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 1-6, 18, and 19 in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds a single paragraph. 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).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The parentheses surrounding the R1 to R9 definitions within claim 1 are unnecessary. 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 5 and 19 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the first precursor material has a T-shaped structure”. It is generally unclear what structure(s) are meant to fall within or outside the scope of the “T-shaped structure” terminology. Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1 has a generic structure of H-Si(OSiR3)3 which in of itself may be regarded as “T-shaped” with each OSiR3 moiety representing an arm of the T. The term “T-shaped” does not have any defined meaning in the art and the specification provides no clear delineation between what should be considered “T-shaped” and what should be “non-T-shaped”. If “T-shaped” is simply meant to refer to the three OSiR3 groups of Chemical Formula I, then it is unclear how claim 5 serves the further limit the claim. In view of these issues, it is concluded the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 18 pertains to a stem cell culture substrate comprising the thin film of claim 1. Claim 19 depends on claim 18 and recites “wherein the stem cells have a spheroid shape”. However, claim 18 only refers to a “stem cell culture substrate” without any reference to the presence of stem cells themselves. The terminology “the stem cells” appears to lack antecedent basis, resulting in the scope of the claim unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nozaki (JP2009-120880A). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Nozaki teaches thin films produced via plasma CVD (Abstract; Examples; ¶ 25-29). Of roughly 26 listed precursor materials, Nozaki expressly teaches tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane can be used (¶ 21), which falls within the scope of Chemical Formula 1. Tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane is construed as “T-shaped”. Therefore, Nozaki anticipates plasma polymer thin films prepared using the precursor material claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, Nozaki is seen to suggest plasma enhanced CVD. Alternatively, the films of Nozaki are not seen to be any different in structure than that implied by the product-by-process claim.
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.
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(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki (JP2009-120880A) in view of Jung (US 2015/0048487 A1). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Nozaki teaches thin films produced via plasma CVD (Abstract; Examples; ¶ 25-29). Of roughly 26 listed precursor materials, Nozaki expressly teaches tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane can be used (¶ 21), which falls within the scope of Chemical Formula 1. Tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane is construed as “T-shaped”.
Regarding Claims 2-4, Nozaki differs from the subject matter claimed in that hydrocarbon precursor is not described. Jung also describes plasma CVD coatings derived from silane materials (Abstract; Examples). Jung teaches using a second precursor that is a liquid hydrocarbon, such as cyclohexane, together with silane precursor improves the hardness/elasticity of the resulting films owing to the presence of multiple C-Hx bonding structures (¶ 25-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include liquid hydrocarbon precursors such as cyclohexane within the plasma CVD methods of Nozaki because doing so would improve hardness/elasticity characteristics of the resulting films as taught by Jung.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong (US 2011/0015099 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Xiong teaches substrates/materials coated so as to render surfaces resistant to bio-adhesion (Abstract) such as cell culture substrates (¶ 40). Xiong teaches the coatings can be created via various methods such as chemical deposition / plasma coating (¶ 40). Xiong teaches various silane materials are known for creating the bio-adhesion resistant surface, including tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane (¶ 34), which falls within the scope of Chemical Formula 1. Tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane is construed as “T-shaped”. While not providing a specific example where a CVD coating is created with tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane specifically, the teachings of Xiong nevertheless clearly convey such silane materials are useful. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create substrates with coatings derived from tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane, using coating methods such as plasma CVD, because doing so would predictably afford surfaces resistance toward bio-adhesion as taught by Xiong.
Regarding Claim 6, the films suggested by Xiong are not seen to be any different in structure than that implied by the product-by-process claim.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, there is no perceivable difference in structure between the cell culture substrates of Xiong and those claimed. Accordingly, such substrates are seen to be capable of performing the intended use of being stem cell culture substrates, particularly those for stem cells having a spheroid shape, in the absence of the evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong (US 2011/0015099 A1) in view of Jung (US 2015/0048487 A1).
The discussion regarding Xiong within ¶ 22-24 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 2-4, Xiong differs from the subject matter claimed in that hydrocarbon precursor is not described. Jung also describes plasma CVD coatings derived from silane materials (Abstract; Examples). Jung teaches using a second precursor that is a liquid hydrocarbon, such as cyclohexane, together with silane precursor improves the hardness/elasticity of the resulting films owing to the presence of multiple C-Hx bonding structures (¶ 25-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include liquid hydrocarbon precursors such as cyclohexane within the plasma CVD methods of Xiong because doing so would improve hardness/elasticity characteristics of the resulting films as taught by Jung.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung-2 (US 2014/0255968 A1) in view of Nozaki (JP2009-120880A). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1, 5, and 6, Jung teaches plasma polymer thin films/layers on substrates for cell cultures (Abstract) derived from silane components such as hexamethyldisiloxane using plasma enhanced CVD (Examples). Jung teaches the substrates can be various materials such as plastic (¶ 33). Jung differs from the subject matter claimed in that silane precursors of Formula 1 are not described.
Nozaki is also directed toward the creation of protective thin films using silanes via plasma CVD on plastic (Abstract; Examples; ¶ 25-29). Nozaki teaches it was known in the art various silanes are known to be suitable, inclusive of both hexamethyldisiloxane and tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane (¶ 21). In view of such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute hexamethyldisiloxane with tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane in the CVD methods of Jung thereby predictably affording the workable creation of thin silane plasma protective films in accordance with the teachings of Nozaki. Tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane falls within the scope of Chemical Formula 1. Tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane is construed as “T-shaped”.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, there is no perceivable difference in structure between the cell culture substrates of Jung and those claimed. Accordingly, such substrates are seen to be capable of performing the intended use of being stem cell culture substrates, particularly those for stem cells having a spheroid shape, in the absence of the evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung-2 (US 2014/0255968 A1) in view of Nozaki (JP2009-120880A) and Jung (US 2015/0048487 A1). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Jung-2 and Nozaki within ¶ 29-31 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 2-4, Jung-2/Nozaki differs from the subject matter claimed in that hydrocarbon precursor is not described. Jung also describes plasma CVD coatings derived from silane materials (Abstract; Examples). Jung teaches using a second precursor that is a liquid hydrocarbon, such as cyclohexane, together with silane precursor improves the hardness/elasticity of the resulting films owing to the presence of multiple C-Hx bonding structures (¶ 25-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include liquid hydrocarbon precursors such as cyclohexane within the plasma CVD methods of Jung-2/Nozaki because doing so would improve hardness/elasticity characteristics of the resulting films as taught by Jung.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759