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 Invention I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-18 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 1 recites “the at least embedded microgroove” in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the cellular extension” line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the cellular structure” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the nerve cell” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recite “the somal domain” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the neurirtic region” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the nerve cell” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “the cell-adherent coating” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
1. Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art as found in the Background section of applicant’s specification in view of Korean Patent No. KR101782263 to Choi et al.
On page 1, lines 11-22 of applicant’s specification applicant describes as Admitted Prior Art:
“a microfluidic neuron culture device enabling selective neuritic isolation and treatment. The microfabricated neuronal device has two or more compartments interconnected by a region having micron-sized grooves at the bottom of a physical barrier. In use, a researcher plates neuronal cells into a first somal, or cell body, compartment. The configuration of the microfluidic device enables neurites, or other portion of a cell or cellular organism, to then grow across the barrier via the grooves and extend into a second neuritic compartment while maintaining fluidic isolation.”
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art microfluidic device does not include entry reservoirs for each of the first microfluidic region and the second microfluidic region.
Choi et al. teaches a cell culture microfluidic chip and a microfluidic chip device for pathologic mechanism observation for cultivating neurons such as SH-SY5Y or F11 cell line in the second chamber 111b while the angiogenic cells stimulated in the third chamber 111c are maintained. [0001], [0138]
As shown in Fig. 3 the microfluidic device includes chambers 111a, 111b and 111c that are connected by chambers 111d, 111e and 111f that include partition walls that block movement between cells in different chambers by a microchannel structure, and allows movement between secreted materials in the cells. [0024]
Choi et al. teaches a plurality of inlets 111a1, 111b1 and 111c1 that as shown in Fig. 3 are spaced apart from and are connected to chambers 111d, 111e and 111f. Inlets 111a1, 111b1 and 111c1 are interpreted as being entry reservoirs. [0098]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Applicant’s Admitted Prior to include entry reservoirs that are connected to the two or more compartments as taught by Choi et al for purposes of supplying cells into the chambers.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders all the limitations of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the barrier region comprises a length of not less than 50 µm.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. does not teach that the barrier region comprises a length of not less than 50 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to scale up or down the device of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. as desired to include a barrier region that has a length of not less than 50 µm, inasmuch as the mere scaling up/down of a device capable of being scaled up/down does not establish patentability. (MPEP2144.04(IV)(A))
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that at least one of the plurality of microgrooves comprises dimensions less than 10 µm in height.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. does not teach that at least one of the plurality of microgrooves comprises dimensions less than 10 µm in height.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to scale up or down the device of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. as desired to include at least one microgroove dimensioned less than 10 µm in height inasmuch as the mere scaling up/down of a device capable of being scaled up/down does not establish patentability. (MPEP2144.04(IV)(A))
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 4 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the biological specimen comprises a cellular structure.
Applicant’s claimed invention is an apparatus for growing neuron cells.
The biological specimen recited in claim 5 does not incorporate any structural limitations to the apparatus and is therefore not afforded any patentable weight.
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 5 obvious via rendering claim 1 obvious
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the first volume of fluid is applied to a cell body domain of the cellular structure and the second volume of fluid is applied to a cellular extension or outgrowth domain of the cellular structure.
Applicant’s claimed invention is an apparatus for growing neuron cells.
The biological fluid volumes recited in claim 6 do not incorporate any structural limitations to the apparatus and is therefore not afforded any patentable weight.
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 6 obvious via rendering claim 1 obvious
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the cellular extension or outgrowth domain comprises pseudopod or lamellipodium.
Applicant’s claimed invention is an apparatus for growing neuron cells.
The cellular extension or outgrowth recited in claim 7 do not incorporate any structural limitations to the apparatus and is therefore not afforded any patentable weight.
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 7 obvious via rendering claim 1 obvious
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the cellular structure comprises a nerve cell.
Applicant’s claimed invention is an apparatus for growing neuron cells.
The cellular structure recited in claim 8 does not incorporate any structural limitations to the apparatus and is therefore not afforded any patentable weight.
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 8 obvious via rendering claim 1 obvious
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that the first volume of fluid is applied to a somal domain of the nerve cell and the second volume of fluid is applied to an neuritic region of the nerve cell.
Applicant’s claimed invention is an apparatus for growing neuron cells.
The applied volumes of fluid recited in claim 9 do not incorporate any structural limitations to the apparatus and is therefore not afforded any patentable weight.
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 9 obvious via rendering claim 1 obvious
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the somal domain comprises a nerve cell body.
Applicant’s claimed invention is an apparatus for growing neuron cells.
The somal domain recited in claim 10 does not incorporate any structural limitations to the apparatus and is therefore not afforded any patentable weight.
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 10 obvious via rendering claim 1 obvious
X.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that the neuritic region comprises an axonal domain.
Applicant’s claimed invention is an apparatus for growing neuron cells.
The neuritic region recited in claim 11 does not incorporate any structural limitations to the apparatus and is therefore not afforded any patentable weight.
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 11 obvious via rendering claim 1 obvious
XI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et l. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that synapses of the nerve cell are isolated in the second microfluidic region.
Applicant’s claimed invention is an apparatus for growing neuron cells.
The isolation of the synapses of the nerve cell recited in claim 12 does not incorporate any structural limitations to the apparatus and is therefore not afforded any patentable weight.
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 12 obvious via rendering claim 1 obvious
XII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that a cross-section of the barrier is 7 µm by 7 µm.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. does not teach that a cross-section of the barrier is 7 µm by 7 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to scale up or down the device of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. as desired to include a barrier having a cross-section of 7 µm by 7 µm inasmuch as the mere scaling up/down of a device capable of being scaled up/down does not establish patentability. (MPEP2144.04(IV)(A))
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
XIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that the microgroove barrier width is from about 75 µm to about 1000 µm.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. does not teach that the microgroove barrier width is from about 75 µm to about 1000 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to scale up or down the device of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. as desired to include a microgroove barrier having a width from about 75 µm to about 1000 µm inasmuch as the mere scaling up/down of a device capable of being scaled up/down does not establish patentability. (MPEP2144.04(IV)(A))
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 15 obvious.
XIV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the microgroove barrier width is about 150 µm.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. does not teach that the microgroove barrier width is about 150 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to scale up or down the device of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. as desired to include a microgroove barrier having a width that is about 150 µm inasmuch as the mere scaling up/down of a device capable of being scaled up/down does not establish patentability. (MPEP2144.04(IV)(A))
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 16 obvious.
XV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites that the first and second microfluidic regions are about 6 mm in diameter.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. does not teach that the first and second microfluidic regions are about 6 mm in diameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to scale up or down the device of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. as desired to include first and second microfluidic regions that are about 6 mm in diameter inasmuch as the mere scaling up/down of a device capable of being scaled up/down does not establish patentability. (MPEP2144.04(IV)(A))
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 17 obvious.
XVI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites that the first and second entry reservoirs are about 2 mm in diameter.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. does not teach that the first and second entry reservoirs are about 2 mm in diameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to scale up or down the device of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. as desired to include first and second entry reservoirs that are about 2 mm in dimeter inasmuch as the mere scaling up/down of a device capable of being scaled up/down does not establish patentability. (MPEP2144.04(IV)(A))
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 18 obvious.
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0299629 to Cesare et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the first microfluidic region and the second microfluidic region are dispose parallel to one another and coupled with the barrier region.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. does not teach that that the first microfluidic region and the second microfluidic region are dispose parallel to one another and coupled with the barrier region.
Cesare et al. teaches a device for the examination of neurons and to a method for examining neurons, and more specifically for examining neurons growing in a three-dimensional network. [0002]
The device of Cesare et al. includes first, second, and third compartments 14, 16, 18 each comprise a channel section 14a, 16a, 18a and a terminal reservoir 14b, 16b, 18b which are connected with each other. [0104].
As shown in Fig. 5, parallel channels 22 that are separated by a connecting region 24 that includes microchannels. [0108]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to configure Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. so that the first microfluidic region and the second microfluidic region are dispose parallel to one another and coupled with the barrier region. Note, changes of configuration can be a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. (MEPE 2144.04(IV)(B))
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. and Cesare et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0257735 to Jeon et al. (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the cell-adherent coating comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of polylysine, laminin, collagen, fibronectin, integrin, polyamine, and polyorithine.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. does not teach that the cell-adherent coating comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of polylysine, laminin, collagen, fibronectin, integrin, polyamine, and polyorithine.
Jeon et al. teaches a microfluidic device for enabling the controlled growth of cells that includes cell-adhesive coatings including polylysine and collagen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. to include a cell-adhesive coating of Polylysine or collagen as taught by Jeon et al. to keep cells in desired locations.
Therefore, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Choi et al. and Jeon et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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 STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights