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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the plasma polymer thin film comprises Si-O-Si bonding structures and further comprises Si-CH2-Si and Si-CH2-CH2-Si structures”. The only description of these bonding patterns is found within ¶ 133 and Figure 6 of the specification, which pertains to a single embodiment involving tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane. In contrast, claim 1 pertains to films derived from first precursor materials of chemical formula 1, whose R groups can be hydrogen, various other alkyl groups other than methyl, and substituted with various other functionalities such as amino, hydroxyl, cyano, halogen, nitro, and methoxies. As insufficient evidence is found that Applicant was in possession of the newly claimed subgenus at the time of filing, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
As claims 2-4, 6, 18, and 19 depend on claim 1, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 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 and 6, Jung-2 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-2 teaches the substrates can be various materials such as plastic (¶ 33). With respect to the Si-O-Si, Si-CH2-Si, and Si-CH2-CH2-Si bonding structures, the instant specification utilizes CVD conditions such as an Argon atmosphere, 13.56 MHz, and low wattage (see for instance ¶ 120 of the specification), which is substantially similar, if not identical, to the conditions used by Jung-2 (¶ 77-79). In view of such, the position is taken that such bonding structures would necessarily be present within the films of Jung-2 in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Jung-2 teaches various silane precursor materials can be used (¶ 37). Jung-2 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-2 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.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, there is no perceivable difference in structure between the cell culture substrates of Jung-2 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 ¶ 10-12 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.
Claim(s) 1, 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 Kon (US 2017/0107345 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Jung-2 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-2 teaches the substrates can be various materials such as plastic (¶ 33). With respect to the Si-O-Si, Si-CH2-Si, and Si-CH2-CH2-Si bonding structures, the instant specification utilizes CVD conditions such as an Argon atmosphere, 13.56 MHz, and low wattage (see for instance ¶ 120 of the specification), which is substantially similar, if not identical, to the conditions used by Jung-2 (¶ 77-79). In view of such, the position is taken that such bonding structures would necessarily be present within the films of Jung-2 in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Jung-2 teaches various silane precursor materials can be used (¶ 37). Jung-2 differs from the subject matter claimed in that silane precursors of Formula 1 are not described. Kon is also directed toward the creation of protective thin films using silanes via plasma CVD on plastic (Abstract; Examples). Kon teaches it was known in the art various silanes are known to be suitable, inclusive of both hexamethyldisiloxane and tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane (¶ 274). 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-2 thereby predictably affording the workable creation of thin silane plasma protective films in accordance with the teachings of Kon. Tris(trimethylsiloxy)silane falls within the scope of Chemical Formula 1.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, there is no perceivable difference in structure between the cell culture substrates of Jung-2 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 Kon (US 2017/0107345 A1) and Jung (US 2015/0048487 A1).
The discussion regarding Jung-2 and Kon within ¶ 17-19 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 2-4, Jung-2/ Kon 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/ Kon because doing so would improve hardness/elasticity characteristics of the resulting films as taught by Jung.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejections pertaining to Nozaki and Xiong are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. Specifically, there is insufficient evidence of record that the conditions described within these references would afford the Si-O-Si, Si-CH2-Si and Si-CH2-CH2-Si bonding pattern instantly claimed.
With respect to Jung-2, applicant argues Jung-2 fails to describe tris(trimethylsiloxyl)silane. This is not found persuasive as the use of various precursor silanes such as tris(trimethylsiloxyl)silane were widely known in the art. The use of tris(trimethylsiloxyl)silane would have been obvious for reasons for record.
Applicant argues Nozaki employs an oxygen-containing plasma whereas Jung-2 does not. This is not found persuasive. Nozaki unambiguously teaches tris(trimethylsiloxyl)silane is a known suitable silane for use in PECVD protocols. It is unclear how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude tris(trimethylsiloxyl)silane would fail to function as such merely due to the absence of oxygen within Jung-2’s protocols. See for instance ¶ 274-276 of Kon, who indicates such precursors were widely known to be useful in various gases, inclusive of oxygen and/or argon, where the presence of oxygen merely serves to modify the relative quantity of oxygen within the resulting coating.
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 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights