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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inui et al. (US 20190141986) (already referenced in IDS) in view of Butler et al. (US 20110275153) (already referenced in IDS) and Farrington et al. (US 20170156312 A1) (referenced in 892).
Inui et al. teaches a vessel (carrier for cryopreservation (device 1 – See annotated FIG 1A), specifically for use in cryopreservation by vitrification of cells or embryos (biological tissue) (abstract), comprising:
a carrier rod body (main grip 10, connector 11, thin sheet part 12, tip part 13, and grip 17 – FIG. 1A) (para. [0054]),
wherein a front end of the carrier rod body (thin sheet part – 12) comprises a first recess (recess – 15) for an embryo to placed therein (“it is easier to insert a fertilized egg into a recess 15 when the thin sheet part 12 has the ability to bend to a near-horizontal state when dipping the recesses 15 on the vessel for cryopreservation by vitrification 1 into a shallow culture plate” (para. [0058]). The carrier rod body further comprises a second recess (recess – 15) adjacent to the first recess.
PNG
media_image1.png
182
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Inui et al. et al. fails to teach the following limitations:
A sleeve sleeved on the carrier rod body
The second recess extends through an upper surface of the front end from one side to an opposite side.
Butler et al. teaches a device (10) for cryogenically preserving biological matter, specifically for enclosing a volume of biological material within the device (para. [0019]). Butler et al. specifically teaches a sheath (element 60, interpreted as the sleeve) that can be slid to the proximal end portion (element 22) of the shuttle (element 20), which exposes trough (element 40) for convenient placement of the biological sample (para. [0038]). Butler et al. teaches that placement of a biological sample (M) upon the trough (element 40) and properly aligning the sheath (element 60) with respect to the shuttle (element 20) is an easy and rapid process (para. [0038]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Butler et al.’s teaching of a sliding sleeve in Inui et al.’s vessel for cryopreservation because the sliding sleeve exposes the trough or recess for convenient placement of the sample. This allows placement of the sample and aligning the sheath with respect to the shuttle to be easy and rapid. This method of improving Inui et al.’s vessel was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Butler et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Butler et al. and Inui et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Farrington et al. teaches a low temperature specimen carrier (para. [0005]) that includes tip extension (element 418). Tip extension (element 418) defines a loading surface (element 420) that further defines loading platform (element 458). Loading platform extends through an upper surface of the front end of the carrier, from one side to an opposite side (See annotated FIG. 8, element 458). Farrington et al. teaches that loading platform “is configured to guide placement of the cells on the loading surface 420 with more locational specificity” (para. [0137]).
PNG
media_image2.png
250
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Farrington et al.’s teaching of a loading platform (recess that extends through an upper surface) in Inui et al.’s vessel for cryopreservation because a loading platform guides placement of the cells on the loading surface with more locational specificity. Furthermore, substituting the circular recess for a recess that extends through an upper surface would amount to simple substitution (MPEP § 2144.06 II). The circular recess and extending recess are functional equivalents in this present case. This method of improving Inui et al.’s vessel was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Farrington et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Farrington et al. and Inui et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Inui et al. teaches the carrier according to claim 1. Inui et al. also teaches wherein the angle between the wall and the bottom of the first recess is less than or equal to 90° (See annotated FIG. 3B below, which displays a cross-sectional view of the recess, which is less than or equal to 90°). Therefore, the claim is prima facie obvious.
PNG
media_image3.png
251
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Inui et al. teaches the carrier according to claim 1. Inui et al. also teaches wherein the carrier rod body that comprises a front-end sheet (thin sheet part 12) and rear-end carrier rod (main grip 10 and grip 17), and the first recess is on the front-end sheet (recess 15, located on the thin sheet part 12). (See annotated FIG. 1A below, which displays thin sheet part 12 (front-end sheet) and main grip 10 & grip 17 (rear-end carrier rod). Therefore, the claim is prima facie obvious.
PNG
media_image4.png
182
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Inui et al. teaches the carrier according to claim 3. Inui et al. also teaches a second recess is on the front-end sheet (See annotated FIG. 1A above, recesses 15), and the second recess is located adjacent to the first recess. Therefore, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 5, modified Inui et al. teaches the carrier according to claim 4. The structure resulting in the combination of references used in claim 4 would encompass a structure with a second recess runs through an upper surface of the front-end sheet. Therefore, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inui et al. (already referenced), Butler et al. (already referenced), Farrington et al. (already referenced) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xue et al. (CN 109430245 A – Machine Translation Provided) (already referenced in IDS).
Regarding claim 6, modified Inui et al. teaches the carrier according to claim 1. Modified Inui et al. fails to teach that the carrier rod body comprises of annular bosses. Xue et al. teaches of an annular boss (element 31) in their vitrification refrigeration carrier device (para. [0002] of MT). The annular boss (element 31) forms the connection between the support rod and the handle, and prevents the sleeve from slipping out of the support rod (para. [0024] of MT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Xue et al.’s teaching of an annular boss in modified Inui et al.’s vessel for cryopreservation because the annular boss would prevent the sleeve from slipping out of the support rod. Furthermore, it has been established that duplication of parts is unpatentable (See MPEP § 2144.04 VI). The addition of a second annular boss would amount to duplication of the annular boss element. This method of improving modified Inui et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Xue et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Inui et al. and Xue et al. to obtain the invention specified in claim 6.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inui et al. (already referenced), Butler et al. (already referenced), Farrington et al. (already referenced), Xue et al. (already referenced) as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Rao et al. (CN 207519503 U with attached Machine Translation in prior Office Action)
Regarding claim 7, modified Inui et al. teaches the carrier according to claim 6. Modified Inui et al. fails to teach that the inner surface of the sleeve comprises a latching device engaged with the first annular boss and second annular boss. Rao et al. teaches a latching device arranged on the sleeve (element 13) for their vitrification cryopreservation carrier for human embryos and oocytes (para. [0002]). Rao et al. also teaches that the latching device includes a plurality of latching pins, which latch the sleeve (element 13) onto the rod body (element 11) (para. [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Rao et al. teaching of a latching device built into the sleeve in modified Inui et al.’s device with annular bosses because the latching device would allow the sleeve to latch onto the rod body (including the annular bosses). This method of improving Inui et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Rao et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rao et al. and Inui et al. to obtain the invention specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Inui et al. teaches the carrier according to claim 7. Modified Inui et al. fails to teach that when the first annular boss is engaged by the latching device, the front-end sheet of the carrier rod body is exposed outside the sleeve. Butler et al. teaches a proximal end or step (element 82, being interpreted as the first annular boss), as sheath (element 60, interpreted as the sleeve) can be positioned or moved towards proximal end portion (element 22) for convenient placement of a biological sample (para. [0038]). Figure 1A also displays the configuration where the sheath is disposed over the proximal end of the shuttle with the trough exposed (para. [0009]), which emulates the state where “the front-end sheet of the carrier rod body is exposed outside the sleeve.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Butler et al.’s teaching of a first annular boss and sleeve in modified Inui et al.’s device with a latching device because moving the sleeve to the first annular boss would allow for convenient placement of the biological sample. This method of improving modified Inui et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Butler et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Butler et al. and modified Inui et al. to obtain the invention specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, modified Inui et al. teaches the carrier according to claim 7. Modified Inui et al. fails to teach that when the second annular boss is engaged by the latching device, the front-end sheet of the carrier rod body is covered by the sleeve. Butler et al. teaches a flared distal tip (element 24a – interpreted as a second annular boss) on the carrier rod body (shuttle 20) (para. [0039]). Butler et al. teaches that this distal end portion is configured such that the sheath 60 (interpreted as sleeve) is retained upon the shuttle (element 20) (para. [0039]). Figure 1 also displays the configuration where the sheath encloses the trough (para. [0008]) – which emulates the state where “the front-end sheet of the carrier rod body is covered by the sleeve”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Butler et al.’s teaching of a second annular boss and sleeve in modified Inui et al.’s device with a latching device because moving the sleeve to the second annular boss (flared distal tip) would place the sheath in a position that encloses the recess (trough) (FIG. 1), while the second annular boss (flared distal tip) allows the sheath (sleeve) to be retained upon the shuttle. This method of improving modified Inui et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Butler et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Butler et al. and modified Inui et al. to obtain the invention specified in claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 4 of Remarks, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of the drawings has been withdrawn.
The claim amendments have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC § 112(b), and the respective rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see (p. 5, Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103, filed on 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection has been made in view of Inui et al., Butler et al., and Farrington et al.
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 JULIUS FRANCIS YOH whose telephone number is (571)272-3489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-5 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 at 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 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.
/J.F.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 1799 /William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights