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 1-13, in the reply filed on 10/10/2025 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)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/9/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The use of the terms "Teflon" and "Pluronic" (para. 0020, 0097), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended that "This application claims benefit to European Patent Application EP 22175853.5, filed May 27, 2022; which claims benefit to European Patent Application EP 21195867.3. filed September 10, 2021; said applications incorporated herein by reference" be added on page 1 after the Title.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “The present disclosure related to” is a phrase which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
I as the at least two culture medium reservoirs have a “bottom part” in claim 1, of which claim 3 depends from. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that "bottom of each of the at least two culture medium reservoirs" in line 2 read "bottom part of each of the at least two culture medium reservoirs" as the at least two culture medium reservoirs have a “bottom part” in claim 1, of which claim 4 depends from. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that "a second tilting angle" in line 2 should read "a first tilting angle". Claim 5 sets forth a second tilting angle, implying a first tilting angle, however neither claim 5 nor claim 1 (of which claim 5 depends from) define that a first tilting angle is present. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that "bottom of the corresponding culture medium reservoir" in lines 2-3 should read "bottom part of the corresponding culture medium reservoir" as the at least two culture medium reservoirs have a “bottom part” in claim 1, of which claim 5 depends from. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that "bottom of the at least one culture medium reservoir" in line 7 read "bottom part of the at least one culture medium reservoir" as the at least two culture medium reservoirs have a “bottom part” in claim 1, of which claim 7 depends from. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that “being made of” in line 2 should read “is made of”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that “and similar chained polymers” in line 2 should read “or similar chained polymers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that “comprising” in line 2 should read “comprises”. 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-1 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 1 recites the limitation "the bottom part of the at least two culture medium reservoirs" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the bottom part” is referring to a bottom part of one of the culture medium reservoirs or a bottom part of each culture reservoir.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the bottom of each of the at least two culture medium reservoirs continue as the holding member” in lines 1-2 and “the outlet” in line 3. Regarding “continue as”, the meaning of this limitation in the claim is unclear. Regarding “the outlet”, it is unclear whether this limitation is referring to the outlet in only one of the at least two culture medium reservoirs or the outlet in each of the at least two culture medium reservoirs.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “overflow cavity” in line 2. The claim refers to both a “culture medium reservoir” and an “overflow cavity” as two different structures. However, the specification and the drawings describe/show these features as one and the same component. Para. 0086 describes an overflow cavity as between the holding member 240 and the bottom of the culture medium reservoir 202, 204, outside the holding member 240 and inside the culture medium reservoir 202, 204. Fig. 2A shows overflow cavity 244 as the inner space of the culture media reservoirs 202, 204, not as a different structure. Thus, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the cells in the culture medium" in line 10, “one of the bottom of at least one of the first chamber and the second chamber, reservoir, the at least one flow channel, and the culture medium” in line 11, and “reservoir” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Regarding “one of the bottom of at least one of the first chamber and the second chamber, reservoir, the at least one flow channel, and the culture medium” it is unclear whether the cells in the culture medium will settle to the bottom of all of these structures or to only one of these structures. Regarding “reservoir”, it is unclear whether this limitation refers to only one of the at least two culture medium reservoirs, more than one of the at least two culture medium reservoirs, or another structure.
Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus, but contains method step limitations: “calculated by dividing amount of the culture medium by the injection rate”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP § 2173.05(p)).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “from inside” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by “from inside”.
Claim 11 contains the trademarks/trade names "Teflon" and "Pluronic". Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademarks or trade names cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademarks/trade names are used to identify/describe polytetrafluoroethylene and poloxamer, respectively, and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0171889 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus (abstract “culturing cells in the microfluidic device”) comprising: a plurality of cell culture modules arranged adjacent to each other (Fig. 14), each cell culture module of the plurality of cell culture modules comprising:
at least two culture medium reservoirs (Fig. 2 280 first fluid reservoir, 290 second fluid reservoir) each having a top part and a bottom part, the top part having an inlet for a culture medium (Fig. 2 top of 280, 290) and the bottom part having an outlet for the culture medium (Fig. 2 280 first fluid reservoir connected to 260 seventh passage channel at the bottom, 290 second fluid reservoir connected to 270 eighth passage channel at the bottom);
a first chamber arranged between the at least two culture medium reservoirs such that the first chamber and the at least two culture medium reservoirs are aligned with each other in a first direction (Fig. 2 110 first central channel);
a second chamber arranged under the first chamber and aligned with the first chamber in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 2 210 second central channel), the second chamber having a bottom part having at least two lateral holes (Fig. 2 210 second central channel connected to 240 fifth passage channel and 250 sixth passage channel at the bottom), the bottom part of the second chamber being arranged higher than the bottom part of each of the at least two culture medium reservoirs (Fig. 2);
a membrane having through pores formed therein, the membrane being arranged between the first chamber and the second chamber such that the first chamber and the second chamber are in flow communication with each other via the through pores (Fig. 2 300 porous membrane); and
at least two flow channels each connecting the outlet of the bottom part of one of the at least two culture medium reservoirs to one of the at least two lateral holes of the bottom part of the second chamber (Fig. 2 260 seventh passage channel connected to 220 third side channel connected to 240 fifth passage channel, 270 eighth passage channel connected to 230 fourth side channel connected to 250 sixth passage channel); and
a flow driving unit configured to cause the culture medium to flow (para. 0112 “connecting an external pump”; para. 0166 “syringe pump”), in each cell culture module of the plurality of cell culture modules, between the at least two culture medium reservoirs via the at least two flow channels and the second chamber, wherein the bottom part of the at least two culture medium reservoirs comprise a holding member capable of being compatible with a liquid handling system (Fig. 2 400 bottom part).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus wherein the bottom of each of the at least two culture medium reservoirs continue as the holding member (Fig. 2 400 bottom part) and a top edge of the holding member comprises the outlet for the culture medium (Fig. 2 280 first fluid reservoir connected to 260 seventh passage channel at the bottom and 290 second fluid reservoir connected to 270 eighth passage channel at the bottom are on the top edge of 400 bottom part), wherein the outlet for the culture medium is capable of receiving at least part of the liquid handling system (para. 0132 “injecting a second fluid into the first fluid reservoir”).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus wherein the outlet for the culture medium is capable of receiving at least part of the liquid handling system (para. 0132 “injecting a second fluid into the first fluid reservoir”) and the culture medium is configured to be directed through the outlet to at least one of the at least two flow channels (Fig. 2 280 first fluid reservoir connected to 260 seventh passage channel, 290 second fluid reservoir connected to 270 eighth passage channel at the bottom).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus wherein at least one culture medium reservoir of the at least two culture medium reservoirs comprises an overflow cavity between the holding member and the bottom of the at least one culture medium reservoir (Fig. 2 inner volume of 280 first fluid reservoir, 290 second fluid reservoir).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus wherein the culture medium is configured to be injected through the outlet to at least one flow channel of the at least two flow channels (Fig. 2 280 first fluid reservoir connected to 260 seventh passage channel, 290 second fluid reservoir connected to 270 eighth passage channel), wherein an injection rate for the culture medium from the outlet for the culture medium to the at least one flow channel is capable of being smaller than a maximum viable cell flow rate and larger than a cell settling rate (para. 0135 “flow rate of the second fluid is maintained at 1 to 100 μl/h”), wherein the injection rate is the speed of cell suspensions being injected into the at least one flow channel, wherein the maximum viable cell flow rate is the maximum speed of cell suspension or culture medium flows at which cells will be damaged or dead if exceeded, and wherein the cell settling rate is a speed at which the cells in the culture medium will settle to at least one of the bottom of at least one of the first chamber and the second chamber, reservoir, the at least one flow channel, and the culture medium.
Regarding the limitations for the flow rate, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Kim et al. would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to maintain a flow rate of 1-100 μl/h and would be structurally capable of being smaller than a maximum viable cell flow rate and larger than a cell settling rate absent clear evidence otherwise.
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus wherein an optimal injection time is capable of being calculated by dividing amount of the culture medium by the injection rate (para. 0166-0167).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus wherein each cell culture module of the plurality of cell culture modules comprising a cavity at least under the bottom part of the second chamber (Fig. 2 bottom of 210 second central channel opens to 240 fifth passage channel and 250 sixth passage channel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0171889 A1) in view of Ekeroth (US 2017/0166853 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus comprising a holding member (Fig. 2 400 bottom part), but does not teach wherein the holding member has a truncated cone shape.
However, Ekeroth teaches a cell culture assembly with a cone-shaped bottom part (Fig. 3b) that allows the top and bottom components to properly fit on top of each other much easier and reduces defects (para. 0055).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Ekeroth configuration of a cone-shaped bottom in Kim et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow the top and bottom components to properly fit on top of each other much easier and reduce defects. This method for improving Kim et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ekeroth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim et al. and Ekeroth to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus wherein the holding member has a bottom edge at the bottom of each of the at least two culture medium reservoirs (Fig. 2 the bottom of 280 first fluid reservoir and 290 second fluid reservoir are on 400 bottom part), but does not teach wherein the bottom edge of the holding member has a larger diameter, and the top edge of the holding member has a smaller diameter.
However, Ekeroth teaches a cell culture assembly with a cone-shaped bottom part (Fig. 3b) that allows the top and bottom components to properly fit on top of each other much easier and reduces defects (para. 0055).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Ekeroth configuration of a cone-shaped bottom in Kim et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow the top and bottom components to properly fit on top of each other much easier and reduce defects. This method for improving Kim et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ekeroth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim et al. and Ekeroth to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus comprising a holding member (Fig. 2 400 bottom part), but does not teach wherein a side of the holding member extends at a tilting angle to the first direction starting at the bottom of the corresponding culture medium reservoir.
However, Ekeroth teaches a cell culture assembly with a cone-shaped bottom part (Fig. 3b) that allows the top and bottom components to properly fit on top of each other much easier and reduces defects (para. 0055).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Ekeroth configuration of a cone-shaped bottom in Kim et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow the top and bottom components to properly fit on top of each other much easier and reducesdefects. This method for improving Kim et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ekeroth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim et al. and Ekeroth to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0171889 A1) in view of Rogers et al. (WO 2020/081740 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus, but does not teach wherein at least part of at least one of the following is coated, from inside, with a cell repellent layer: at least one flow channel, at least one culture medium reservoir, and at least one of the first chamber and the second chamber in at least one cell culture module of the plurality of cell culture modules. However, Rogers et al. teaches a tissue culture platform with a hydrophobic coating (para. 0081). Rogers et al. teaches that hydrophobicity prevents media from being absorbed or adsorbed into the components of the tissue culture platform (para. 0079).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Rogers et al. configuration of a hydrophobic coating in Kim et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would prevent media from being absorbed or adsorbed into the components of the cell culture apparatus. This method for improving Kim et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Rogers et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim et al. and Rogers et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus wherein the cell repellent layer being made of at least one of the following material: Teflon, Pluronic, PEG, and similar chained polymers. However, Rogers et al. teaches a tissue culture platform with a polytetrafluoroethylene coating (para. 0081). Rogers et al. teaches that hydrophobicity prevents media from being absorbed or adsorbed into the components of the tissue culture platform (para. 0079).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Rogers et al. configuration of a polytetrafluoroethylene coating in Kim et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would prevent media from being absorbed or adsorbed into the components of the cell culture apparatus. This method for improving Kim et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Rogers et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim et al. and Rogers et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0171889 A1) in view of Nawroth et al. (US 2021/0062129 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. teaches a cell culture apparatus wherein the bottom part of the second chamber and at least part of each of the at least two flow channels form the cavity (Fig. 2 bottom of 210 second central channel opens to 240 fifth passage channel which is connected to 220 third side channel connected to 260 seventh passage channel and 250 sixth passage channel which is connected to 230 fourth side channel connected to 270 eighth passage channel), but does not teach each of the at least two flow channels extend at least partly at a tilting angle to the first direction.
However, Nawroth et al. teaches a microfluidic device comprising angled channels (Fig. 1B; para. 0509). Nawroth et al. teaches that non-linear channels increase the ratio of culture area to device area and provide a larger surface area for cells to grow (para. 0509).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Nawroth et al. configuration of angled channels in Kim et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would increase the ratio of culture area to device area and provide a larger surface area for cells to grow. This method for improving Kim et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Nawroth et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim et al. and Nawroth et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/690,724 (reference application) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0171889 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the reference application recites the same subject matter verbatim except for “wherein a bottom part of the at least two culture medium reservoirs comprise a holding member configured to be compatible with a liquid handling system”. However, Kim et al. teaches a holding member (Fig. 2 400 bottom part) to attach to the lower end of the base of the device (para. 0139). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Kim et al. configuration of a holding member/bottom part in the reference application’s device based on the teachings of Kim et al.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/930,981 (reference application) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0171889 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the reference application recites the same subject matter verbatim except for “wherein a bottom part of the at least two culture medium reservoirs comprise a holding member configured to be compatible with a liquid handling system”. However, Kim et al. teaches a holding member (Fig. 2 400 bottom part) to attach to the lower end of the base of the device (para. 0139). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Kim et al. configuration of a holding member/bottom part in the reference application’s device based on the teachings of Kim et al.
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 of the reference application recites the same subject matter verbatim except for “wherein a bottom part of the at least two culture medium reservoirs comprise a holding member configured to be compatible with a liquid handling system”. However, Kim et al. teaches a holding member (Fig. 2 400 bottom part) to attach to the lower end of the base of the device (para. 0139). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Kim et al. configuration of a holding member/bottom part in the reference application’s device based on the teachings of Kim et al.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Bennett et al. (US 11,441,121) discloses a perfusion plate apparatus including channels connecting reservoirs and a porous membrane in a chamber located between the reservoirs; Mohapatra et al. (US 11,198,842) discloses a microfluidic device including a well with a porous membrane between an inlet and outlet chamber; Horst et al. (US 2020/0024563 A1) discloses a cell culture apparatus including reservoirs connected by channels with wells between them.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA whose telephone number is (703)756-5517. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799