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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application. Claims 10-11 are withdrawn. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway et al. (US 20160177244 A1) in view of Ravkin et. (US 20030104494 A1) and Haghgooie et al. (US 20120277697 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Conway teaches a cell transplantation pretreatment method (abstract and paragraph [0008] teaches transferring cells from a first multiwell cell culture plate to a second multiwell cell culture plate with a multichannel pipette; Fig. 13), comprising the steps of:
transporting (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0047], interpreted as passaging colonies of cells, which includes transporting or distributing cells into new wells) a cell group (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0047], cell colony) cultured in a culture recess (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0047], i.e. well) to a pretreatment recess (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0047], i.e. new well) using a culture tray including a plurality of the culture recesses arranged as a rectangular matrix array (Fig. 13, i.e. initial multi-well plate having a plurality of wells in a rectangular matrix array comprising cell colonies ready to passage), a pretreatment tray including a plurality of the pretreatment recesses arranged according to a configuration (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0047], i.e. new multi-well plate having a plurality of wells arranged in a configuration), and a transplantation device including a needle shaped portion having a tubular shape (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0027] teaches a multi-channel robotic liquid handling device, i.e. PipetmaX; paragraph [0033] teaches the multi-channel pipette head comprises multiple pipette nozzles, i.e. needle shaped portions having tubular shapes) configured to allow entry and exit of a graft containing the cell group (paragraphs [0033]-[0034] and Fig. 13 teaches the PipetmaX comprising pipette nozzles are configured to allow collection and dispensing of a colony, i.e. graft containing the cell group), the transplantation device including a plurality of the needle shaped portions arranged according to the configuration (paragraph [0033], Fig. 2, and claim 4, teach the pipette tips are used to be adjacent to wells of the second multi-well cell culture plate, thus, the pipette tips, i.e. needle shaped portions, are arranged according the arrangement of wells of the multi-well plate, i.e. configuration); and
loading simultaneously the cell group from the plurality of pretreatment recesses into the plurality of needle shaped portions (Fig. 13 teaches repeating passage cycle, therefore, the cell groups from the passaged stem cell colony are implied to be simultaneously loaded from the wells of the new multi-well plate and into the pipette nozzles of the PipetmaX for further passaging into a different new multi-well plate; Fig. 13 and paragraphs [0047]-[0048] teaches passaging includes distributing colonies of cells into new wells of a multi-well plate using the robotic liquid handling system).
Conway fails to teach the plurality of the pretreatment recesses arranged in a full or partial annular configuration and the plurality of the needle shaped portions arranged in a full or partial annular configuration.
Ravkin teaches systems and methods for performing assays (abstract). Ravkin teaches wells may be arranged in a rectangular configuration or a circular configuration (paragraph [0042]).
Since Ravkin teaches rectangular and circular arrangement of wells are known alternatives in the art (paragraph [0042]), 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 the pretreatment recesses of Conway to incorporate the teachings of known arrangements of recesses of Ravkin (paragraph [0042]) to provide: the plurality of the pretreatment recesses arranged in a full or partial annular configuration. I.e. It would have been obvious to have substituted one known element (Conway’s rectangular arrangement of recesses) for another (Ravkin’s circular arrangement of wells), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (allowing for a desired arrangement of recesses for sample processing). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. recesses arranged in full or partial annular configuration) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. holding desired fluids/sample), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. arranging the recesses in a full or partial annular configuration would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling desired arrangement of recesses for sample processing, such as holding desired fluids/sample). See MPEP 2143(A).
Modified Conway fails to teach: the plurality of the needle shaped portions arranged in a full or partial annular configuration.
Haghgooie teaches systems and methods for delivering and receiving fluids (abstract). Haghgooie teaches an array of needles that can be arranged in a square, rectangular, or circular array (paragraph [0148]).
Since Haghgooie teaches rectangular and circular arrangement of needle are known alternatives in the art (paragraph [0148]), 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 the plurality of the needle shaped portions of Conway to incorporate the teachings of known arrangements of needles of Haghgooie (paragraph [0148]) to provide: the plurality of the needle shaped portions arranged in a full or partial annular configuration. I.e. It would have been obvious to have substituted one known element (Conway’s rectangular arrangement of needle shaped portions) for another (Haghgooie’s circular arrangement of needles), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (allowing for a desired arrangement of needle for sample processing). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the plurality of the needle shaped portions arranged in a full or partial annular configuration) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. delivering or receiving fluids), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. arranging the needles in a full or partial annular configuration would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling desired arrangement of needles for sample processing, such as for delivering and receiving fluids). See MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 7, Conway further teaches wherein the pretreatment recess has a shape in which an outer peripheral surface of the needle shaped portion is able to fit (Fig. 29 shows the outer peripheral surface of the pipette tip, i.e. needle shape portion, is able to fit in the well of a well plate), and the step of loading the cell groups into the needle shaped portions is performed in a state in which the outer peripheral surface of the needle shaped portion is fitted in the pretreatment recess (Fig. 13 teaches repeating passage cycle, therefore, the cell groups from the passaged stem cell colony are implied to be simultaneously loaded from the wells of the new multi-well plate and into the pipette nozzles of the PipetmaX for further passaging into a different new multi-well plate; Fig. 29 shows a process of collecting cells out of a well; therefore, the step of loading the cell groups into the pipette nozzles includes the pipette tips or nozzles being in a state of being fitted in, e.g. inserted in, the well of the multi-well plate).
Regarding claim 8, Conway further teaches wherein the pretreatment tray and the transplantation device include a structure for positioning the transplantation device relative to the pretreatment tray in a direction perpendicular to a depth direction of the pretreatment recess (Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0032]-[0034] teaches a bed holding the multi-well plates is movable in x, y, and z directions and the multi-channel pipette head is movable in three orthogonal axes with respective motor positioners; therefore, the bed and motor positioners are for positioning the transplantation device, i.e. multi-channel pipette head, relative to the pretreatment tray, multi-well plate, in a direction perpendicular to a depth direction, i.e. horizontal direction or one of x and y directions).
Regarding claim 12, modified Conway fails to teach: wherein the plurality of the pretreatment recesses are arranged in a full annular configuration.
Ravkin teaches systems and methods for performing assays (abstract). Ravkin teaches wells may be arranged in a rectangular configuration or a circular configuration (paragraph [0042]).
Since Ravkin teaches rectangular and circular arrangement of wells are known alternatives in the art (paragraph [0042]), 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 the pretreatment recesses of Conway to incorporate the teachings of known arrangements of recesses of Ravkin (paragraph [0042]) to provide: wherein the plurality of the pretreatment recesses are arranged in a full annular configuration. I.e. It would have been obvious to have substituted one known element (Conway’s rectangular arrangement of recesses) for another (Ravkin’s circular arrangement of wells), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (allowing for a desired arrangement of recesses for sample processing). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. recesses arranged in full annular configuration) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. holding desired fluids/sample), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. arranging the recesses in a full annular configuration would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling desired arrangement of recesses for sample processing, such as holding desired fluids/sample). See MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 13, modified Conway fails to teach: wherein the plurality of the needle shaped portions are arranged in a full annular configuration.
Haghgooie teaches systems and methods for delivering and receiving fluids (abstract). Haghgooie teaches an array of needles that can be arranged in a square, rectangular, or circular array (paragraph [0148]).
Since Haghgooie teaches rectangular and circular arrangement of needle are known alternatives in the art (paragraph [0148]), 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 the plurality of the needle shaped portions of Conway to incorporate the teachings of known arrangements of needles of Haghgooie (paragraph [0148]) to provide: wherein the plurality of the needle shaped portions are arranged in a full annular configuration. I.e. It would have been obvious to have substituted one known element (Conway’s rectangular arrangement of needle shaped portions) for another (Haghgooie’s circular arrangement of needles), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (allowing for a desired arrangement of needle for sample processing). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the plurality of the needle shaped portions are arranged in a full annular configuration) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. delivering or receiving fluids), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. arranging the needles in a full annular configuration would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling desired arrangement of needles for sample processing, such as for delivering and receiving fluids). See MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 14, modified Conway fails to teach: wherein the plurality of the needle shaped portions are arranged in a partial annular configuration.
Haghgooie teaches systems and methods for delivering and receiving fluids (abstract). Haghgooie teaches an array of needles that can be arranged in a square, rectangular, or circular array (paragraph [0148]).
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 the plurality of needle shaped portions of modified Conway to incorporate the teachings of circularly arranged needles of Haghgooie (paragraph [0148]) to provide: wherein the plurality of the needle shaped portions are arranged in a partial annular configuration. Doing so would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts and an obvious matter of design choice in view of known arrangement of needles with a reasonable expectation of successfully enabling desired arrangement of needles for sample processing, such as for delivering and receiving fluids (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Regarding claim 15, modified Conway fails to teach: wherein the plurality of the pretreatment recesses are arranged in a partial annular configuration.
Ravkin teaches systems and methods for performing assays (abstract). Ravkin teaches wells may be arranged in a rectangular configuration or a circular configuration (paragraph [0042]).
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 the plurality of the pretreatment recesses of modified Conway to incorporate the teachings of circular arrangements of recesses of Ravkin (paragraph [0042]) to provide: wherein the plurality of the pretreatment recesses are arranged in a partial annular configuration. Doing so would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts and an obvious matter of design choice in view of known arrangement of wells with a reasonable expectation of successfully enabling desired arrangement of recesses for sample processing, such as holding desired fluids/sample (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Conway fails to teach: wherein the plurality of the needle shaped portions are arranged in a partial annular configuration.
Haghgooie teaches systems and methods for delivering and receiving fluids (abstract). Haghgooie teaches an array of needles that can be arranged in a square, rectangular, or circular array (paragraph [0148]).
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 the plurality of needle shaped portions of modified Conway to incorporate the teachings of circularly arranged needles of Haghgooie (paragraph [0148]) to provide: wherein the plurality of the needle shaped portions are arranged in a partial annular configuration. Doing so would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts and an obvious matter of design choice in view of known arrangement of needles with a reasonable expectation of successfully enabling desired arrangement of needles for sample processing, such as for delivering and receiving fluids (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway in view of Ravkin and Haghgooie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wiggli et al. (US 20070264725 A1).
Regarding claim 2, while Conway teaches multiwell plates with more wells having smaller well sizes has the advantage of most or all of the cells undergoing differentiation (paragraph [0059]), the system may be used with 34, 48, 96, or 384-well plates (paragraph [0032]), and colonies may be divided into smaller aggregates (paragraph [0047]), Conway fails to teach: wherein the pretreatment recess has an inner diameter smaller than that of the culture recess.
Wiggli teaches a device comprising a robotic manipulator comprising at least two pipette or dispenser tips (abstract) and a method that allows the time-saving pipetting over of liquid samples between diverse sample containers, e.g., between sample tubes and microplates having 24, 96, 384, or 1536 wells (abstract). Wiggli teaches the necessity of placing contents of wells of microplates in another container, such as from a 96-well microplate to an 384-well microplate (paragraph [0006]). Wiggli teaches a series of wells of a 96-well microplate may be processed simultaneously using the pipette or dispenser tips of a single block and all pipette or dispenser tips may be lowered and/or raised simultaneously (paragraph [0034]). Wiggli teaches an advantage of allowing pipetting of liquid samples from microplates having 96 wells into microplates having 384 wells, or from microplates having 24 wells into microplates having 96 wells (paragraphs [0035],[0052]; Figs. 1-3), wherein microplates with more microwells have smaller diameters (Fig. 3 shows a 384 well microplate has wells with smaller diameters than a 96 well microplate, and a 96 well microplate has wells with smaller diameters than a 24 well microplate). Wiggli teaches the device allows for improved time saving of transferring samples between microplates (paragraph [0050]).
Since Wiggli teaches a necessity of placing contents of wells of microplates into another container, such as a microplate with more wells and thus smaller diameter wells (abstract), 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 the method of Conway to incorporate the teachings of transferring samples to a microplate with wells of a smaller diameter of Wiggli (Figs. 1-3; abstract; paragraphs [0006],[0034]-[0035],[0052]) and Conway’s teaching of smaller well sizes allowing improved cell differentiation (paragraph [0059]) and dividing colonies into smaller aggregates (paragraph [0047]) to provide: wherein the pretreatment recess has an inner diameter smaller than that of the culture recess. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving versatility of the method to transfer colonies to a microplate with smaller diameter wells and thus improving division of colonies and cell differentiation.
Regarding claim 5, while Conway teaches multiwell plates with more wells having smaller well sizes has the advantage of most or all of the cells undergoing differentiation (paragraph [0059]), the system may be used with 34, 48, 96, or 384-well plates (paragraph [0032]), and colonies may be divided into smaller aggregates (paragraph [0047]), Conway fails to teach: wherein an interval between the culture recesses adjacent to each other and an interval between the pretreatment recesses adjacent to each other are different from each other.
Wiggli teaches a device comprising a robotic manipulator comprising at least two pipette or dispenser tips (abstract) and a method that allows the time-saving pipetting over of liquid samples between diverse sample containers, e.g., between sample tubes and microplates having 24, 96, 384, or 1536 wells (abstract). Wiggli teaches the necessity of placing contents of wells of microplates in another container, such as from a 96-well microplate to an 384-well microplate (paragraph [0006]). Wiggli teaches a series of wells of a 96-well microplate may be processed simultaneously using the pipette or dispenser tips of a single block and all pipette or dispenser tips may be lowered and/or raised simultaneously (paragraph [0034]). Wiggli teaches an advantage of allowing pipetting of liquid samples from microplates having 96 wells into microplates having 384 wells, or from microplates having 24 wells into microplates having 96 wells (paragraphs [0035],[0052]; Figs. 1-3), wherein microplates with more microwells have smaller diameters (Fig. 3 shows a 384 well microplate has wells with smaller diameters than a 96 well microplate, and a 96 well microplate has wells with smaller diameters than a 24 well microplate). Wiggli teaches the device allows for improved time saving of transferring samples between microplates (paragraph [0050]). Wiggli teaches an interval between wells and a number of wells are different between a 24-well microplate, 96-well microplate, and 384-well microplate (Fig. 3, microplates 18 have different intervals between wells and number of wells).
Since Wiggli teaches a necessity of placing contents of wells of microplates into another container, such as a microplate with smaller diameter wells (abstract), 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 the method of Conway to incorporate the teachings of transferring samples to a microplate with wells of a smaller diameter of Wiggli, which have different intervals between wells and different numbers of wells (Figs. 1-3; abstract; paragraphs [0006],[0034]-[0035],[0052]) and the Conway’s teaching of smaller well sizes allowing improved cell differentiation (paragraph [0059]) and dividing colonies into smaller aggregates (paragraph [0047]) to provide: wherein an interval between the culture recesses adjacent to each other and an interval between the pretreatment recesses adjacent to each other are different from each other. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving versatility of the method to transfer colonies to a microplate with a different amount of recesses and thus improving division of colonies and cell differentiation.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway in view of Ravkin and Haghgooie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lancaster (US 3568735 A).
Regarding claim 3, while Conway teaches guiding the pipette tip to a location closer to the bottom of the well (paragraph [0054]) and a gap between the tip of the pipette tip and the bottom of a well (Figs. 31, 32), Conway fails to teach: wherein an engaging portion is provided to block insertion of the needle shaped portion while forming a gap between a tip of the needle shaped portion inserted in the pretreatment recess and a bottom of the pretreatment recess, and the step of loading the cell groups into the needle shaped portions is performed in a state in which the engaging portion blocks insertion of the needle shaped portion.
Lancaster teaches a laboratory dispensing apparatus comprising a liquid reservoir and well assembly, and a microtitration plate carrier device (abstract), wherein the dispensing unit allows for liquid to be simultaneously and accurately picked up and dispensed from needles or pipettes (abstract). Lancaster teaches an engaging portion (Fig. 5, stop rods 130) is provided to block insertion of needle shaped portion (128) while forming a gap between a tip of the needle shaped portion inserted in a pretreatment recess and a bottom of the pretreatment recess (Fig. 5; column 4, lines 16-26). Lancaster teaches preventing the needle from contacting the bottom of the well when liquid is withdrawn into the needles (column 4, lines 16-26).
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 the method of Conway to incorporate the teachings of an engaging portion to prevent needles from contact the bottom of a well when liquid is withdrawn into the needles of Lancaster (Fig. 5; column 4, lines 16-26) and the teachings of guiding the pipette tip to a location closer to the bottom of the well and a gap between the tip of the pipette tip and the bottom of a well of Conway (paragraph [0054]; Figs. 31, 32) to provide: wherein an engaging portion is provided to block insertion of the needle shaped portion while forming a gap between a tip of the needle shaped portion inserted in the pretreatment recess and a bottom of the pretreatment recess, and the step of loading the cell groups into the needle shaped portions is performed in a state in which the engaging portion blocks insertion of the needle shaped portion. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving loading of the cell groups by preventing the needle to contact the bottom of the recess, thus allowing for a gap between the needle and the bottom to allow for fluid communication of the recess as taught by Lancaster (column 4, lines 16-26).
Regarding claim 9, while Conway teaches multi-well plates (paragraph [0028]) and visually analyzing the wells with imaging and light (paragraph [0044]), Conway fails to explicitly teach: wherein the pretreatment tray is transparent.
