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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/3/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2, 7 and 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The examiner notes that claim 7 is dependent upon claim 2 which is one of the non-elected groups and was included in group I as a typo. Therefore, claim 7 is going to be considered to be part of Group II and is considered to be withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2021/0053056, hereinafter Dudokovic.
Regarding claim 1, Dudokovic teaches a cell culture vessel (figure 6) comprising a plurality of compartments (each of the tessellated cells as seen in figure 6) each having a corresponding three-dimensional shape (figure 6) and each configured to be able to retain therein an aqueous liquid by surface tension (figure 6, the liquid is contained in some of the tessellated cells), wherein any adjacent compartments out of the plurality of compartments communicate with each other (paragraph [0027).
Regarding claim 3, Dudokovic teaches wherein the cell culture vessel has an external form having a polyhedral shape (figure 6), said cell culture vessel further comprising a window part (the opening in each of the tessellated cells which face outwards) which is light-transmissive (figure 6) and which is provided so as to be located at positions that correspond to a respective plurality of faces out of faces of the polyhedral shape (figure 6).
Regarding claim 5, Dudokovic teaches wherein the plurality of compartments are placed side by side in at least two directions selected from an X direction, a Y direction, and a Z direction (figure 6).
Regarding claim 6, Dudokovic teaches wherein the plurality of compartments are surrounded by a framework corresponding to sides of a hexahedron.
Regarding claim 8, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Dudokovic and the apparatus of Dudokovic is capable of having at least some of the plurality of compartments filled with a gel composition including a cell or cell tissue. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Dudokovic (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 9, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Dudokovic and the apparatus of Dudokovic is capable of having at least some of the plurality of compartments filled with two or more types of the gel composition. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Dudokovic (see MPEP §2114).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudokovic in view of United States Application Publication No. 2019/0002812, hereinafter Hagiwara and United States Application Publication No. 2008/0068707, hereinafter Goodman.
Regarding claim 4, Dudokovic teaches wherein the cell culture vessel has an external form having a polyhedral shape (figure 6).
However, Dudokovic fails to teach said cell culture vessel further comprising a shaft part which extends, from any of vertices of the polyhedral shape, outward in a direction that is not parallel to any of lines normal to faces of the polyhedral shape.
Hagiwara teaches a cell culture vessel which utilizes a pair of tweezers which extends, from any of vertices of the polyhedral shape, outward in a direction that is not parallel to any of lines normal to faces of the polyhedral shape (Hagiwara, figure 6).
Goodman teaches that tweezers can be used to manually move a grid from one solution or treatment to the next (Goodman, paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a pair of tweezers (shaft part) which extends, from any of vertices of the polyhedral shape, outward in a direction that is not parallel to any of lines normal to faces of the polyhedral shape because it would allow for the cell culture vessel to be manually moved from one solution or treatment to the next (Goodman, paragraph [0056]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights