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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 6/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
Dudokovic fails to specifically teach the plurality of compartments each have a volume in a range of 1 mm3 to 500 mm3.
Dudokovic further teaches performance characteristics may include control over porosity of the structure and capillary forces to provide desired flow properties including one or more desired capillary flow channels, as well as control over multi-phase interfaces and other functionalities that are important with microfluidic structures or devices (paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the porosity and therefore optimum compartment size to a range of 1 mm3 to 500 mm3 which would allow for the desired flow properties including one or more desired capillary flow channels, as well as control over multi-phase interfaces and other functionalities that are important with microfluidic structures or devices (paragraph [0022]) (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
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(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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that Dudokovic fails to teach the volume of each of the compartments is not found persuasive. The examiner agrees that Dudokovic fails to specifically teach the specified volume, however, Dudokovic teaches reasons to optimize porosity and therefore compartment volume to allow for the desired flow properties including one or more desired capillary flow channels, as well as control over multi-phase interfaces and other functionalities that are important with microfluidic structures or devices (paragraph [0022]) thereby rendering the instant claim as obvious. Additionally, the examiner notes that the applicant points to figure 8 of Dudokovic as showing that the volumes are less than 1 mm3, however, the first structure in figure 8 appears to have a dimension larger than 1 mm and therefore if the shape is cubic, the volume would be greater that 1 mm3.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Dudokovic does not described that the cell lattice structure is used as a cell culture vessel and therefore a person reviewing Dudokovic would not combine the references of Hagiwara and Goodman with Dudokovic is not persuasive. The structure of Hagiwara which is being brought into Dudokovic is a shaft part which allows for movement and control of the structure itself, this structure would provide the same benefit that it does in Hagiwara and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to combine these two references together. In response to applicant's argument that Dudokovic is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Dudokovic, Hagiwara and Goodman are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned as Hagiwara and Goodman have a structure which assists in the manipulation of structure and Dudokovic has a similar structure of voids which are formed within a lattice structure which would benefit from having a structure which assists in the manipulation of device.
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 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