Lancaster teaches a carrier plate to support a transparent microtitration plate having a plurality of wells, which is generally constructed to known microtitration plates (column 3, lines 6-10).
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 the pretreatment tray of Conway to incorporate the teachings of transparent microtitration plates of Lancaster (column 3, lines 6-10) to provide: wherein the pretreatment tray is transparent. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving analyzing of the tray with imaging and light by utilizing known multi-well plates, e.g. transparent multi-well plates.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway in view of Ravkin and Haghgooie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fang et al. (US 20170342363 A1).
Regarding claim 4, while Conway teaches wells may be round, square, or other shapes (paragraph [0032]), differentiating stem cells into various cell and tissue types (paragraph [0027]), different columns of cells may be put to various uses (paragraph [0040]), protocols may require optimization to be adapted to different cell lines (paragraph [0041]), Conway fails to teach: wherein the pretreatment recess has a bottom shape different from that of the culture recess.
Fang teaches apparatuses, systems, and methods for culturing cells (abstract). Fang teaches bottom surface of each of the plurality of wells may be conducive to allowing cells to be cultured thereon or there-above, wherein the bottom surface may have a variety of different shapes and sizes (paragraphs [0030],[0195]). Fang teaches the combination of, for example, non-adherent wells, well geometry (e.g., size and shape), and/or gravity induce cells cultured in the wells to self-assemble into spheroids (paragraph [0011]). Fang teaches one or more of the wells are configured, based at least in part upon their defined size and shape, to grow a single spheroid of a defined size, and may expand to size limits imposed by the geometry of the wells in which they are cultured (paragraph [0166]).
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 the pretreatment recess and/or the culture recess of Conway to incorporate Fang’s teachings of bottom surfaces of wells having different shapes and sizes to be conducive to allow for cell culture (paragraphs [0030],[0195]) and well geometry allowing for cell culture to self-assemble (paragraph [0011]) and Conway’s teachings of differentiating stem cells into various cell and tissue types (paragraph [0027]), different columns of cells may be put to various uses (paragraph [0040]), and protocols requiring optimization to be adapted to different cell lines (paragraph [0041]), to provide: wherein the pretreatment recess has a bottom shape different from that of the culture recess. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving optimization of cell culturing of different cell lines when using cells in various uses.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway in view of Ravkin and Haghgooie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bovard et al. (US 20200339938 A1; effectively filed 08/31/2017).
Regarding claim 6, while Conway teaches multiwell plates with more wells having smaller well sizes has the advantage of most or all of the cells undergoing differentiation (paragraph [0059]), colonies may be divided into smaller aggregates (paragraph [0047]), differentiating stem cells into various cell and tissue types (paragraph [0027]), different columns of cells may be put to various uses (paragraph [0040]), protocols may require optimization to be adapted to different cell lines (paragraph [0041]), Conway fails to teach: wherein the culture recess has a depth different from that of the pretreatment recess.
Bovard teaches a cell culture plate comprising wells (abstract). Bovard teaches wells can have different depths (paragraphs [0166],[0203]). Bovard teaches different depths when a lung cell and a liver cell are used, the well containing the liver cell will be deeper as fluid needs to cover the lung spheroids, whilst in the well containing the lung cells, the fluid only needs to reach the bottom part of the insert (paragraph [0203]).
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 the pretreatment recess and/or the culture recess of Conway to incorporate Bovard’s teachings of wells having different depths for culturing different types of cells (paragraph [0203]) and Conway’s teachings of differentiating stem cells into various cell and tissue types (paragraph [0027]), different columns of cells may be put to various uses (paragraph [0040]), and protocols requiring optimization to be adapted to different cell lines (paragraph [0041]), to provide: wherein the culture recess has a depth different from that of the pretreatment recess. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving optimization of cell culturing of different cell lines when using cells in various uses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 06/11/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Conway et al. (US 20160177244 A1) in view of Ravkin et. (US 20030104494 A1) and Haghgooie et al. (US 20120277697 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vom et al. (US 20160017270 A1) teaches microwells are arranged in a circular pattern (paragraph [0084]).
Madsen et al. (US 20170044476 A1) teaches a culture dish holding one or more objects to be cultured (abstract). Madsen teaches wells are arranged along an arc of a circle (paragraph [0082]).
Nakayama et al. (US 20210116470 A1; effectively filed 07/14/2017) teaches a sample analyzing device (abstract), where recesses (Figs. 2-5, containers 2) are arranged in a partial annular configuration (Figs. 2-5).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758