DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 17, 2025 has been entered.
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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: At the end of line 5 of claim 20, there is a letter “s” that should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
1. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0247847 to Yung et al.
Yung et al teaches a multiwell plate 102 (“device”) that includes a plurality of wells 106 as shown in Fig. 1A.
In paragraph [0032] Yung et al. discloses that adjacent wells can be connected together by a channel that connects to side walls of the wells.
In Yung et al. the connection between the channels and adjacent wells forms a “port” that is capable of being plugged (“plug port”) to enable or disable a flow of liquid between the adjacent pairs of the wells.
I.) As noted, Yung et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11.
Therefore, Yung et al. anticipates claim 11.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Yung et al. anticipates claim 11 from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the wells form a row of wells; an inlet port at first end of the row of wells; and an outlet port at a second end of the row of wells.
Yung et al. teaches that more than two wells can be interconnected by channels and provides an example of four interconnected wells. [0031].
In the case of multiple interconnected wells the first well is interpreted as being an inlet port for then interconnected wells at the first end of the row of wells and the last well in interpreted as being an outlet port.
Therefore, Yung et al. anticipates claim 13.
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.
2. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0247847 to Yung et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0148872 to Khurana et al.
Yung et al. teaches a multiwell plate 102 (“device”) that includes a plurality of wells 106 as shown in Fig. 1A.
In paragraph [0032] Yung et al. discloses that adjacent wells can be connected together by a channel that connects to side walls of the wells.
Yung et al, teaches that signal detectors such as images can be provided for metabolic or other measurements of a cell population in wells of the multiwell plates. [0038], [0041]
Yung et al. does not teach a sensor assembly mounted to the device, in which the sensor assembly includes sensors aligned with the wells.
Khurana et al. teaches an apparatus that, as shown in Figs 3 and 4 includes wells 430 that are coupled together by channels 410. [0191], [0193] Image sensors 540, shown in Fig. 5 are provided beneath the wells 530. [0195]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yung et al. to includes image sensors in a sensor assembly mounted to the device as taught by Khurana et al. to capture images for detecting/monitoring metabolic or other measurements of a cell population the wells of the device.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites the wells form a row of wells; and the adjacent pairs of the wells are in the row of the wells.
As shown in Figs. 1A and 1B of Yung et al., the wells 106 form a row of wells and adjacent pairs of wells are in the row of wells.
Therefore, Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. renders claim 2 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites a plug port at the channel configurable to enable or disable a flow of liquid between the adjacent pairs of the wells.
In Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. the connection between the channels and adjacent wells forms a “port” that is capable of being plugged (“plug port”) to enable or disable a flow of liquid between the adjacent pairs of the wells.
Therefore, Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. renders claim 2 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites the device includes: an inlet port at first end of the row of wells; and an outlet port at a second end of the row of wells.
Yung et al. teaches that more than two wells can be interconnected by channels and provides an example of four interconnected wells. [0031].
In the case of multiple interconnected wells the first well is interpreted as being an inlet port for then interconnected wells at the first end of the row of wells and the last well in interpreted as being an outlet port.
Therefore, Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. renders claim 4 obvious.
3. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yung et al. as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Khurana et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Yung et al. anticipates claim 11 from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites a sensor assembly detachably mounted to the device, in which the sensor assembly includes sensors aligned with the wells; and a mainboard detachably mounted to the sensor assembly.
Yung et al, teaches that signal detectors such as images can be provided for metabolic or other measurements of a cell population in wells of the multiwell plates. [0038], [0041]
Yung et al. does not teach a sensor assembly mounted to the device, in which the sensor assembly includes sensors aligned with the wells.
Khurana et al. teaches an apparatus that, as shown in Figs 3 and 4 includes wells 430 that are coupled together by channels 410. [0191], [0193] Image sensors 540, shown in Fig. 5 are provided beneath the wells 530. [0195]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yung et al. to includes image sensors in a sensor assembly mounted to the device as taught by Khurana et al. to capture images for detecting/monitoring metabolic or other measurements of a cell population the wells of the device.
Providing the electronics for the sensor assembly in the form of a detachable motherboard would have been an obvious design choice configuration to allow removal and replacement of the electronics.
Therefore, Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 19, as noted above Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. renders claim 14 obvious from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 19 recites that the mainboard includes interface circuitry configurable to provide measurement signals based on outputs of the sensor assembly.
In Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. it would have been obvious to provide the electronics for sensor in the motherboard with interface circuitry configurable to provide measurement signals based on outputs of the sensor assembly for purposes of sensing metabolic or other measurements of a cell population in a well as taught by Yung et al.
Therefore, Yung et al. in view of Khurana et al. renders claim 19 obvious
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims and 5-10 and 15-18 are 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.
Claims 20-23 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a device having a plurality of wells with adjacent wells connected by a channel and pH, conductivity, oxygen or temperature sensors aligned with the wells as recited in claims 5, 15 and 20-23.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a device having a plurality of wells with adjacent wells connected by a channel having a removable retainer configured to align sensors with the wells as recite in claims 6 and 16.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a device having a plurality of wells with adjacent wells connected by a channel having seal rings between the wells and a sensor assembly as recited in claims 7 and 17.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a device having a plurality of wells with adjacent wells connected by a channel and a motherboard detachably mounted to a sensor assembly with spring-loaded pins configurable to engage the contacts and to provide electrical connections between the sensor assembly and the mainboard as recited in claims 8-10 and 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798