to stack up on top of further portions of the material (Claim 16). Kolesnikova et al. also do not teach obtaining of the metasurface and cell characteristics and controlling the application of the field by the at least one field generator is performed by a processor separate from a processor determination of the parameters, wherein the processor and the further processor are wirelessly interfaced (Claim 19). Kolesnikova et al. also do not teach wherein the obtaining of the metasurface and cell characteristics, controlling the application of the at least one field, and performing the determination of the parameters is performed by a single device (Claim 20).
Regarding Claim 11, Ball and Patrick teach the application of the field is triggered based on the medium characteristics at one of the time points (Page 9, Paragraph 0096: an end effector may utilize magnets, cutters, sensors (e.g., cameras, barcode readers, microphones, etc.), emitters (e.g., light, sound)). The autonomous robot system can utilize light emitters which produces an electromagnetic field as in Claim 1.iv. The autonomous robot system responds to characteristics of a media utilized to grow cells (Page 6, Paragraph 0066: The sensors may be able to measure a quality of one or more components of the bioreactor, such as a reactor vessel, sampling location, media container, or any other component of the bioreactor; Page 4, Paragraph 0039: For instance, a robot may be instructed to interact with the shaker/incubator or containers within the shaker/incubator based on data from one or more sensors; Page 2, Paragraph 0025: In some embodiments, one or more robotic components may aid in the automated processes).
Regarding Claim 14, Ball and Patrick teach receiving user input, wherein the parameters are further determined based on the user input (Page 13, Paragraph 0137: The cloud server may include or communicate with a remote terminal through which a user may interact with the system. A user may optionally be an individual running one or more experiments in the workcell, or managing the workcell; Page 13, Paragraph 140: The workcell computer may or may not have user interface that may allow a user to directly interact with the workcell computer).
Regarding Claim 15, Ball and Patrick teach (Claim 15.ii) selecting those of the structures to which the at least one field is applied based on the user input (Page 6, Paragraph 0058: instructions may be conveyed to a robot that may interact with the bioreactor). The robot is capable of producing a field (see Regarding claim 11).
Regarding Claim 16, Ball and Patrick teach the disengagement of the identified portions causes at least some of the identified portions to stack up on top of further portions of the material (Page 4, Claim 0044: The bioreactors may be arranged in any fashion. A bioreactor array may comprise a single row of bioreactors, multiple rows of bioreactors, a single column of bioreactors, multiple columns of bioreactors, a single stack of bioreactors; Page 6, Paragraph 0065: A robot may move one or more containers of the bioreactor; Page 2, Paragraph 0025: In some embodiments, one or more robotic components may aid in the automated processes).
Regarding Claim 19, Ball and Patrick teach the obtaining of the metasurface and cell characteristics and controlling the application of the field by the field generator is performed by a processor separate from a processor performing a determination of the parameters, wherein the processors are wirelessly interfaced (Page 6, Paragraph 0057: The control board may comprise one or more processors. The control board may generate instructions that may affect operation of the agitator, the pumps, heater/cooler, camera, sensors, and/or material handling; Page 6, Paragraph 0058: For instance, the control board may receive instructions from other bioreactor control boards, from the cloud, from the robots, from any components within the system, or any components outside the system).
Regarding Claim 20, Ball and Patrick teach wherein the obtaining of the metasurface and cell characteristics, controlling the application of the at least one field, and performing the determination of the parameters is performed by a single device (Page 3, Paragraph 0030: A workcell may comprise an automated seed train station, a fermentation station, and/or a sample handling station. Sample preparation and analysis is performed at the sample handling station. A workcell may also comprise one or more robotic components). The workcell may be considered a single device that was shown to accomplish the methods of obtaining, sensing, controlling, and performing the determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Kolesnikova et al., Xu et al., and Park et al. with Ball and Patrick because Ball and Patrick teach methods for automating processes related to culturing cells to expedite production (Page 1, Paragraph 0004-0005: A need exists for improved systems and methods for fermentation. A further need exists for providing high throughput, automated fermentation systems that allow for controlled variations in the fermentation process. An aspect of the invention is directed to a system for automated fermentation). Fermentation processes include producing cells, which is applicable for meat production (Page 14, Paragraph 0150: Fermentation processes can be used for many applications. For instance, fermentation can be utilized for production of biomass (e.g., viable cellular material)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the methods from the references indicated above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would predict that the methods taught by Ball and Patrick could be readily added to the method of Kolesnikova et al., Xu et al., and Park et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because both are within the same technical field – developing systems that monitor and regulate cells. Accordingly, Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-20 taken as a whole would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Double Patenting
No double patenting issues were identified.
Conclusion
No Claims are allowed.
No 101 rejection was made despite the presence of a judicial exception in Claim 1 (Mental Process - determining parameters of at least one field to be applied to the metasurface via at least one field generator based on the metasurface characteristics and cell characteristics determined at the multiple time points) (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes) and lack of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2: No). A 101 rejection was deemed inappropriate because the additional elements (obtaining a metasurface on which cells of an artificially-grown material are located, wherein the metasurface comprises a plurality of structures associated with resonances that have a wavelength range of 250 nm-3 microns, wherein the resonances are one of localized or non-localized; obtaining characteristics associated with the cells at one or more spatial locations of the metasurface at multiple time points and characteristics associated with the metasurface at the spatial locations at multiple time points via one or more sensors; and controlling application of the at least one field via the at least one field generator to at least some of the structures of the metasurface based on the parameters, wherein the cells attached to those structures disengage from the structures due to the application of the field) were considered unconventional at the time of the effective filing date (Step 2B: Yes). This was mainly due to the implementation of a metasurface on which cells were grown and data was collected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE H ELKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/B.H.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights