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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peralta (EP 2913389).
Regarding claim 1, Peralta teaches a culture device comprising a first body (40) forming a first portion of the cell culture chamber (74); a second body (76) forming a second portion of the cell culture chamber (74) the first body (40) and the second body (76) configured to couple together (refer to Figure 10), thereby forming an enclosed volume; wherein a first non-porous, gas-permeable material (78) is disposed on the first body (40); and wherein the first non-porous, gas-permeable material (78) and the first body (40) are formed together. (Refer to Figure 7)
Regarding claim 2, a second non-porous, gas-permeable material (silicone, 12) disposed on the second body (42); and wherein the second non-porous, gas-permeable material and the second body are formed together. (Refer to Figure 10)
Regarding claim 4, one or more structural islands (26 and 28).
Regarding claim 5, the first body (40) and the second body (76) couple together using mating elements (screws).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the first body (40) includes a plurality of openings (36) configured to allow gas exposure to an external environment via an outside surface of the first non- porous, gas-permeable material and/or the second non-porous, gas-permeable material. (Refer to Figure 10)
Regarding claim 7, the plurality of openings (36) comprise a geometric, hexagonal, septagonal, octagonal, symmetrical, honeycomb, round, circular, oblong, oval, or square shape. (Refer to Figure 10)
Regarding claim 8, the first non-porous, gas-permeable material (78) is positioned on an inner surface of the first body (40), the first non-porous, gas-permeable material being configured to cover the plurality of openings of the first body (40). (Refer to Figure 10)
Regarding claim 9, a structural section of the second body (76) includes a plurality of openings (78) configured to allow gas exposure to an external environment via an outside surface of the first non-porous, gas-permeable material and/or the second non-porous, gas- permeable material.
Regarding claim 10, the plurality of openings (36) comprise a geometric, hexagonal, septagonal, octagonal, symmetrical, honeycomb, round, circular, oblong, oval, or square shape. (Refer to Figure 10)
Regarding claim 11, the second non-porous, gas-permeable material (78) is positioned on an inner surface of the first body, the second non-porous, gas-permeable material being configured to cover the plurality of openings of the second body (76).
Regarding claim 29, the cell culture chamber (74) comprising at least one body (76) forming an enclosed volume; and a non-porous, gas-permeable material (78) disposed on the at least one body such that the non-porous, gas-permeable material and the at least one body are formed together; wherein no structures are disposed within the enclosed volume. (Refer to Figure 10)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 12-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peralta (EP 2913389) in view of Zappia (US 20110151486).
Refer above for the teachings of Peralta. Peralta teaches a bubble trap system (54) not integrally formed with the cell culture device.
Peralta fails to teach a bubble trap device integrally formed with a cell culture device. Peralta further fails to at least one bubble trap is integrally formed with the first body of the cell culture chamber, and further including a bubble trap track integrally formed with the first body and fluidly connected to the at least one bubble trap. Peralta further fails to teach a cell culture chamber having at least one bubble trap disposed thereon.
Peralta further fails to teach at least two bubble traps are integrally formed with the first body of the cell culture chamber, and the bubble trap tracks are fluidly connected to the at least two bubble traps and the bubble trap track tapers in width and height. Peralta further fails to teach at least two bubble traps are integrally formed with the first body of the cell culture chamber, and at least two corresponding bubble trap tracks are fluidly connected to each of the at least two bubble traps such that the at least two corresponding bubble trap tracks are disconnected from each other.
Zappia teaches at least one bubble trap (1801) integrally formed with the cell culture chamber in order to easily remove the bubbles so they do not interfere with the cell culture or biological substances. (Refer to paragraph [0193]) Zappia teaches at least two bubble traps (2306 and 2308) are integrally formed with the first body of the cell culture chamber, and bubble trap tracks (2312 and 2314) are fluidly connected to the at least two bubble traps and the bubble trap track tapers in width and height (Refer to Figure 23) Zappia teaches a bubble trap disposed a cell culture chamber. (Refer to paragraph [0200])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the bubble trap disposed on the cell culture chamber of Peralta in order to easily remove the bubbles so they do not interfere with the cell culture or biological substances.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide at least two bubble traps are integrally formed with the first body of the cell culture chamber, and the bubble trap tracks are fluidly connected to the at least two bubble traps and the bubble trap track tapers in width and height as disclosed in Zappia in order to mitigate trapping the bubbles in a constantly flowing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, EST.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/JYOTI Mutreja/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights