Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/112,279

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FABRICATING PHYSIOLOGICALLY RELEVANT IN VITRO VESSELS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 21, 2023
Examiner
MARTIN, PAUL C
Art Unit
1653
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
The Texas A&M University System
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
42%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
64%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 42% of resolved cases
42%
Career Allow Rate
345 granted / 819 resolved
-17.9% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
875
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 819 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-22 are pending in this application. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 7-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/02/2025. Claims 1-6 were examined on their merits. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “annular” should be inserted between the words “”the” and “layer” in line 9 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “the” should be inserted between the words “from” and “plurality” in line 2 of the claim and between the words “of” and “second” in Line 3. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “annular” should be inserted between the words “”an” and “outer” in line 3 of the claim and between the words “the” and “inner” in line 4 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Selahi et al. (11/23/2021). Selahi et al. teaches perfusing a collagen hydrogel (substrate) comprising lymphatic muscle cells (LMC) into a microfluidic channel defined by an inner surface and extending along a longitudinal axis, then positioning the channel/substrate in a vertical orientation forming an acute angle between the longitudinal axis and the direction of gravity and culturing the cells in the device while the substrate is so positioned, whereby an annular layer of the cells is formed in the channel and defines a lumen having an elliptical cross-section extending longitudinally through the channel (Pg. 123, Fig. 2 and Pgs. 129-130, Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3), and reading on Claims 1, 2 and 6. With regard to Claims 3 and 4, the reference further teaches culturing lymphatic endothelial cells (LEC) in the microfluidic channel, forming an annular inner layer surrounded by an annular outer layer of LMC positioned between the inner layer and the inner surface of the microfluidic channel (Pg. 125, Fig. 5A and Pg. 130, Paragraph 5.3). 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. Claims 1-4, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Selahi et al. (11/23/2021). The teachings of Selahi et al. were discussed above. Selahi et al. did not teach a method comprising the sequential steps of: forming a substrate that defines a microfluidic passage therein extending along a longitudinal axis and defined by an inner surface; culturing a plurality of second cells that are different from a plurality of first cells in the microfluidic passage whereby an annular layer of the plurality of second cells is formed in the microfluidic channel; positioning the substrate in a vertical orientation whereby an acute angle is formed between the longitudinal axis of the microfluidic passage and the direction of gravity; and culturing a plurality of first cells in the microfluidic passage while the substrate is disposed in the vertical orientation whereby an annular layer of the plurality of first cells is formed in the microfluidic channel, wherein the layer of the plurality of first cells defines a lumen extending longitudinally through the microfluidic channel, as required by Claim 5. It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Selahi et al. wherein a first plurality of cells is cultured in the microfluidic channel forming an annular layer prior to culturing a plurality of different second cells in the microfluidic channel and forming an annular layer to reverse the process steps because the selection of any order of culturing the cells is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See the MPEP at 2144.04, IV, C. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to form a desired order of cell layers in a coculture. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because the reference already teaches coculturing two cells types and a particular order of culturing the cells to form the coculture. No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAUL C MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3348. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-8pm EST. 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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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. /PAUL C MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1653 12/17/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2023
Application Filed
May 01, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12543667
Cultivation and Treatment of Plants for the Production of Plant-Derived Drugs
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12467915
TREATED DRIED BLOOD SAMPLE FOR DETECTION OF HEAVY METALS IN DRIED BLOOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12439925
ANTI-PATHOGENIC ACTIVITY OF A BIFUNCTIONAL PEPTIDOGLYCAN/CHITIN HYDROLASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
Patent 12359241
COAGULOGEN-FREE CLARIFIED LIMULUS AMEBOCYTE LYSATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 15, 2025
Patent 12343322
COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR TREATING OR PROPHYLAXIS OF CORONAVIRUS AND CANCERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 01, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
42%
Grant Probability
64%
With Interview (+22.0%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 819 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month