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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/08/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted on:
02/24/2023
10/03/2025
12/17/2025
Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding the specification, in paragraph [0005], penultimate line, the term “tiled” should be “tilted”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in the last line of the claim, the phrase “the cell culture apparatus” should be “the multi-layer cell culture apparatus”.
Regarding claim 9, in the last line of the claim, the phrase “both interfaces” could be “both of the interfaces”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 | 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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sugiyama (JP 2015223138) (machine translation) (previously cited) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sugiyama (JP 2015223138) (machine translation) (previously cited) in view of Kitayama (JP 2017176140) (machine translation) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama discloses a multi-position support (abstract, paragraph [0001], and Figs. 5a-5b) for a multi-layer cell culture apparatus (paragraph [0001] “culture medium containers”; Fig. 4), the multi-position support comprising:
a primary base (paragraph [0045]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 10 “first base plate portion”) that rests against a support member (paragraph [0045]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 2 “placement portion”) in an upright configuration (Fig. 5a);
a support surface (paragraph [0045]; Fig. 5a-5b, element 11 “top plate portion”) that is offset vertically from the primary base (paragraph [0045]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 10 “first base plate portion”) in the upright configuration (Fig. 5a), the support surface supporting the multi-layer cell culture apparatus (paragraph [0001] “culture medium containers”; Fig. 4) with the multi-layer cell culture apparatus located thereon (Figs. 5a-5b); and
an intermediate surface (paragraph [0040]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 12 and 13; respectively, “second base plate portion” and “inclined holding plate portion”) that extends between the primary base (paragraph [0045]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 10 “first base plate portion”) and the support surface (paragraph [0045]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 11 “top plate portion”), wherein the intermediate surface meets the primary base at an interface that extends at an oblique angle to sides of the primary base (paragraph [0024]; Figs. 5a-5b, pivot point about elements 10 and 12);
wherein the multi-position support (abstract, paragraph [0001], and Figs. 5a-5b) has a tilted configuration (paragraph [0015]; Fig. 5b) where the multi-position support is rotated about the interface (paragraph [0047]; Fig. 5a-5b, pivot point about elements 10 and 12) such that the support surface (paragraph [0045]; Fig. 5a-5b, element 11 “top plate portion”) is closer to the support member (paragraph [0045]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 2 “placement portion”) than in the upright configuration (paragraph [0015]; Fig. 5a) with the support surface (paragraph [0045]; Fig. 5a-5b, element 11 “top plate portion”) supporting the multi-layer cell culture apparatus thereon (paragraph [0001] “culture medium containers”; Fig. 4); and
wherein the multi-position support (abstract, paragraph [0001], and Figs. 5a-5b) is tiltable (abstract, paragraph [0015]) between the upright configuration (paragraph [0015]; Fig. 5a) and the tilted configuration (paragraph [0015]; Fig. 5b) by rotating the multi-position support about the interface (paragraph [0047]; Fig. 5a-5b, pivot point about elements 10 and 12) to position the cell culture apparatus (paragraph [0001] “culture medium containers”; Fig. 4) at different angular orientations relative to horizontal (paragraph [0015]; Figs. 5a-5b).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sugiyama, Fig. 5
If it is deemed that the term “multi-layer cell culture apparatus” is not disclosed by Sugiyama, Kitayama discloses this term (paragraphs [0021]-[0023] and [0039]; Fig. 7, element 30 “substrate”).
PNG
media_image2.png
168
272
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kitayama, Fig. 7
In the analogous art of cell culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Sugiyama with the multi-layer cell culture apparatus of Kitayama in order to culture adherent cells on multiple layers of cell culture substrates for larger total production of the adherent cells.
Regarding claim 8, Sugiyama discloses wherein the support surface (paragraph [0045]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 11 “top plate portion”) meets the intermediate surface (paragraph [0040]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 12 and 13; respectively, “second base plate portion” and “inclined holding plate portion”) at another interface (Figs. 5a-5b, point between elements 12 and 13) that is at an oblique angle to sides of the primary base (paragraph [0045]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 10 “first base plate portion”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (JP 2015223138) (machine translation) (previously cited) as applied to claim 1 or, in the alternative, under Sugiyama (JP 2015223138) (machine translation) (previously cited) in view of Kitayama (JP 2017176140) (machine translation) (newly cited) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Sugiyama discloses a primary base (paragraph [0045]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 10 “first base plate portion”) that rests against a support member (paragraph [0045]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 2 “placement portion”) in an upright configuration (Fig. 5a).
Sugiyama does not disclose a secondary base that rests against a support member in an upright configuration.
However, this secondary base is an obvious duplication of parts. Regarding the limitation, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sugiyama with a secondary base in order to better stabilize the primary base if different size containers were to be held in an upright or tilted manner by the multi-position support.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (JP 2015223138) (machine translation) (previously cited) as applied to claim 8 or, in the alternative, under Sugiyama (JP 2015223138) (machine translation) (previously cited) in view of Kitayama (JP 2017176140) (machine translation) (newly cited) as applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Sugiyama does not disclose wherein the oblique angles of both interfaces to the sides of the primary base are about the same.
Regarding the limitation “the oblique angles”, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the oblique angle of Sugiyama with another oblique angle that is about the same in order to help stack multiple instances of the device together using less space (Sugiyama, paragraph [0048]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, Sugiyama discloses the support surface (paragraph [0045]; Fig. 5a-5b, element 11 “top plate portion”) and a primary base (paragraph [0045]; Figs. 5a-5b, element 10 “first base plate portion”).
Sugiyama does not disclose wherein the support surface is a first support surface, the multi-position support further comprising a second support surface located between the primary base and the secondary base, the second support surface supporting the multi-layer cell culture apparatus with the multi-layer cell culture apparatus located thereon.
Regarding the undisclosed feature, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the undisclosed feature within the claim environment.
Regarding the dependent claims 4-7, these claims are allowed for the same reason as the base claim upon which they depend.
Additional Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Zhu (CN 106423354) (machine translation) (newly cited) – This invention is a test tube rack that can be inclined from the horizontal plane to form a certain angle.
Huang (CN 202983738) (machine translation) (newly cited) – This invention is a test tube rack that can be inclined from the horizontal plane to form a certain angle.
Li (CN 202983740) (machine translation) (newly cited) – This invention is a test tube stand capable of adjusting to an inclined degree.
(GB 1205480) (newly cited) – This invention is a test tube stand that can be held upright at an angle.
Seelye (US 2917183) (newly cited) – This invention is a test tube holder that can be placed on its side.
He (CN 105950439) (newly cited) – This invention is an adjustable tube culture frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN G ESPERON whose telephone number is 571-272-9807. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am - 6 pm every other 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, 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.
/N.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1799\
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights