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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US Patent 6,642,019) as set forth in the prior Office Action, Applicant has argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the filter element (36) disclosed by Anderson et al. as reading on the claimed conduit. The Examiner notes that claim 1 as currently worded does not positively recite that the system comprises the conduit; rather, the conduit is recited in terms of intended use of the first port and the second port (“configured to receive opposing ends of a conduit”). The first and second ports are clearly fully capable of receiving opposing ends of a conduit as they receive opposing ends of the filter 36, as set forth in the prior Office Actions, and therefore the Examiner maintain the previous rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Poo et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0121437), Applicant has argued that Poo et al. does not anticipate the feature of wherein the first port and the second port are configured to receive the opposing ends of a conduit. Applicant initially notes that the “configured to receive” limitation imparts structure defining the configuration of the ports themselves, and the Examiner agrees with this assessment. However, the Examiner asserts that Poo et al. does in fact meet this limitation because Poo et al. discloses wherein each port can have a fitting connecting to a conduit (see para. 36 and 42, cited in the prior Office Action), and therefore each port is clearly capable of receiving opposing ends of a conduit. As to Applicant’s argument that there is no disclosure of a port configured to receive an end of a conduit that traverses the inner volume of a chamber, this argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 as currently worded.
The claim amendments have overcome the prior Claim Objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The Examiner maintains that the noted limitations within each of claims 8 and 14 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see pp. 3-5 of the prior Office Action) as they meet the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181 in each case; although the specification discloses sufficient structure for each limitation, the generic placeholders within the claims themselves are not modified by sufficient structure. The 112(f) interpretation for claim 9 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claim.
The claim amendments have necessitated a modified grounds of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
elements for flowing material into and out of the inner volume of the tissue culture vessel in claim 8; and
mechanical components configured to rotate such that the tissue culture vessel inner volume experiences a state of reduced gravity or weightlessness in claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US Patent 6,642,019) (already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson et al. discloses a tissue culture system (Abstract), comprising:
a spherical tissue culture vessel (Abstract, col. 5 lines 65-67), comprising:
an inner volume having “substantially spherical” geometry lacking corners, edges, flat planes, and protrusions (Abstract, col. 2 lines 24-44, col. 8 lines 1-5) (Fig. 6, sheet 4 of 16); and
two or more ports accessing the inner volume (col. 8 lines 19-38) (Fig. 6, sheet 4 of 16), wherein the two or more ports comprises a first port and a second port (col. 8 lines 19-38) (Fig. 6, sheet 4 of 16), and wherein the first port and the second port are configured to receive opposing ends of a conduit (filter 36 reads on such a conduit as it comprises opposing ends received in each of first and second ports 18, see col. 6 lines 18-21 and Fig. 6, sheet 4 of 16; specifically, fluid is configured to enter the filter from one opposing end and flow out through another opposing end, see col. 2 lines 8-23, col. 3 lines 53-57, col. 4 lines 35-40, and Fig. 6, sheet 4 of 16; thus it reads on a conduit).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson et al. discloses wherein the tissue culture vessel comprises one or more ancillary ports (16) accessing the inner volume therein (col. 9 lines 38-44) (Fig. 6, sheet 4 of 16).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson et al. discloses wherein the one or more ancillary ports accessing the inner volume of the tissue culture vessel comprise at least one input port and at least one output port in connection with valves for flowing material into and out of the inner volume (reads on the claimed elements for flowing material into and out of the inner volume of the tissue culture vessel, consistent with Applicant’s specification at para. 56) (col. 9 lines 38-44) (Fig. 6, sheet 4 of 16).
Claims 1, 2, and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poo et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0121437) (already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Poo et al. discloses a tissue preservation system (Abstract), comprising:
a spherical tissue preservation vessel (para. 10, 43) (Figs. 12-15, sheets 8-9 of 12), comprising:
an inner volume having “substantially spherical” geometry (para. 10, 43) lacking corners, edges, flat planes, and protrusions (Figs. 14-15, sheet 9 of 12); and
two or more ports (136, 138) accessing the inner volume (para. 42), wherein the two or more ports comprise a first port and a second port (para. 42), and wherein the first port and the second port are configured to receive opposing ends of a conduit (note: this is a recitation of intended use and has therefore been given appropriate patentable weight; each of the ports 136 and 138 is disclosed to be capable of fitting to a conduit, see para. 36 and 42, and would be fully capable of attaching to and receiving opposing end of a same conduit of sufficient length).
Poo et al. does not expressly teach that the vessel and system are for tissue culture. However, the limitation of the system being a culture system is a recitation of intended use and has therefore been given appropriate patentable weight. The tissue vessel disclosed by Poo et al. is configured to receive therein a tissue comprising cells and deliver a preservation solution thereto (para. 1-6) and thus the vessel is fully capable of being used as a culture vessel (e.g., a user could culture cells by delivering nutrient medium to cells in the vessel), and therefore the noted limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Poo et al. discloses wherein the spherical inner volume of the vessel is formed by joining two complementary bodies (124, 128) comprising hemispherical volumes (para. 42) (Figs. 12-15, sheets 8-9 of 12).
Regarding claim 4, Poo et al. discloses wherein each of the two complementary bodies forming the spherical inner volume of the tissue culture vessel comprise a hemispherical demiorb (see Fig. 14, each body has the form of a hollow half-orb shell).
Regarding claim 5, Poo et al. discloses two complementary bodies comprising hemispherical volumes forming the spherical inner volume of the tissue culture vessel, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, above. As to the limitation of wherein each of the two bodies is mounted in a support block, this is a recitation of intended use of the bodies as the claim does not positively recite that the tissue culture system comprises a support block. The two complementary bodies disclosed by Poo et al. would be structurally capable of being mounted in a support block and therefore fulfill the claim limitation.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poo et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0121437) (already of record) in view of Lichtenberg et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0245945) (already of record).
Regarding claim 3, Poo et al. discloses two complementary bodies comprising hemispherical volumes forming the spherical inner volume of the tissue culture vessel, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, above.
Poo et al. is silent as to wherein each of the two complementary bodies comprises a block of material having a hemispherical depression therein; rather Poo et al. discloses wherein each complementary body is in the form of a hemispherical shell (e.g., see Fig. 14, sheet 9 of 12).
Lichtenberg et al. discloses a tissue culture system (Abstract, para. 101-106) comprising a vessel including a spherical inner volume (Abstract, para. 42, 85) (Fig. 3A, sheet 5 of 10), wherein the spherical inner volume is formed by joining two complementary bodies comprising hemispherical volumes (11A, 11B) (Fig. 3A, sheet 5 of 10), each complementary body comprising a block of material having a hemispherical depression therein (para. 17, 22) (Figs. 2A and 3A, sheets 2 and 5 of 10).
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 two complementary bodies disclosed by Poo et al. such that each comprises a block of material having a hemispherical depression therein, as such a modification represents simple substitution of one known element for another, in this case, substitution of a block body for a shell body in order to arrive at two complementary bodies comprising hemispherical portions configured to join so as to form a spherical inner volume.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US Patent 66,42,019) (already of record) in view of Woodard et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0113269) (already of record).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson et al. discloses the tissue culture vessel, as set forth above.
Anderson et al. is silent as to the vessel comprising a transparent material.
Woodard et al. discloses that it was known in the art to form a tissue vessel from a transparent material to allow a user to observe a tissue without the need to remove it from the vessel to maintain sterility (para. 73, 90).
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 vessel disclosed by Anderson et al. to comprise a transparent material, based on the teachings of Woodard et al., to allow a user to observe a tissue without compromising sterility.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poo et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0121437) (already of record) in view of Woodard et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0113269) (already of record).
Regarding claim 6, Poo et al. discloses the tissue culture vessel, as set forth above.
Poo et al. is silent as to the vessel comprising a transparent material.
Woodard et al. discloses that it was known in the art to form a tissue vessel from a transparent material to allow a user to observe a tissue without the need to remove it from the vessel to maintain sterility (para. 73, 90).
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 vessel disclosed by Poo et al. to comprise a transparent material, based on the teachings of Woodard et al., to allow a user to observe a tissue without compromising sterility.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poo et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0121437) (already of record).
Regarding claim 7, Poo et al. discloses wherein the vessel comprises ports accessing the inner volume thereof (mapped to the claimed two or more ports in the rejection of claim 1, above). Poo et al. further discloses wherein the ports comprise at least one input port and one output port in connection with fittings for flowing material into and out of the inner volume (para. 36, 42).
Poo et al. is silent as to one or more ancillary ports accessing the inner volume, in addition to the ports discussed above.
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 vessel disclosed by Poo et al. to comprise one or more ancillary ports accessing the inner volume of the vessel would require mere duplication of the ports already disclosed by Poo et al., e.g., providing multiple of each of the input port and one output port in connection with fittings for flowing material into and out of the inner volume, which would yield the predictable and advantageous outcome of allowing additional fluid to be flowed through the vessel.
Regarding claim 8, Poo et al. teaches the one or more ancillary ports, wherein the one or more ancillary ports comprise at least one input port and one output port in connection with fittings for flowing material into and out of the inner volume of the vessel (reads on the claimed elements for flowing material into and out of the inner volume of the tissue culture vessel), as set forth in the rejection of claim 7, above.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US Patent 66,42,019) (already of record) in view of Navran (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0136226) (already of record).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson et al. discloses wherein the system further comprises means for rotating the tissue culture vessel such as a drive motor or the like (col. 8 lines 29-38) wherein the rotational rate is controlled to “balance the gravitational forces” within the inner volume (col. 12 lines 49-66). Anderson et al. further discloses wherein it is desirable to prevent shear damage to cells (col. 2 lines 24-44).
Anderson et al. does not expressly teach mechanical components configured to rotate such that the tissue culture vessel inner volume experiences a state of reduced gravity or weightlessness.
Navran discloses a culture system comprising a rotating culture chamber (Abstract), the system further comprising a clinostat configured to rotate such that the culture chamber inner volume experiences a state of microgravity (reads on reduced gravity) wherein cells are maintained “at very low shear stress (0.8 dynes/cm2) with high diffusion rates of oxygen, nutrients and waste” (para. 37).
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 system disclosed by Anderson et al. to comprise a clinostat configured to rotate such that the tissue culture vessel inner volume experiences a state of reduced gravity (reads on the claimed mechanical components configured to rotate such that the tissue culture vessel inner volume experiences a state of reduced gravity or weightlessness, consistent with Applicant’s specification at para. 76), based on the teachings of Navran, as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide a rotation means recognized in the art to minimize shear damage.
Regarding claim 15, Anderson et al. in view of Navran teaches wherein the mechanical components comprise a clinostat, as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9, and accordingly claims 10-13 and 29-31 which depend therefrom, is 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.
Conclusion
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 HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights