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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments filed 07/07/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-16 now remain pending in the application.
Applicant amendments overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 05/12/2026, the previous 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 15 and 16 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
In the restriction mailed 02/25/2026 the following groups were presented:
Group I claims 1-9, drawn to a container for a sample classified in B01L2300/0858
Group II claims 10-12, drawn to a container for a sample, classified in B01L2300/0858
Group III claim 13, drawn to a method of examining a biological sample, classified in G01N21/03.
In the claims filed 07/07/2026, newly submitted claims will have the following grouping:
Group IV claim 15, drawn to a container for a sample classified in B01L2300/0858
Group V claim 16, drawn to a container for a sample classified in B01L2300/0858
Please note that newly entered claim 14 is dependent on claim 1, and is thus grouped into group I.
The restriction between groups I through III from the Office action mailed 02/25/2026 has additionally been provided below.
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed group I requires the material of the container is transparent, group II does not require this. Group II requires the first wall portion be inclined with respect to the container axis by 1.9°±0.3° or n times that where n is an integer greater than 1, group I does not require this. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I and III are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process, as the product does not require the step of recording an emission of the sample.
Inventions II and III are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process, as the product does not require the step of recording an emission of the sample.
Inventions I and IV are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed group I requires the bottom portion to have an area of at least 200 mm2, group IV does not require this. Group IV requires the third wall portion is the uppermost wall portion and the container does not include a further wall portion above the third wall portion, group I does not require this. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I and V are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed group I requires the bottom portion to have an area of at least 200 mm2, group V does not require this. Group V requires the height of the first wall portion in the direction of the container axis is at least two times the height of the second wall portion in the direction of the container axis, group I does not require this. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions II and IV are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed group II requires the first wall portion be inclined with respect to the container axis by 1.9°±0.3° or n times that where n is an integer greater than 1, group IV does not require this. Group IV requires the third wall portion is the uppermost wall portion and the container does not include a further wall portion above the third wall portion, group II does not require this. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions II and V are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed group II requires the first wall portion be inclined with respect to the container axis by 1.9°±0.3° or n times that where n is an integer greater than 1, group V does not require this. Group V requires the height of the first wall portion in the direction of the container axis is at least two times the height of the second wall portion in the direction of the container axis, group II does not require this Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions III and IV are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process, as the product does not require the step of recording an emission of the sample.
Inventions III and V are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process, as the product does not require the step of recording an emission of the sample.
Inventions IV and V are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed group IV requires the third wall portion is the uppermost wall portion and the container does not include a further wall portion above the third wall portion, group V does not require this. Group V requires the height of the first wall portion in the direction of the container axis is at least two times the height of the second wall portion in the direction of the container axis, group IV does not require this. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 15-16 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 remain pending, with claims 1-9 and 14 being examined and claims 10-13, 15-16 being withdrawn pursuant to the election filed 03/10/2026 and election by original presentation presented above.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[00137] and [00188] both describe “a fourth wall portion”. In [00137] it is fourth wall portion 143, and [00188] it is fourth wall portion 243. These are the only times a “fourth wall portion” appears in the specification, otherwise it is “a third wall portion 143” and “a third wall portion 243”
Therefore, it is believed that [00137] and [00188] should instead be “a third wall portion”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-2015/0044770-A1) in view of Kaneko (US-2018/0369804-A1) and Miyagawa (US-2016/0289662-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a container (cell culture container) for a sample, comprising ([0035]):
a bottom portion, a container axis being oriented perpendicular to said bottom portion ([0035] see container may be formed in a rectangular structure and the cell culture container includes a cell culture region to which a cell is attached to be cultured. One skilled in the art would find it obvious that the container will have an axis oriented perpendicular to the bottom of the container);
wherein said container has a polygonal basic shape ([0035]),
a material of the container (cell culture container) is transparent ([0035] see the material is preferably transparent to count cells under a microscope), and
However, Kim does not teach:
a first wall portion, said first wall portion adjoining the bottom portion, wherein said first wall portion is inclined by between 0.50° and 50° with respect to the container axis;
a second wall portion, said second wall portion adjoining said first wall portion, and wherein said second wall portion is inclined by between 30° and 80° with respect to said container axis, and
a third wall portion, said third wall portion adjoining said second wall portion, and wherein said third wall portion is inclined by between 2° and 30° with respect to said container axis,
wherein the first wall portion has a different inclination with respect to the container axis than the second wall portion, and the second wall portion has a different inclination with respect to the container axis than the third wall portion,
In the analogous art of containers for PCR enabling cell observation, Kaneko teaches a container with a bottom surface and having sidewalls with varying angles (Kaneko; abstract).
