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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10 and 13, in the reply filed on 09/17/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim s 11-12 and 14-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/17/2025 . Claim Objections Claim s 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 line 11 change “of first media inlet” to “of the first media inlet”. In claim 1 line 23 change “adjacent passageway” to “adjacent the passageway”. In claim 9 change “a first type of cells” to “the first type of cells”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 9 -10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites the limitation " the first media…and the second media " in lines 1-2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. None of the base claims from which claim 9 depends provide antecedent basis for a first media or a second media. Claim 10 recites the limitation " the media conditioned by the first type of cells " in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8, from which claim 10 depends, recites a first media but does not recite that the media is conditioned by a first type of cells. Claim 1 3 recites the limitation " the lower surface of the cap " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. None of the base claims from which claim 13 depends provide antecedent basis for a cap having a lower surface. 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. Claim s 1 -5, 7-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020 / 0385664 ) in view of Ingber et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016 / 0313306 ) (already of record). Regarding claim 1, Oba et al. discloses an apparatus (Abstract) comprising: a first plate (12) having an upper surface, a lower surface, a proximal end, and a distal end (para. 60) (Fig. 2, sheet 2 of 5) ; a second plate (14) having an upper surface, a proximal end, and a distal end (para. 60) (Fig. 2, sheet 2 of 5) , the upper surface of the second plate configured for placement adjacent to the lower surface of the first plate (para. 74) (Figs. 2 and 6, sheets 2 and 4 of 5); a first media channel (18) (para. 65, 116, 180) disposed in the first pla t e (para. 65), the first media channel (18) having a flow direction from the proximal end to the distal end of the first plate (para. 65) (Fig. 2, sheet 2 of 5), the first media channel comprising: a first media inlet port in the upper surface of the first plate (see upper portion of through-hole 22A in upper surface of first plate 12) (para. 65) (Fig. 2, sheet 2 of 5), an upper compartment (20C) downstream of the first media inlet in the flow direction (para. 65) (Fig. 2, sheet 2 of 5), a membrane (30) downstream of the first media inlet in the flow direction and provided in a passageway extending through the lower surface of the first plate (para. 65, 74) ( Figs. 2 and 6, sheets 2 and 4 of 5); and a first media outlet in the upper surface of the first plate downstream of the membrane in the flow direction (see upper portion of through-hole 22B in upper surface of first plate 12) (para. 65) (Fig. 2, sheet 2 of 5); and a second media channel (24) (para. 6 7 , 116, 180) disposed in the second plate (para. 67), the second media channel having a flow direction from the proximal end to the distal end of the second plate (para. 67) (Fig. 2, sheet 2 of 5), the second media channel comprising: a second media inlet (26A) in the upper surface of the second plate (para. 68) (Fig. 2, sheet 2 of 5), a lower compartment (26C) extending through the upper surface of the second plate downstream of the second media inlet in the flow direction (para. 68) (Fig. 2 , sheet 2 of 5) and configured for placement adjacent the passageway of the membrane of the first media channel (para. 68, 74) (Figs. 2 and 6, sheets 2 and 4 of 5) , and a second media outlet (26B) in the upper surface of the second plate downstream of the lower compartment (para. 68) (Fig. 2, sheet 2 of 5). Oba et al. is silent as to the membrane being removable. However, Oba et al. discloses that in operation of the apparatus, cells are seeded on the membrane and cultured in the apparatus for experimental purposes (e.g., to model an organ) (para. 11-101) Ingber et al. disclose s an apparatus comprising two channels separated by a membrane (Abstract) wherein cells are seeded on the membrane (para. 35) to model the microenvironment of an organ (Abstract). Ingber et al. further discloses wherein the membrane is removable, thereby allowing the membrane to be removed for analy sis including off-device analysis of cells (para. 236-237). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Oba et al. such that the membrane is removable, as Ingber et al. discloses that it was known in the art to make the membrane component of such an apparatus removable to allow for off-device analysis of the membrane and cells thereon, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to enhance the experimental utility of the apparatus by making the membrane removable for inspection and analysis thereof. Regarding claim 2, Oba et al. discloses the first media channel and the second media channel, as set forth above. Oba et al. discloses that the first and second media channels define a region where cells are cultured to model an organ (para. 41-42, 101-103). Oba et al. is silent as to the apparatus comprising two first media channels and two second media channels. Nonetheless, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04). Modifying the apparatus disclosed by Oba et al. to comprise two first media channels and two second media channels would require mere duplication of the first and second media channels already disclosed by Oba et al., and would result in the predictable outcome of allowing a greater number and/or variety of cells to be cultured on the apparatus. Regarding claim 3, Oba et al. discloses a second media inlet aperture (28A) and a second media outlet aperture (28B) (para. 71), the second media inlet aperture configured for placement adjacent the second media inlet of the second plate and the second media outlet aperture configured for placement adjacent the second media outlet of the second plate (para. 71). Regarding claim 4, Oba et al. discloses a cap ( 38A) having a lower surface (para. 111, 152) (Figs. 2 and 6, sheets 2 and 4 of 5), a first media inlet aperture (42A) (para. 115), and a first media outlet aperture (42B) (para. 115), the lower surface of the cap configured for placement adjacent the upper surface of the first plate (12) (para. 111, 152) (Figs. 2 and 6, sheets 2 and 4 of 5), the first media inlet aperture (42A) configured for placement adjacent the first media inlet of the first plate (para. 115) (Figs. 2 and 6, sheets 2 and 4 of 5), the first media outlet aperture (42B) configured for placement adjacent the first media outlet of the first plate (Figs. 2 and 6, sheets 2 and 4 of 5) . Regarding claim 5 , Oba et al. discloses wherein the lower surface of the cap covers the first media channel from the first media inlet to the first media outlet (para. 152) (Figs. 2 and 6, sheets 2 and 4 of 5). Regarding claim 7, Oba et al. discloses wherein the membrane includes one type of cells on a first side and another type of cells on the second side (para. 108-109), and Oba et al. in view of Ingber et al. teaches the membrane being removable as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. Oba et al. is silent as to wherein the upper compartment is populated with yet another type of cells. However, this limitation represents a recitation of intended use of the device. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Oba et al. discloses wherein the upper compartment is fully capable of being populated with cells (para. 5, 181-182), and therefore the device taught by the prior art is fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use. Regarding claim 8, Oba et al. discloses wherein the apparatus includes a first media that is circulated through the first media channel (para. 116, 180) and a second media that is circulated through the second media channel (para. 116, 180). Regarding claim 9, Oba et al. discloses the first and second media channels, as set forth above. Oba et al. does not expressly teach wherein the first media includes media conditioned by a first type of cells and the second media includes a fourth type of cells . However, this limitation represent s a recitation of intended use of the device. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Oba et al. discloses wherein each of the first and second media channels allows a media to flow therethrough (para. 116, 180), and therefore the channels are fully capable of flowing media conditioned by a first type of cells and media including a fourth type of cells. Regarding claim 10 , Oba et al. discloses the first and second media channels and Oba et al. in view of Ingber et al. teaches the membrane being removable as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. Oba et al. further discloses wherein the membrane is exposed to media flowing through the first media channel such that components of media flowing through the first media channel can pass through the membrane into the second media channel (para. 88, 116, 180). Oba et al. does not expressly teach wherein the membrane is exposed to media conditioned by a first type of cells and allows cytokine diffusion through the membrane and into second media in the second media channel. However, this limitation represents a recitation of intended use of the device. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Oba et al. discloses wherein each of the first and second media channels allows a media to flow therethrough such that media components can diffuse through the membrane into the second media channel, as discussed above, and Oba et al. specifically discloses that the membrane allows components such as red blood cells to pass through (para. 89); therefore, the apparatus taught by the prior art is fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use of wherein the membrane is exposed to media conditioned by a first type of cells and allows cytokine diffusion through the membrane and into second media in the second media channel. Regarding claim 13 , Oba et al. discloses a cap (38A) having a lower surface (para. 111, 152) (Figs. 2 and 6, sheets 2 and 4 of 5 ) wherein the lower surface of the cap covers the first media channel from the first media inlet to the first media outlet (para. 111, 152) (Figs. 2 and 6, sheets 2 and 4 of 5) . Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020 / 0385664 ) in view of Ingber et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016 / 0313306 ) (already of record) , as applied to claim 4, above, and in further view of Stevens (US Patent 5 , 484 , 731 ). Regarding claim 6, Oba et al. discloses the cap for covering the first plate, as set forth above. Oba et al. further discloses using bolts to fasten the cap to the first plate (para. 154). Oba et al. is silent as to wherein the first plate includes a detent and the cap includes an extension that is complementary to the detent and configured for placement in the detent. Stevens discloses a cell culture device (Abstract) comprising a plate including a compartment wherein cells are cultured and a lid for covering the plate (col. 3 lines 28-50) (Figs. 1 and 4, sheets 1 and 2 of 2). Stevens further discloses wherein the plate includes a detent (59) and the lid includes an extension (called projection) (60) that is complementary to the detent and configured for placement in the detent for fastening the lid to the plate (col. 4 lines 25-40) (Fig. 4, sheet 2 of 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first plate and cap disclosed by Oba et al. to comprise a detent and complementary extension, respectively, as such a modification represents simple substitution of one known element for anothe r to obtain predictable results (MPEP § 2143) , in this case substituting a detent/extension mechanism for the bolt mechanism disclosed by Oba et al. in order to fasten the lid to the plate. Citation of Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bigliardi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019 / 0177678 ) is directed to a cap for a cell culture device comprising two channels separated by a membrane. Agarwal et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018 / 0291322 ) is directed to a cell culture device comprising two channels separated by a membrane configured to allow diffusion of components across the membrane. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0658 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8.30-5PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Marcheschi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721374 . 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. /HOLLY KIPOUROS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799