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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered and entered for the record.
The indicated allowability of claim 2 is withdrawn in view of the rejection below. Claim 2 was inadvertently indicated as allowable paragraph 17 while still being rejected in the body of the claim. This inadvertent error has been corrected below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schütze et al. (US 5,998,129 A – hereafter ‘129).
129 discloses a process for sorting and harvesting biological objects on a planar carrier (Abstract) that includes the following limitations for claim 1:
“A cell sheet cutting assistance system”: ‘129 discloses a system for a sorting process (Fig. 2) that uses a laser light to cut out a sample (col. 4 line s42-51 & 54-57). This system is being interpreted as the cell sheet cutting assistance system of the instant application.
“a processor for executing a program”: ‘129 discloses a computer (col. 4 lines 42-45) that includes a processor which can execute a program.
“a storage device for storing the program”: While ‘129 does not explicitly disclose a storage device for the program, it should be noted that all computers include a storage device such as a hard drive which can store a program.
“the processor”: The computer executes the following steps.
“receives, as input, an evaluation standard of a cell sheet and quality information of a cultured cell sheet”: ‘129 discloses that the computer receives an input from the sheet in order to recognize and select the biological object based on the image analysis (col. 4 lines 10-14).
“determines whether the quality information satisfies the evaluation standard”: ‘129 discloses selecting the bacteria or cells based on a significant fluorescence signal that can be used as the differentiating criterion (col. 5 lines 60-65). This signal will be interpreted as the quality information that satisfies the evaluation standard.
“outputs a cutting position of the cell sheet based on a result of the determination.”: ‘129 discloses that the table is moved to position the cells for laser separation (col. 5 lines 60-65) where this is being interpreted as outputting the position data.
For claim 1, ‘129 also determines the cells to cut based on a fluorescent signal (col. 5 lines 54-67) where this would correlate to the number of cells, i.e. cell density.
‘129 discloses for claim 13 that the cell culture system (Fig. 2) that includes the following limitations:
“the cell sheet cutting assistance system according to claim 1”:’129 discloses the cell sheet cutting assistance system as discussed below.
“A cell sheet cutting assistance system”: ‘129 discloses a system for a sorting process (Fig. 2) that uses a laser light to cut out a sample (col. 4 line s42-51 & 54-57). This system is being interpreted as the cell sheet cutting assistance system of the instant application.
“a processor for executing a program”: ‘129 discloses a computer (col. 4 lines 42-45) that includes a processor which can execute a program.
“a storage device for storing the program”: While ‘129 does not explicitly disclose a storage device for the program, it should be noted that all computers include a storage device such as a hard drive which can store a program.
“the processor”: The computer executes the following steps.
“receives, as input, an evaluation standard of a cell sheet and quality information of a cultured cell sheet”: ‘129 discloses that the computer receives an input from the sheet in order to recognize and select the biological object based on the image analysis (col. 4 lines 10-14).
“determines whether the quality information satisfies the evaluation standard”: ‘129 discloses selecting the bacteria or cells based on a significant fluorescence signal that can be used as the differentiating criterion (col. 5 lines 60-65). This signal will be interpreted as the quality information that satisfies the evaluation standard.
“outputs a cutting position of the cell sheet based on a result of the determination.”: ‘129 discloses that the table is moved to position the cells for laser separation (col. 5 lines 60-65).
“a culture container”: ‘129 discloses a culture container such as a Petri Dish (col. 6 lines 9-17; Fig. 5).
“an observation apparatus for performing observation of cells or a monitoring apparatus performing monitoring of a cell culture apparatus.”: ‘129 discloses using an upright microscope (microscope 14) for observing the cells (col. 6 lines 21-28; Fig. 5).
‘129 discloses the following limitations for claim 14:
“A cell sheet cutting assistance method”: 129 discloses a system and method for sorting process (Fig. 2) that uses a laser light to cut out a sample (col. 4 lines 42-51 & 54-57). This system is being interpreted as the cell sheet cutting assistance system of the instant application.
“executed by a cell sheet cutting assistance system”: ‘129 discloses that this is executed by a cell sheet cutting assistance system (Fig. 2; col. 4 lines 42-51).
“having a processor executing a program and a storage device storing the program”: ‘129 discloses using a computer (col. 4 lines 42-45) that includes a processor which can execute a program. While ‘129 does not explicitly disclose using a storage device for the program, it should be noted that all computers include a storage device such as a hard drive which can store a program.
“receiving, as input, an evaluation standard of a cell sheet and quality information of a cultured cell sheet”: ‘129 discloses that the computer receives an input from the sheet in order to recognize and select the biological object based on the image analysis (col. 4 lines 10-14).
“determining whether the quality information satisfies the evaluation standard”: ‘129 discloses selecting the bacteria or cells based on a significant fluorescence signal that can be used as the differentiating criterion (col. 5 lines 60-65). This signal will be interpreted as the quality information that satisfies the evaluation standard.
“outputting a cutting position of the cell sheet based on a result of the determination.” ‘129 discloses that the table is moved to position the cells for laser separation (col. 5 lines 60-65) where this is being interpreted as outputting the position data.
For claim 14, ‘129 determines the cells to cut based on a fluorescent signal (col. 5 lines 54-67) where this would correlate to the number of cells, i.e. cell density.
For claim 9, ‘129 discloses using a light source that project light onto the cutting position (light source 7; Fig. 2; col. 4 line 66 – col. 5 line 12).
For claim 10, ‘129 discloses that the light source is at one location below the cell sheet (Fig. 2).
For claim 11, ‘129 discloses that the laser supplies on type of color (col. 4 line 66 – col. 5 line 12).
For claim 12, ‘129 discloses using the laser to cut the cell sheet (col. 4 line 66 – col. 5 line 12; col. 5 line s12-19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to the allowable subject matter, however, claim 2 was inadvertently listed as allowable which has been corrected in this Action (see above). However, it should be noted that claims 4-9 and newly added claims 15-20 are objected to as depending on a rejected claim. Claim 3 is allowed over the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: For claim 3, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole a cell sheet cutting assistance system that includes a processor, a storage device that stores a program that receives an input an evaluation standard of a cell sheet and quality information of a cultured cell sheet, determines the quality information satisfies the evaluation standard and outputs a cutting position of the cell sheet based on a result of the determination where the processor receives a number of the cell sheets as input.
The closest prior art is Schütze et al. (US 5,998,129 A) discloses a processor for sorting and harvesting tissue on a planar surface, but Shütze does not teach or suggest where the processor receives a number of the cell sheets as input.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claim 4, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the processor further receives patient information of a patient to whom the cell sheet is grafted as input, and wherein the evaluation standard is associated with the patient information.
Claims 5-7 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 4.
For claim 8, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole a cell sheet cutting system where he storage device stores quality information of a cut cell sheet associated with identification information, and wherein the processor: receives the identification information as input; and outputs the quality information of the cell sheet associated with the identification information.
For claim 15, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest a cell sheet cutting system where the processor receives a number of the cell sheets as input.
For claim 16, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the processor further receives patient information of a patient to whom the cell sheet is grafted as input, and wherein the evaluation standard is associated with the patient information.
Claims 17-18would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 16.
For claim 16, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole a cell sheet cutting system where he storage device stores quality information of a cut cell sheet associated with identification information, and wherein the processor: receives the identification information as input; and outputs the quality information of the cell sheet associated with the identification information.
The closest prior art is Schütze et al. (US 5,998,129 A) discloses a processor for sorting and harvesting tissue on a planar surface, but Shütze does not teach or suggest where the processor receives a number of the cell sheets as input.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kinooka et al. (US 2012/0052524 A1) discloses a cell evaluation system that provides three-dimensional information of cultured cells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-3724. The examiner can normally be reached Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM M-F.
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.
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799