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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2020-0183888 12/24/2020) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements dated 6/23/2023; 7/28/2023 and 10/24/2025 have been considered and made of record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "350" and "355" have both been used to designate “a magnetic element” (See Figures 6 and 7). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “350” has been used to designate both a magnetic element (Fig. 6) and a magnetic cover (Fig. 7). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element “122” (Fig. 6). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a through hole is formed in at least a side of sides and a lower end thereof to allow the access of a manipulation tool or an operator's hand” recited in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
When discussing the disclosure of Fig. 6, the instant specification identifies element (350) as a magnetic cover which includes a magnetic member (355); however, Fig. 6 appears to identify element (350) as a magnetic member within storage container (300). It appears that the discussion of Fig. 6 in the specification is referencing the disclosure of Fig. 7. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, last line, it appears that “on top of the he storage container” should be “on top of the storage container”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a bead holding space” in claim 1; and
“an annular bead holding space” in claim 3.
Note: the term “space” is considered a generic place holder since the term space is not a structure but an area defined by a structure or structures.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 is considered indefinite because the language recited after the transitional language “comprises” recites “space” rather than the structures defining the space. It is recognized that the preamble recites that the plate is formed by side walls and a bottom surface but it is not clear if these elements are considered to be positively recited structural elements of the claim. It is suggested that the claim be drafted to recite: “A cell culture plate comprising: a space formed by side walls and a bottom surface, wherein the culture plate includes an open top and is formed to be vertically stacked”.
With respect to the recited “a bead holding space” and related functional language, it is not clear what structural limitation is intended by the language “from being separated” (separated from what?).
It is also noted that the current claim language “a space containing a culture medium” can be interpreted that the claimed device includes the culture medium as a positively recited element of the claimed invention. As a result, the metes and bounds of claim 1 cannot be clearly determined. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
In claim 3, it is not clear if the recited “an annular bead holding space” is a further limitation of the “bead holding space” recited in claim 1 or an additional structural element of the claimed invention. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
In claim 5, it is not clear how the newly recited “an upper end” of the culture plate structurally cooperates with the rest of the positively recited structure defining the culture plate in claim 1. For example, how does the “upper end” structurally cooperate with the previously recited side walls, space and open top? Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 7 is considered indefinite because it is devoid of any transitional language, such as, comprising or consisting. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be clearly determined.
Also in claim 7, it is not clear how the newly recited “an upper end” of the culture plate and/or stacked culture plate assembly structurally cooperates with the rest of the positively recited structure defining the culture plate in claim 1 and/or culture plate assembly in claim 7. For example, how does the “upper end” structurally cooperate with the previously recited side walls, space and open top? Clarification and/or correction is requested.
In claim 8, “the culture plate” lacks clear antecedent basis. Note: Claim 7 previously recites a plurality of culture plates. As a result, it is not clear which one of the plural culture plates is being referenced. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
In claim 11, “the storage container” lacks antecedent basis. Note: Claim 11 depends from claim 7 rather than claim 9. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9 and 10 are also indefinite since they depend from indefinite claims and do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from with they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 and any claim dependent therefrom would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a cell culture plate, in the claimed environment or scope of claim, that includes a magnetic bead and bead holding space wherein the magnetic bead opens/closes/ the culture medium flow hole in response to a magnetic force. Note: As discussed previously, the claim element “a bead holding space” is considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f). As a result, this claim element is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof which would correspond to the following embodiments:
i) Bead holding space (150) (Fig. 3) formed by the net-shaped area (185) (Fig. 3);
ii) Bead holding space (150) (Figs. 4 and 5) formed by a plurality of pillars (145) (Figs. 4 and 5); and
iii) Bead holding space formed using an annular member having a hollow and a cut side (page 14, lines 6-10, of the specification).
The reference of Berry et al. (US 5,240,854) discloses a stack of culture plates wherein each culture plate includes culture medium flow holes but fails to teach or fairly suggest a structure that includes the magnetic bead and bead holding space required of instant claim 1.
The prior art reference of Goral (US 2020/0181553) discloses a stack of culture plates and manifold system for providing a flow of culture medium but fails to teach or fairly suggest a structure that includes the magnetic bead and bead holding space required of instant claim 1.
The prior art reference of Dong (US 2007/0154358) discloses a stack of culture plates but fails to teach or fairly suggest a structure that includes the magnetic bead and bead holding space required of instant claim 1.
The prior art reference of Kim et al. (KR 20190129504) discloses a stack of culture plates but fails to teach or fairly suggest a structure that includes the magnetic bead and bead holding space required of instant claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H BEISNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1269. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1374. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/William H. Beisner/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1799
WHB