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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 18, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
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:
IN FIGS. 17-25: Reference character 1700 is not mentioned in the description.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0068] line 30: Remove the extra closing parenthesis: “(e.g., by coupling with the opening of the base)
In [0072]: The last sentence of the paragraph is incomplete.
In [0084] line 5, [0092] line 2, [0093] line 8: It is believed “…bared…” should read “…barbed…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 12, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, it is believed “…a first inlet port or coupled…” should read “…a first inlet port coupled…”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 4, line 1, it is believed “…is a device stimulates…” should read “…is a device that stimulates…”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 12, line 2, “…the lid or base.” should read “…the lid or the base.”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 13, line 3, “…the lid or base.” should read “…the lid or the base.”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 14, line 3, “…to allow tubing of the first outlet port…” should read “…to allow a tube of the first outlet port…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 13, 16, and 19 recites the phrase “…to facilitate tubing”. The phrase is interpreted as meaning “…to connect a tube” for examining purposes.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 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 8 recites the limitation "wherein the lid is coupled with the bases" (line 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7, for which claim 8 depends, provides antecedent basis for a base rather than two or more or a plurality of bases.
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 2, 6-7, 9, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vuong et al. (US 2019/0094208 A1) (see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 2, Vuong et al. teaches a liquid-tight case (abstract; [0008], lines 13-15) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 2 – see annotated figure below, petri dish bioreactor 100) configured to enclose a tissue device within (Fig. 2, petri dish 1; [0019], lines 5-8; note: this limitation is directed toward the intended use of the apparatus – see MPEP § 2114 II);
a first inlet port coupled with the housing (Fig. 2, angled ports 22 coupled to adapter body 2; [0021], “…the bioreactor system can include at least two input ports.”);
a second inlet port coupled with the housing (Fig. 2, angled ports 22 coupled to adapter body 2; [0021], “…the bioreactor system can include at least two input ports.”);
PNG
media_image1.png
793
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and at least one outlet port coupled with the housing (Fig. 2, angled ports 22; [0021], “…the bioreactor system can further include an output port…”).
The limitations “…configured to receive a first plurality of viable cells and pass the first plurality of viable cells to the tissue device” and “…configured to receive a second plurality of viable cells and pass the second plurality of viable cells to the tissue device” are directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The claimed apparatus does not differ from the prior art apparatus because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art apparatus (MPEP §2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Vuong et al. would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to have ports used as a fluid interface ([0015], lines 6-8) and would be structurally capable of receiving the first and second plurality of viable cells.
Regarding claim 6, Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 2, wherein the at least one outlet port comprises a first outlet port in fluidic communication with the first inlet port through the tissue device ([0015] and [0076] discuss fluid flow through bioreactor).
Regarding claim 7, Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 2, wherein the housing comprises:
a base formed with a hollow space (Fig. 2 – see annotated figure below, adapter compression cap 4) configured to house the tissue device (Fig. 2; note: this limitation is directed toward the intended use of the apparatus – see MPEP § 2114 II);
a lid (Fig. 2, adapter body 2) coupled with the base (Fig. 2, adapter body 2 coupled with adapter compression cap 4) to enclose the tissue device within the hollow space ([0011], lines 2-4; note: this claim is directed toward the intended use of the apparatus – see MPEP § 2114 II);
and a seal (Fig. 2, gasket 3) disposed between the base and the lid (Fig. 2 shows gasket 3 between adapter body 2 and adapter compression 4) to enhance sealing of the liquid-tight case ([0008], lines 13-15; note: this limitation is directed toward the intended use of the apparatus – see MPEP § 2114 II).
PNG
media_image2.png
793
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Vuong et al. teaches that the gasket “may be made out of a deformable material such as, for example, silicone, natural rubber, neoprene, or polytetrafluoroethylene” in [0008], which are specific types of elastomeric materials. Therefore, Vuong et al.’s teachings anticipate the claimed elastomeric material (MPEP § 2131.02).
Regarding claim 12, Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 7, wherein the first inlet port, second inlet port and at least one outlet port are coupled with the lid or base (Fig. 2 – see annotated figure below, angled ports 22 coupled with adapter body 2 (lid)).
PNG
media_image3.png
793
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 12, wherein the first and second inlet ports are coupled with the lid (Fig. 2 – see annotated figure above, angled ports 22 coupled with adapter body 2 (lid)).
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuong et al. in view of Ponomarenko (US 2016/0369221 A1) (see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Vuong et al. teaches a liquid-tight case (abstract, [0008] discusses watertightness) comprising:
A housing (Fig. 2, petri dish bioreactor 100 – see annotated figure below) configured to enclose a tissue device within (Fig. 2; [0019]; note: this limitation is directed toward the intended use of the apparatus – see MPEP § 2114 II);
A first inlet port coupled with the housing (Fig. 2, angled ports 22 coupled to adapter body 2; [0021], “…the bioreactor system can include at least two input ports.”)
A second inlet port coupled with the housing (Fig. 2, angled ports 22 coupled to adapter body 2; [0021], “…the bioreactor system can include at least two input ports.”);
And at least one outlet port coupled with the housing (Fig. 2, angled ports 22; [0021], “…the bioreactor system can further include an output port…”).
Vuong et al. fails to teach wherein the tissue device comprises a first channel network, second channel network, and the limitations with respect to the first and second channel network.
However, Ponomarenko teaches a tissue device (Fig. 1a – see annotated figure below, fluidic device 1; abstract) comprising:
a first channel network (Fig. 1a, upper flow channel 3) and a second channel network (Fig. 1a, lower left flow channel 4) in fluidic communication with the first channel network (Fig. 1a, exchange region 16 and Figs. 5a-5b; [0099], “…three different channels 3, 4, 5 congregate with one another in exchange region 16.”) and
the first and second inlet port in fluidic communication with the first and second channel network, respectively (Fig. 1a, inlet ports 12a, 12b, channels 3, 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
847
1541
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note: the limitation “…configured to be in fluidic communication…” in lines 5-8 is directed toward the intended use of the apparatus (see MPEP § 2114 II). The device taught by Ponomarenko would be fully capable of achieving every intended use because the inlet ports are fluidically connected to the respective channels in the figure above.
Ponomarenko teaches that the fluidic device can be used for tissue reconstruction or culturing (abstract, [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Vuong et al.’s to incorporate Ponomarenko’s fluidic device (i.e., tissue device) by connecting the first and second inlet ports of Vuong et al.’s device to the first and second channel network in Ponomarenko’s tissue device for the purpose of tissue reconstruction or culturing. Modifying Vuong et al.’s device in this manner would have the first and second inlet ports in fluidic communication with their respective channel network.
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 Vuong et al. and Ponomarenko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 2.
Vuong et al. fails to teach wherein the tissue device comprises a first or second channel network.
However, Ponomarenko made obvious:
a first channel network in fluidic communication with the first inlet port of the liquid-tight case,
a second channel network in fluidic communication with the second inlet port of the liquid-tight case,
and wherein the first and second channel networks are in fluidic communication with each other.
See rejection for claim 1.
The limitations “…to receive the first plurality of viable cells…” and “…to receive the second plurality of viable cells…” are directed toward the intended use of the apparatus (see MPEP § 2114 II). Ponomarenko teaches that the inlet ports and the respective channels are capable of receiving cells ([0067]). Therefore, the first and second inlet ports and the respective channels of Ponomarenko would be fully capable of receiving a first and second plurality of viable cells.
Regarding claim 20, modified Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 1. Vuong et al. further teaches a system ([0020], “…an isolated bioreactor system…”) comprising: the liquid-tight case of claim 1 (see above); and the tissue device enclosed within the liquid-tight case ([0008], lines 5-7) and in fluidic communication with the first inlet port, the second inlet port and the at least one outlet port ([0015], lines 6-8).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuong et al. in view of Hoganson et al. (US 2015/0366651 A1) (referenced in IDS).
Regarding claim 4, Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 2 and tissue device.
Vuong et al. fails to teach wherein the tissue device is a device that stimulates an arterial blood flow.
However, Hoganson et al. teaches a tissue device (implant 100; abstract, [0007]-[0010]) that stimulates an arterial blood flow ([0068]-[0070], [0093]). Hoganson et al. teaches oxygen, nutrients, and waste are exchanged ([0068]) with arterial blood flowing through the implant ([0070], [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the tissue device of Vuong et al. to exchange nutrients, oxygen, and waste of arterial blood flowing through the tissue device, as taught by Hoganson et al. for the purpose of stimulating arterial blood flow.Further, the limitation “wherein the tissue device is a device that stimulates an arterial blood flow” is directed towards the material or article worked upon by the claimed apparatus and does not limit the claim which it depends on (MPEP § 2115). The device taught by Hoganson et al. would be fully capable of stimulating an arterial blood flow because it exchanges oxygen, nutrients, and waste.
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 Vuong et al. and Hoganson et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 4.
Vuong et al. fails to teach wherein the tissue device is a liver device.
PNG
media_image5.png
383
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Hoganson et al. further teaches wherein the tissue device is a liver device (Fig. 15 – see figure below; [0088], [0092]). Hoganson et al. teaches an embodiment of the implant designed to mimic the liver’s vascular system ([0054]-[0055]) to assist with liver function in the case of liver failure ([0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tissue device of Vuong et al. as a liver device because Hoganson et al teaches that it is known that a tissue device can be used as a liver device to assist liver function. Further, the limitation “wherein the tissue device is a liver device” is directed towards the material or article worked upon by the claimed apparatus and does not limit the claim which it depends upon (MPEP § 2115).
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 Vuong et al. and Hoganson et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuong et al.
Regarding claim 8, Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 7 in one embodiment, but fails to teach wherein the lid is coupled with the base by one or more fasteners, snap-fitting, press-fitting, or one or more adhesives, tape, or a combination thereof.
PNG
media_image6.png
313
515
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Vuong et al. teaches in a different embodiment wherein the lid is coupled with the bases by one or more fasteners, snap-fitting (Fig. 4 – see annotated figure below, adapter body snap lock 24, compression cap snap lock 42; [0075]), press-fitting ([0008], “The adapter compression cap…has a push fitting to mate with the adapter body”), one or more adhesives, tape, or a combination thereof ([0075]).
Vuong et al. teaches that the snap lock maintains compression between the adapter body (lid) and adapter compression cap (body).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the snap lock taught in this embodiment to the other embodiment to maintain compression between the lid and body to enhance liquid-tightness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Vuong et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 12, but fails to teach the barbed outer connector in this embodiment.
PNG
media_image7.png
339
571
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
488
555
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Vuong et al. teaches in a different embodiment wherein the first inlet port, the second inlet port, or each of the first and second inlet ports comprises a barbed outer connector coupled with an exterior side of the lid or base (Fig. 7 – see annotated figure below on left, barbed angled ports 222) to facilitate tubing (Fig. 8 – see annotated figure below on right, fluid handling system connector 223; [0076], lines 1-3; note: this limitation is directed toward the intended use of the apparatus – see MPEP § 2114 II).
Vuong et al. teaches that the barbed outer connector accommodates tubing for fluid transfer ([0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the first and second inlet ports with a barbed outer connector to accommodate tubing for fluid transfer because the barbed outer connector would prevent slippage of the tube.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Vuong et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuong et al. in view of Toner et al. (US 6,562,616 B1) (see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 10, Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 7.
Vuong et al. fails to teach wherein the seal is an O-ring.
However, Toner et al. teaches wherein the seal is an O-ring (Col. 16, lines 18-20). Toner et al. teaches the O-ring is used to provide a water-tight seal between the cover and the housing (Col. 16, lines 19-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an O-ring, as taught by Toner et al. to provide a water-tight seal between the lid and base of Vuong 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 Vuong et al. and Toner et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 10.
Vuong et al. fails to teach wherein the base comprises a rim and a groove formed along the rim to accommodate the seal.
PNG
media_image9.png
171
477
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, Toner et al. teaches wherein the base (Fig. 8B – see annotated figure below, housing 16) comprises a rim (Fig. 8B, flange 15) and a groove formed along the rim (Fig. 8B, groove 84 on flange 15) to accommodate the seal (Col. 16, lines 17-20; note: this limitation is directed toward the intended use of the apparatus – see MPEP § 2114 II). Toner et al. teaches that the groove in the flange accommodates the O-ring, which is used to form a water-tight seal between the cover and the housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the base according to Toner et al.’s teachings to include a rim and groove to accommodate the o ring seal and create a water-tight seal.
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 Vuong et al. and Toner et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuong et al. in view of Kamen et al. (US 2021/0009936 A1) (see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 14, Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 12 wherein the at least one outlet port comprises a first outlet port.
Vuong et al. fails to teach wherein the base of the housing is monolithically formed with a sheath configured to allow tubing of the first outlet port to pass through and be connected directly to the tissue device.
PNG
media_image10.png
652
1576
media_image10.png
Greyscale
However, Kamen et al. teaches a housing with a base (Fig. 6 – see annotated figure below, enclosure 100 and second part 100D) and a sheath (Fig. 6, adapter 23) to allow tubing of the first outlet port to pass through and be connected directly to the tissue device.
Kamen et al. teaches that the enclosure may contain biological specimen used for tissue engineering ([0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Vuong et al. to include the sheath of Kamen to protect the tubing at the interface.
The limitation “…is monolithically formed…” imparts no patentability to the claim because it has been held that making components integral would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Kamen et al. would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP §2144.04 V). Modifying the device of Kamen et al. such that the base is monolithically formed with a sheath would merely amount to making the base integral with the sheath, as such a modification would predictably result in the protection interface tubing.
The limitation “…to allow the tubing of the first outlet port to pass through and be connected directly to the tissue device” is directed towards the intended use of the invention. The claimed apparatus does not differ from the prior art apparatus because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art apparatus (MPEP §2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus taught by modified Vuong et al. would be fully capable of achieving every intended use because Kamen et al. teaches that fluid lines (i.e., tubing) can pass through the adapter (i.e., sheath) at orifices (i.e., outlet port) which can be fed to one or more biological specimen (i.e., tissue device) ([0170], lines 3-5, [0155], lines 21-24).
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 Vuong et al. and Kamen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 19, Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 18 wherein each of the first and second inlet ports comprises a barbed outer connector coupled with an exterior side of the lid to facilitate tubing (see rejection to claim 13 above).
Vuong et al. fails to teach wherein a barbed inner connector is coupled with an interior side of the lid to facilitate tubing and direct connection to the tissue device.
PNG
media_image11.png
420
316
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
552
489
media_image12.png
Greyscale
However, Kamen et al. teaches a barbed inner connector coupled with an interior side of the lid (Fig. 25A/25B – see annotated figure below, interior barbed fittings 47B, first section 100a is the lid) to facilitate tubing ([0178], lines 9-12; note: this limitation is directed toward the intended use of the apparatus – see MPEP § 2114 II) and direct connection to the tissue device ([0181], lines 1-4; interior of enclosure contains biological specimen (i.e., tissue device), [0155], lines 21-24).
Kamen et al. teaches that tubing attached to the interior barbed fitting is used to attach tubing to allow fluid to be transferred into and out of the enclosure ([0178], lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art skill to further modify the device of Vuong et al. according to the teachings of Kamen et al. to incorporate an interior barbed connector to the interior side of the lid to prevent slippage of an associated tube feeding to the tissue device.
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 Vuong et al. and Kamen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Claim 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuong et al. in view of Dominici et al. (US 2020/0407673 A1) (see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 15, Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 12.
Vuong et al. fails to teach wherein the first and second inlet ports are coupled with a first portion of the base and the at least one outlet port is coupled with a second portion of the base.
PNG
media_image13.png
357
646
media_image13.png
Greyscale
However, Dominici et al. teaches a cell culture device (i.e., tissue device) (abstract) wherein an inlet and outlet mouth (i.e., inlet port and outlet port) is coupled with opposite first and second portions of a container (i.e., base) (Fig. 4, mouths 9 and 11, portions 3 and 4 – see annotated figure below). Dominici et al. teaches that the inlet and outlet mouths allows the flux of cell culture solution ([0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the base of Vuong et al.’s device with two portions opposite each other and attach an inlet and outlet port to each portion for the flux of culture solution because a two-piece base would allow for easier maintenance on the device.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an extra inlet port to the first portion of Vuong et al.’s device because it has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04 VI B). An extra inlet port would predictably allow another medium through the device.
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 Vuong et al. and Dominici et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, modified Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 15.
Modified Vuong et al. fails to teach wherein the first and second portions are opposite to each other, however Dominici et al. teaches wherein the first and second portions are opposite to each other (Fig. 4 – see annotated figure above) and this is obvious for the reasons defined for claim 15 above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuong et al. in view of Dominici et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kamen.
Modified Vuong et al. teaches the liquid-tight case of claim 15, wherein each of the first and second inlet ports comprises a barbed outer connector formed at an exterior side of the base to facilitate tubing (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Modified Vuong et al. fails to teach wherein each of the first and second inlet ports comprises a barbed outer connector formed at an exterior side of the first portion of the base to facilitate tubing, and wherein a barbed inner connector is formed at an interior side of the first portion.
However, Dominici et al. made obvious the first and second inlet ports coupled with a first portion of the base (see rejection for claim 15 above); Kamen et al. made obvious the barbed inner connector formed at an interior side of the base (see rejection for claim 19 above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a barbed inner connector formed at the interior side of the first portion of the base in the device of modified Vuong et al. to prevent tube slippage of an associated tube feeding to the tissue device.
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 Vuong et al., Dominici et al., and Kamen et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Wilson (US 2010/0136686 A1) discloses an apparatus for culturing and preserving cells and tissue.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN J CARREON whose telephone number is (571)272-6818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 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.
/A.J.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799