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 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.
Claims 1-7, 11, 13-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima et al. (US 2019/0194376).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5 and 13-14
Maejima discloses a block copolymer having an (A), a (B), and a (C) block, that is useful as a surface treatment agent for coating a cell culture substrates (Abstract and claim 19).
Maejima discloses that the B-block may be 2-methoxyethylacrylate (reading on claimed Formula 2) (paras 0083, Example 7, Examples 16-17, and claim 6). Maejima discloses that the C-block may be styrene (reading on claimed Formula 1). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to make a block copolymer having styrene as the C-block and 2-methoxyethyl acrylate, with a reasonable expectation of success.
There is no polysiloxane skeleton in the block copolymer of Maejima.
Maejima discloses that surface treatment agent may comprise a solution of the block copolymer and a solvent such as ethanol or water (para 0130).
Maejima discloses that the B-block is present from 2 to 50 mol %, and the C-block is present from 10 to 70mol %. As the molar ratio of the reference overlaps the claimed amount, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claim 3
Whether the copolymer forms a colloidal solution is a property of the copolymer, and as the reference reads on or makes obvious to claimed copolymer it would be expected to have the same properties. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claims 4 and 6-7
Whether the copolymer suppresses adhesion of biological substances is a property of the copolymer, and as the reference reads on or makes obvious to claimed copolymer it would be expected to have the same properties. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claims 11, 15 and 19
Maejima discloses culturing cells in the block copolymer coated cell culture substrate (para 0153), which would necessarily require a step of seeding the substrate..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 12, 16-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art fairly teaches or suggest a laminated film comprising the coating film of claim 5 and a layer of a base film for cell culture.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants argue that Maejima does not disclose or suggest a composition or coating film having the claimed molar ratio of formula 1 and formula 2. This is not persuasive as Maejima discloses an overlapping molar ratio and applicants have failed to present any evidence of new or unexpected results for the claimed range.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
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 JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights