Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/249,888

HIGH THROUGHPUT MICRO-WELL ARRAY PLATES AND METHODS OF FABRICATION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 20, 2023
Examiner
HASSAN, LIBAN M
Art Unit
1799
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Board Of Regents Of The University Of Texas System
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
226 granted / 452 resolved
-15.0% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
497
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.2%
+4.2% vs TC avg
§102
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
§112
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 452 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-21, in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2023, 03/01/2024, 10/15/2024 and 02/09/2026 have been considered and made of record. Regarding information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2024, it should be noted that the document numbers of the cited U.S. Patent Publications US-2003/030184, US 2011-014688, US-2014-322806, US-2015-247112, US-2016-032229, US-2019-054461, appear to be incomplete/incorrect document numbers. Claim Objections Claims 2-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 2-21, “The assembly of claim” should read -- The micro-well array plate (MWAP) assembly of claim -- for consistency. 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. Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Varadarajan (already of record, US 2019/0054461). Regarding claim 1, Varadarajan discloses micro-well array plate (MWAP) assembly comprising: a top plate having a plurality of macro-wells arranged in an array (top frame having a plurality of micro-wells; the micro-wells can be mm-sized; see [0035] and FIG. 2 of Varadarajan, annotated and reproduced below); PNG media_image1.png 424 836 media_image1.png Greyscale a bottom plate operable to be secured to the top plate, the bottom plate having a plurality of micro-wells (bottom plate having a plurality of nano-wells; the nano-wells can be µm-sized; see [0035] and FIG. 2 of Varadarajan, annotated and reproduced above); and a well grid formed when the bottom plate is secured to the top plate, the well grid defined via the plurality of macro-wells and the plurality of micro-wells with each of the plurality of macro-wells isolating a set of the plurality of micro-wells from another set of the plurality of micro-wells (top plate is coupled to the bottom plate such that each macro-well of the macro-wells is aligned with a set of micro-wells of the micro-wells; see FIGS. 2 and 3A-3B; [0035]). Regarding claim 2, the plurality of micro-wells of Varadarajan are structurally the same as the instant plurality of micro-wells and thus considered to be are operable to provide varying degrees of three-dimensional (3D) spatial confinement Regarding claim 3, Varadarajan further discloses wherein, each of the plurality of macro-wells includes a cavity surrounded by a perimeter wall extending from a bottom surface of the top plate to a top surface of the top plate (see annotated FIG. 2 above: wells of the top plate is surrounded by a wall extending between a top surface of the plate and a bottom surface of the plate), and two neighboring ones of the plurality of macro-wells share a portion of the perimeter wall (see annotated FIG. 2 above). Regarding claim 4, Varadarajan further discloses wherein, at least a portion of the plurality of micro-wells includes one or more triangular micro-wells, square pyramids with a bottom surface, or pyramids with a bottom common point to provide asymmetric confinement (microwells of the bottom plate can be square frustum-shaped; see [0035]-[0036], [0039], and claims 8-9), and each of the plurality of micro-wells includes a micro-well perimeter wall with an upper perimeter of a first length equal to or longer than a second length of a lower perimeter (microwells of the bottom plate can be square frustum-shaped). Regarding claim 5, Varadarajan further discloses wherein the isolating causes the set of the plurality of micro-wells to be fluidly sealed from the another set of the plurality of micro-wells (as shown in FIG. 2 above, when the top plate and bottom are coupled together, a plurality of sets of microwells on the bottom plate are separated from one another; see also [0026]). Regarding claim 9, Varadarajan further discloses wherein the top plate and the bottom plate are permanently bonded together (e.g., by adhesive or thermal bonding; [0032]). Regarding claim 10, Varadarajan further discloses wherein at least a portion of the plurality of microwells includes straight sidewalls or slanted sidewalls and a same depth (FIG. 2 and [0042]). Regarding claim 11, Varadarajan further discloses wherein at least a portion of the plurality of microwells has straight sidewalls with bottom surfaces at varying depths (at least two microwells with different depth; see FIGS. 2 and 4, [0042] and [0049]). Regarding claim 12, Varadarajan further discloses wherein each of the plurality of micro-wells includes straight sidewalls extending perpendicular to a base with a bottom surface or slanted sidewalls extending oblique to the base without the bottom surface (see FIG. 2 and [0035], [0039]: square microwells with a base). Regarding claim 13, Varadarajan further discloses wherein each of the plurality of micro-wells is defined by a plurality of sidewalls extending perpendicular to a bottom surface, and the plurality of sidewalls have varying depths among different ones of the plurality of micro-wells thereby defining varying depths among the different ones of the plurality of micro-wells (at least two microwells with different depth; see FIGS. 2 and 4, [0042] and [0049]). Regarding claim 14, the MWAP assembly of Varadarajan are structurally the same as the instant MWAP assembly and thus considered to be a single cell MWAP assembly operable to spatially induce dormancy of tumor cells as a dormancy assay. Regarding claim 15, Varadarajan further discloses wherein the micro-wells have a cross-section dimension ranging from 8 to 25 μm (20-500 microns; [0042]). Regarding claim 16, the MWAP assembly of Varadarajan are structurally the same as the instant MWAP assembly and thus considered to be are operable to “generate clonal multi-cellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) of a fixed size as a spheroid assay.” Regarding claim 17, Varadarajan further discloses wherein the micro-wells have a cross-section dimension ranging from 26 to 300 μm (20-500 microns; [0042]). Regarding claim 18, the MWAP assembly of Varadarajan are structurally the same as the instant MWAP assembly and thus considered to be are operable to “quantify effects of tumor drugs and radiation therapy to disrupt growth of a single tumor cell with at least one of a plurality of drugs into a colony of clonal cells as a Clonogenic Assay, each of the plurality of macro-wells is operable to be seeded with the single tumor cell with the at least one of the plurality of drugs.” the plurality of micro-wells includes 96 sets of micro-wells ([0037], [0045]). Regarding claim 19, Varadarajan further discloses wherein each of the plurality of micro-wells is a square micro-well (see [0035]-[0036], [0039], and claim 8). Regarding claim 20, the plurality of micro-wells of Varadarajan are structurally the same as the instant plurality of micro-wells and thus considered to be are operable “to hold 50 or more clonal cells.” Regarding claim 21, Varadarajan further discloses wherein the plurality of micro-wells includes 2000 to 5000 micro-wells such that the MWAP assembly is operable to have a high throughput ([0057]) Therefore, Varadarajan meets and anticipates the limitations set forth in claim(s) 1-5 and 9-21. 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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varadarajan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deutsch et al. (already of record, US 2011/0014688; hereinafter “Deutsch”). Regarding claims 6-8, Varadarajan discloses the micro-well array plate (MWAP) assembly according to claim 1. Varadarajan discloses wherein the claimed grid is formed when the bottom plate is secured to the top plate (see FIG. 2). As shown in FIG. 2 of Varadarajan, the top plate includes a lower circumferential perimeter surrounding each of the plurality of macro-wells, and the bottom plate includes an upper circumferential perimeter surrounding a different set of the plurality of micro-wells (see also [0039]). Varadarajan does not explicitly disclose wherein the lower circumferential perimeters of the macro-wells of the top plate abut to the plurality of upper circumferential perimeters of the plurality of micro-wells of the bottom plate. Deutsch discloses an assembly comprising a substrate having a plurality of wells (FIGS. 9-10) and walls (14) defining a well and having a wall perimeter edge is affixed along a perimeter edge of the substrate (FIGS. 9-10; [0048]). In view of Deutsch, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the micro-well array plate assembly of Varadarajan with the assembly of Deutsch such that the lower circumferential perimeters of the top plate abut to the upper circumferential perimeters, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification in order to reduce the volume of the microwells, thereby conserving the amount of media used, a consideration of particular importance when expensive media is employed. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Beebe et al (US 2020/0190454) discloses a top plate with a well and a bottom plate with a plurality of wells. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIBAN M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7636. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 5712721374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /LIBAN M HASSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 20, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595456
CELL OBSERVATION DEVICE, ELECTROSTIMULATION DEVICE, AND CELL OBSERVATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589366
Impeller and Sparger Assemblies for a Bioprocessing System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584087
BIOLOGICAL CULTURE UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559708
CELL COLLECTING DEVICE AND CELL COLLECTING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12553017
APPARATUS FOR MICROSCOPIC BIOLOCIGAL ORGANISM OBSERVATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
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
50%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+31.3%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 452 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