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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 are pending and under examination in the present Official Action.
Priority
The present application is a 35 U.S.C. 371 national stage filing of International Application No. PCT/EP2021/078005, filed 11 October, 2021, which claims priority to European Application No. EP20201972.5, filed 15 October, 2020. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been filed in this application on 13 April, 2023.
Therefore, the earliest possible priority for the instant application is 15 October, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 April, 2023, and 19 April, 2023 are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-10 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only and cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2-3 recite the term “optionally”. These claims are being interpreted as if not reciting any of the limitations which occur after the recitation of “optionally” because such limitations are not required by the instant claims.
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 1-3 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "(T-, B-, and NK-cells)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations within the parenthetical are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-3 are further rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim 3 is unclear as written. Claim 3 recites “wherein the nanoporous substrate is based on, optionally consists of…” before reciting a Markush grouping of materials. This language is very unclear because, as written, no particular material is required by the claim for the practice of the invention because all such materials are recited after the term “optionally” (see claim interpretation above). Further, it is unclear how a nanoporous substrate can be “based on” anything nor what is encompassed by such language. Even if applicant were to amend the claim to be clearer than “based on” there is no positive recitation following this phrase in the claim. Therefore, the scope of claim 3 cannot be determined and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the patent protection sought. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 3 is interpreted as being directed to the same invention as claims 1-2.
Claims 1 recites “the cells” in line 2. There is not proper antecedent bases for “the cells” in the claim. Appropriate correction is requested.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferraz et al. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A: An Official Journal of The Society for Biomaterials, The Japanese Society for Biomaterials, and The Australian Society for Biomaterials and the Korean Society for Biomaterials 87.3 (2008): 575-581. (hereinafter “Ferraz”) as evidenced by Blum et al. Immunology letters 108.1 (2007): 45-51. (hereinafter “Blum”) and Tisch Scientific (Whatman Ano Disc Circle w/out Support Ring, 47mm Diameter, 0.2um Pore Size (50/Pk) | Tisch Scientific) (accessed: 10 September, 2025) (hereinafter “Tisch”).
Ferraz discloses a method of cultivating whole blood on AnodiscTM alumina membranes with a pore size of 200 nm (Ferraz, page 576, “MATERIALS AND METHODS”). In disclosing whole blood, Ferraz discloses lymphocytes as evidenced by Blum who teaches that whole blood comprises lymphocytes (Blum, page 45, last partial paragraph, Fig. 3). In disclosing AnodiscTM, Ferraz discloses Anodic Aluminum Oxide (AAO) as evidenced by Tisch which teaches that WhatmanR AnodiscTM membranes are aluminum oxide membranes formed electrochemically (Tisch, whole document). Thus, Ferraz discloses all the limitations of instant claims 1-3 (See 112(b) above for the discussion of claim 3).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN THOMAS TINSLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-5906. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, MARIA G LEAVITT can be reached at 571-272-1085. 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.
/BRENDAN THOMAS TINSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1634
/MARIA G LEAVITT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1634