Specifically, Kaneko teaches a container for PCR 117 seen in Figure 4, where the container 117 has a bottom surface 117a (Kaneko; [0058]). As seen in Figure 4, there is a wall adjoining the bottom surface 117a that is unlabeled, and additionally a side surface 117c adjoined to the unlabeled surface. Please see annotated Figure 4 of Kaneko provided below which labeled the surfaces being considered each wall portion.
Figure 4 shows θB, where it is described in [0051] of Kaneko with regards to Figure 2 that θB is preferably set to 55° or more and 70° or less. It is understood that these parameters will apply for Figure 4. Thus, the complementary angle of θB and thus the angle of the first wall portion with respect to the container axis will be in the range of 35° to 20°.
[0058] of Kaneko describes that angles are formed between each of the side surfaces and a parallel line to the bottom surface, [0059] of Kaneko describes the angle of θC3 is 45°. This angle is for the unlabeled side (second wall portion) seen in Figure 4 of Kaneko. However the angles described are understood to not be with respect to said container axis. It is understood that the complementary angle to the ones described are with respect to the container axis. Therefore, the complementary angle of θC3 (and thus the angle of the second wall portion with respect to said container axis) is 90°- 45° = 45°.
[0059] of Kaneko teaches θC2 = 75°, and therefore the complementary angle and therefore the angle with respect to the container axis will be 15°. Please see annotated Figure 4 of Kaneko below which points to each of the wall portions.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the rectangular cell culture container of Kim such that each of the side walls have different angled portions as taught by Kaneko because Kaneko teaches that an angle between the bottom and side surface connecting to the bottom surface makes it possible to immerse the cell in culture liquid with a small amount of liquid, and that by having at least one inclined surface other than the inclined surface in contact with the bottom surface makes it easy to introduce a cell into the container, further that by having the angles of the sidewalls not in contact with the bottom surface prevents the cell from remaining on the inclined surface where the angles allow the cell to be introduced to the bottom surface (Kaneko; [0011], [0014], [0015], [0016], [0020]).
Please note with regards to the limitation wherein the first wall portion has a different inclination with respect to the container axis than the second wall portion, and the second wall portion has a different inclination with respect to the container axis than the third wall portion, it has been discussed above the various angles of the side surfaces where one skilled in the art would find it obvious that based on the angles above and Figure 4 of Kaneko that the three side surfaces may have different inclinations from each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
571
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim does not teach the bottom portion has an area of at least 200 mm2.
In the same problem solving area of containers for supporting culturing a cell, Miyagawa teaches where an example of a tube for culture support includes a flat-bottom tube where the surface area of a flat cutting face used as a supporting base and is a portion of sticking and culturing a cell has a surface area of 0.01 to 25.0 cm2 (Miyagawa; [0077]).
Kim is silent with regards to specific surface area for the bottom of the cell culture container, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional sizes of cell culture containers. Miyagawa provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to have a cell culture container having a surface area of 0.01 to 25.0 cm2 (1 mm2 to 2500 mm2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the surface area of the bottom portion 0.01 to 25.0 cm2 as it is taught by Miyagawa that this is a known and effective range of surface areas for cell culture containers.
The claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range; in cases where the claimed range overlaps or falls within the prior art range, a prima facie case of obviousness of the range exists. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the bottom portion area in the range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim teaches the container of claim 1.
Kim has been modified by Kaneko such that it includes three different angles for the side walls of the rectangular cell culture container, where the last angle is for the third portion and there are no additional portions after.
Please note that in Figure 4 of Kaneko, there are two side surfaces labeled 117c, and therefore both of the side surfaces 117c are considered to make up a single portion.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim teaches the container of claim 3. Kim further teaches wherein said container comprises a first wall side, a second wall side, a third wall side, and a fourth wall side (Kim; [0035] see container may be formed in a rectangular shape, where therefore there will be a first, second, third, and fourth wall side).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches the container of claim 4. The rectangular cell culture container of Kim has been modified with Kaneko such that the side walls have angled portions, and therefore each side wall will have a first, second, and third wall portion.
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim teaches the container of claim 1.
Kim has been modified with Kaneko such that each side wall has angled wall portions.
While Kaneko does not specify the heights of the side surface 117b (first wall portion) relative to the unlabeled side surface (second wall portion), and therefore does not specify that the height of the first wall portion in the direction of the container axis is at least two times the height of the second wall portion in the direction of the container axis, it has been found that limitations relating to the size is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, and that when the only difference between the prior art and the claims is the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-2015/0044770-A1), Kaneko (US-2018/0369804-A1), and Miyagawa (US-2016/0289662-A1) and in further view of Elkins (US-3777283-A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches the container of claim 4. The rectangular cell culture container of Kim has been modified with Kaneko such that each of the side walls will have first, second, and third wall portions.
However, Kim nor Kaneko teach wherein said first wall portion of said third wall side has a greater inclination with respect to said container axis than said first wall portion of said first wall side, wherein said first wall portion of said third wall side has an inclination with respect to said container axis that is greater than that of said first wall portion of said first wall side by at least 2°.
In the analogous art of examining liquid specimens, Elkins teaches a transparent slide for receiving specimen to be examined (Elkins; column 1 lines 5-10).
Specifically, Elkins teaches where a slide 10 has a plurality of chambers 11 that each have a flat upper and lower surface 12 and 13 spaced by sidewalls 14 and 15 (Elkins; column 3 lines 22-25, 34-38, Figures 1-4). It is further described by column 4 lines 47-60 that when the slide 10 is injection molded, separation of the slide from dies is facilitated by a slight intentional divergence of the top and bottom sidewalls 14 and 15 towards the open side of the chamber 11, where an example provided is that one sidewall is inclined at an angle on the order of three degrees relative to the other and that this divergence is negligible as long as uniformity is otherwise maintained.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the first wall portion of the third wall side and the first wall portion of the first wall side such that the inclination of the first wall portion of the third wall side is greater than that of the first wall portion of the first wall side by at least 2° because it is taught by Elkins that a divergence in the angle of a sidewall allows for separation of a component from a die during injection molding (Elkins; column 4 lines 47-60).
Examiner further finds that the configuration of the claimed different inclinations of the first wall portions of the third wall side and first wall side to be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular confirmation of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches the container of claim 4. The rectangular cell culture container of Kim has been modified with Kaneko such that each of the side walls will have first, second, and third wall portions.
However, Kim nor Kaneko teach wherein said second wall portion of said third wall side has a smaller inclination with respect to said container axis than said second wall portion of said first wall side, wherein said second wall portion of said third wall side has an inclination with respect to said container axis that is less than that of said second wall portion of said first wall side by at least 2°.
In the analogous art of examining liquid specimens, Elkins teaches a transparent slide for receiving specimen to be examined (Elkins; column 1 lines 5-10).
Specifically, Elkins teaches where a slide 10 has a plurality of chambers 11 that each have a flat upper and lower surface 12 and 13 spaced by sidewalls 14 and 15 (Elkins; column 3 lines 22-25, 34-38, Figures 1-4). It is further described by column 4 lines 47-60 that when the slide 10 is injection molded, separation of the slide from dies is facilitated by a slight intentional divergence of the top and bottom sidewalls 14 and 15 towards the open side of the chamber 11, where an example provided is that one sidewall is inclined at an angle on the order of three degrees relative to the other and that this divergence is negligible as long as uniformity is otherwise maintained.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the second wall portion of the third wall side and the second wall portion of the first wall side such that the inclination of the second wall portion of the third wall side is less than that of the second wall portion of the first wall side by at least 2° because it is taught by Elkins that a divergence in the angle of a sidewall allows for separation of a component from a die during injection molding (Elkins; column 4 lines 47-60).
Examiner further finds that the configuration of the claimed different inclinations of the second wall portions of the third wall side and first wall side to be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular confirmation of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim teaches the container of claim 4. The rectangular cell culture container of Kim has been modified with Kaneko such that each of the side walls will have first, second, and third wall portions.
However, Kim nor Kaneko teach wherein said first wall portion of said second wall side or said fourth wall side has a larger inclination with respect to said container axis than said first wall portion of said first wall side, wherein said first wall portion of each of the second wall side or said fourth wall side has an inclination with respect to said container axis that is greater than that of said first wall portion of said first wall side by at least 1°.
In the analogous art of examining liquid specimens, Elkins teaches a transparent slide for receiving specimen to be examined (Elkins; column 1 lines 5-10).
Specifically, Elkins teaches where a slide 10 has a plurality of chambers 11 that each have a flat upper and lower surface 12 and 13 spaced by sidewalls 14 and 15 (Elkins; column 3 lines 22-25, 34-38, Figures 1-4). It is further described by column 4 lines 47-60 that when the slide 10 is injection molded, separation of the slide from dies is facilitated by a slight intentional divergence of the top and bottom sidewalls 14 and 15 towards the open side of the chamber 11, where an example provided is that one sidewall is inclined at an angle on the order of three degrees relative to the other and that this divergence is negligible as long as uniformity is otherwise maintained.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the first wall portions of the second wall side and fourth wall side to have an inclination that is greater than the first wall portion of the first wall side by at least 1° because it is taught by Elkins that a divergence in the angle of a sidewall allows for separation of a component from a die during injection molding (Elkins; column 4 lines 47-60).
Examiner further finds that the configuration of the claimed different inclinations of the first portions to be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular confirmation of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim teaches the container of claim 4. The rectangular cell culture container of Kim has been modified with Kaneko such that each of the side walls will have first, second, and third wall portions.
However, Kim nor Kaneko teach wherein said second wall portion of said second wall side and said fourth wall side has a smaller inclination with respect to the container axis than the second wall portion of the first wall side, wherein the second wall portion of each of the second wall side and the fourth wall side has an inclination with respect to said container axis that is less than that of the second wall portion of the first wall side by at least 1°.
In the analogous art of examining liquid specimens, Elkins teaches a transparent slide for receiving specimen to be examined (Elkins; column 1 lines 5-10).
Specifically, Elkins teaches where a slide 10 has a plurality of chambers 11 that each have a flat upper and lower surface 12 and 13 spaced by sidewalls 14 and 15 (Elkins; column 3 lines 22-25, 34-38, Figures 1-4). It is further described by column 4 lines 47-60 that when the slide 10 is injection molded, separation of the slide from dies is facilitated by a slight intentional divergence of the top and bottom sidewalls 14 and 15 towards the open side of the chamber 11, where an example provided is that one sidewall is inclined at an angle on the order of three degrees relative to the other and that this divergence is negligible as long as uniformity is otherwise maintained.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the second portion of the second wall side and fourth wall side to have an inclination that is less than the second wall portion of the first wall side by at least 1° because it is taught by Elkins that a divergence in the angle of a sidewall allows for separation of a component from a die during injection molding (Elkins; column 4 lines 47-60).
Examiner further finds that the configuration of the claimed different inclinations of the second portions to be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular confirmation of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
Claim(s) 14 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-2015/0044770-A1), Kaneko (US-2018/0369804-A1), and Miyagawa (US-2016/0289662-A1) and in further view of Clarkson (US-2007/0140919-A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim teaches the container of claim 1. If it is determined that modified Kim does not teach wherein the height of the first wall portion in the direction of the container axis is at least two times the height of the second wall portion in the direction of the container axis, in the analogous art of sample vessels, Clarkson teaches a sample tube with a tubular portion, an intermediate portion, a frustoconical portion, and a cylindrical portion (Clarkson; [0001], [0062]).
Specifically, Clarkson teaches where the sample tube 1 includes the tubular portion 3, intermediate portion 4, frustoconical portion 5, and cylindrical portion 7 as best seen in Figure 1 (Clarkson; [0062]). [0064] describes that moving from the tubular portion 3 to intermediate portion 4 has a widened external wall 9d, but the internal shape of the tube is a continuation of the line of internal face of wall 9a/9b of the tubular portion. Therefore, the sample tube 1 will have three sections: tubular portion 3 and intermediate portion 4 making up the first section, frustoconical portion 5 as the second section, and cylindrical portion 7 as the third section. Based on Figure 1, the first section will have a height that is at least two times the height of the second section.
Examiner finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., changing the heights of the various sections of a sample container), and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., holding a sample), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the first wall section and second wall section heights of reference modified Kim with the height of the first section being at least two times that of the second section of reference Clarkson, since the result would have been predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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:
Regarding claim 2, Kim has been modified with Kaneko to teach the different angles for wall portions of the cell culture container. Kaneko teaches where the angle of θB (angle between the bottom surface and the adjoining sidewall) is 55° or more and 70° or less, where the complementary angle with respect to the container axis will be 35° to 20°.
It would therefore not be obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Kim such that the angle between the bottom surface and adjoining sidewall is 0.5° to 5°, as this is outside of the range Kaneko teaches.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amendments to the claims and arguments, see page 11, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim (US-2015/0044770-A1), Kaneko (US-2018/0369804-A1) and Miyagawa (US-2016/0289662-A1).
Other References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dinarello (US-4434237-A) teaches the selection of a container size for a cell culture depends on the volume of cell suspension used (Dinarello; column 7 lines 1-5).
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 SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights