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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Unity of Invention does exist between Groups I-VI because there is a technical relationship that involves the same special technical feature and search of all of the claims would not impose a serious burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the special technical feature of Groups I-VI does not make a contribution over the prior art as stated on Page 4 of the Office Action dated 12/17/2025. Further, the section of the MPEP, 803, in which the applicant cites applies to applications filed under 35 USC 111(a). However the present application was not filed under 35 USC 111(a) and therefore requirement of the restricted groups being independent or patentably distinct and there being a serious search burden placed on the examiner does not apply. See MPEP 1896 regarding the difference in restriction practice for applications under 35 USC 111(a) and 35 USC 371.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
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 1-3 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.
Regarding Claim 1, lines 4-5 state “at least one layer consisting of highly hydrophobic, inert, and biocompatible material, with contact angle > 90 degrees, hydrophobic layer;”. The term “hydrophobic layer” at the end seems misplaced and makes the sentence unintelligible. Further clarification is requested. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as “at least one layer consisting of highly hydrophobic, inert, and biocompatible material, with contact angle > 90 degrees;”.
Claims 2-3 are further rejected as they depend from Claim 1.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halverson (US20190085282A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Halverson teaches the following:
A thin film culture device (cartridge adapted to house at least one biological sample) with at least two overlapping layers (Fig. 2, below) which can include a spacer 24 which is made of polyethylene foam or any material that is hydrophobic, inert to microorganisms and can be sterilized (para 60)(one layer consisting of highly hydrophobic, inert, and biocompatible material, with a contact angle >90 degrees). Note: Hydrophobic materials have a contact angle of 90 degrees by definition.
The spacer can be coupled via an adhesive to the first substrate 12 (para 60)(one layer of double sided adhesive)
The spacer defines a circular hole (one inner hole); since the adhesive only attaches the spacer to the substrate, the hole would necessarily be in the adhesive layer as well and the hole 26 would remain pervious when said layers overlap one another (see Fig. 2, below)
PNG
media_image1.png
258
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The walls of the hole provide a well of predetermined size and shape over the growth region of the culture device and the space is thick enough depending on the size of the sample to be placed on the medium (at least one inner hole is closed by the biological sample where loaded in said cartridge)
Regarding Claim 2, Halverson teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Halverson further teaches a permeable membrane 14 which is fixed to and is coextensive with at least a growth region of the upper surface of the first substrate (para 32)(at least one membrane adapted to support said at least one biological sample).
Regarding Claim 3, Halverson teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Halverson further teaches a water resistant first substrate 12, and a water-resistant second substrate 18 (para 32) and adhesive layers 20 and 20’ (para 59)(also see annotated Fig. 2, reproduced below)(at least four overlapping layers, wherein two hydrophobic layers enclose two layers of double sided adhesive material and said biological sample, where present, is housed between said two layers of double-sided adhesive material).
PNG
media_image2.png
549
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN E LEPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3971. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 ET.
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.
/J.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799