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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to 112 2nd rejections, 102, and 103 prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 2nd rejections, 102, and 103 prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CN202643694, Tyndorf (US5882922), Shumate (US6825042), and Egeler (US20100067105).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble indicates, “A cell culture vessel…” 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 1-10 recites the limitation "the dew condensation of the cell culture vessel to obtain a clean image in Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims are included in this rejection.
Claim 14 is 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 14 is directed to a method of manufacturing a cell culture vessel, but the steps and body of the claim are directed to applying a coating to a cell culture vessel cover, not the vessel itself. It is unclear what is being claimed with the method and how the steps directed to the cover is producing the vessel.
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 & 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN202643694 in view of Tyndorf (US5882922) and Shumate (US6825042). The machine translation is referred to in the prior art rejection for CN202643694.
Regarding Claim 1 & 7-10, CN202643694 discloses the cell culture vessel characterized by comprising a culture solution receiving part having a bottom surface and a side wall part to receive a cell culture solution (See Figure Item 1 the cell culture receiving part and it has a side wall part to receive a cell culture solution); a cover for covering the cell culture vessel body having the culture solution receiving part (See Figure Item 2 lid) wherein a hygroscopic polymer is provided on an inner lower surface of a transparent cover facing the cell culture vessel, and the hygroscopic polymer absorbs the dew condensation of the cell culture vessel to obtain a clean image (See Figure Item 3 acrylic copolymer resin; Acrylic copolymer resins are also classified as hygroscopic. The anti-fog feature is interpreted as absorbing the dew condensation of the cell culture vessel to obtain a clean image).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CN202643694 does not disclose that the lid is transparent.
Tyndorf discloses cell culture vessel where the lid is made out of a transparent material (See Column 2 lines 5-7; optically clear plastic). Shumate also discloses a cell culture lid for a cell culture vessel, that is made of transparent materials (See Column 3 lines 13-20 polystyrene, cycloolefin, glass, or quartz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the lid of CN202643694 out of a transparent material because according to Tyndorf, this would allow viewing inside of the cell culture vessel (See Column 2 lines 5-8) and because Shumate indicates these materials lend themselves to mass manufacturing techniques (See Shumate Column 3 lines 14-21).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 7: The cell culture vessel according to Claim 1, the cell culture vessel according to characterized in that the hygroscopic polymer is manufactured in the form of an adhesive type droplet absorption coating film and is attached to the lower surface of the cell culture vessel cover (this is a product by process claim limitation. CN202643694 discloses the hygroscopic absorption coating film).
Claim 8: The cell culture vessel according to Claim 7, characterized in that a coating thickness of the hygroscopic polymer manufactured in the form of the adhesive film is 1 um to 2 mm (See CN202643694; the coating thickness is 0.01 – 0.2 mm).
Claim 9: The cell culture vessel according to Claim 1, characterized in that the hygroscopic polymer is coated on a lower surface of a cover of the cell culture vessel (See Figure of CN202643694; which discloses the hygroscopic polymer is coated on a lower surface of a cover of the cell culture vessel).
Claim 10: The cell culture vessel according to Claim 9 characterized in that the coating thickness of the hygroscopic polymer coated on the lower surface of the cover of the cell culture vessel is 1 um to 2 mm (See CN202643694; the coating thickness is 0.01 – 0.2 mm).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN202643694 in view of Tyndorf (US5882922) and Shumate (US6825042) and in further view of Taro (JP2012200178) The machine translations are referred to in the prior art rejection for CN202643694 and Taro.
Applicant’s claim is directed to a method.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of CN202643694 in view of Tyndorf and Shumate disclose the method of manufacturing a cell culture vessel comprising a first step of adding a hygroscopic polymer on a lower surface of a cell culture vessel cover; wherein the hygroscopic polymer absorbs dew condensation of the cell culture vessel to obtain a clean image (See prior art rejection above for citations to the claim limitations). The combination of CN202643694 in view of Tyndorf and Shumate does not disclose that the first step is coating the hygroscopic polymer and second step is solidifying the coated hygroscopic polymer.
Taro discloses applying coatings of hygroscopic polymers to the lid of cell culture vessels in which the coating is applied as a coating and then is dried (See Taro, Top pf Page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have applied the hygroscopic coating of Taro to the lid of the combination of CN202643694 in view of Tyndorf and Shumate since this is one of the ways to apply hygroscopic polymer resins to the underneath of cell culture lids.
Claim(s) 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN202643694 in view of Tyndorf (US5882922) and Shumate (US6825042) and in further view of Egeler (US20100067105). The machine translations are referred to in the prior art rejection for CN202643694.
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of CN202643694 in view of Tyndorf and Shumate discloses the cell culture vessel of Claim 1. The combination does not disclose that the cell culture vessel according to characterized in that a first side wall part having a shape extending upward in a straight line from the edge of the bottom surface, and a second side wall part extending upward in a state inclined at a certain angle outward from the end of the first side wall part.
Egeler discloses a cell culture vessel in which a first side wall part having a shape extending upward in a straight line from the edge of the bottom surface, and a second side wall part extending upward in a state inclined at a certain angle outward from the end of the first side wall part (See Figures and embodiments, in particular Figure 4). Egeler also discloses that when a wall part is at an angle as disclosed in the Egeler reference, then the meniscus magnitude be reduced due to the compensation of the contact angle (See [0067]), and therefore provide increased abilities to image with biological applications (See [0007).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 3: The combination of CN202643694, Tyndorf, Shumate, and Egeler, disclose the cell culture vessel according to Claim 1, characterized in that the side wall part has a certain angle upwardly from the edge of the bottom surface in an outward direction, which reduces meniscus phenomenon on the liquid surface of the cell culture solution (See Rejection for Claim 2 above).
Claim 4: The combination of CN202643694, Tyndorf, Shumate, and Egeler, discloses the cell culture vessel according to Claim 2, characterized in that the angle is 20 to 50 degrees (See Egeler [0067]).
Claim 5: The combination of CN202643694, Tyndorf, Shumate, and Egeler, discloses the cell culture vessel according to Claim 3: characterized in that the angle is 20 to 50 degrees (See Egeler [0067]).
Claim 6: The combination of CN202643694, Tyndorf, Shumate, and Egeler, discloses the cell culture vessel according to Claim 2: characterized in that a water surface of the cell culture solution is located the second side wall part (See Egeler Figure 4 and [0067]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY RAMDHANIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights