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 Objections Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: if the abbreviation for glioblastoma (GBM) is used, the first instance must include the whole term; for example, “glioblastoma (GBM)”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of “determining the efficacy of an electric field,” by applying the field to a cell culture, and observing the cell culture . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims provide for general observations, without any guidance on how these observations can be applied in a manner that is greater than the claimed abstract idea. The three independent claims are all drawn to overlapping methods of “determining the efficacy of an alternating electric field,” wherein the main difference between the independent claims is how the cell culture is claimed. “Efficacy” is defined in later dependent claims , wherein “efficacy” is defined as a decrease in proliferation markers, following the electric field treatment. There are no claims that provide the artisan with how this “efficacy” is quantified, and how this quantification provides the artisan with instructions on a practical application . See MPEP 2106.04(d). For the analysis of the claims under 35 USC 101, the Applicant is directed to MPEP 2106, wherein the flow chart from section III will be discussed. Step 1 of the analysis asks of the claims are drawn to one of the statutory categories. Since the claims are drawn to a method, the claims are considered one of the four statutory categories. Step 2a asks if the claims are directed to a judicial exception, like an abstract idea. Since the claims provide for a human performing the steps, even though an electric field was applied, the claims can be considered an “abstract idea,” since the analysis can be performed purely through human observation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). Therefore, the claims are considered an abstract idea, with respect to step 2a. Step 2b asks if the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception, and for this analysis the Applicant is directed to MPEP 2106.05(d). As is clear from the claim language, there is a step that requires cultured cells are exposed to an alternating electric field, which provides for a method step that results in some form of transformation ; however, if this step is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity already utilized by the art , the claim as a whole can be considered a judicial exception. For example, in University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014) there is a requirement that BRCA must be sequence d , which would necessarily require steps beyond the human mind, but since these steps are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional , the claims do not provide for anything beyond the judicial exception. Applying alternating electric fields to cancer cells is already known in the prior art, and is generally referred to as tumor treating fields ( TTFields ). See Chang, et al ( Cell Death Discovery , 4, 113, 2018), page 1, “Abstract” section; Palti , et al ( PGPub 2017/0215939), paragraph [0002]; Hendricks, et al (US Pat. 12,214,196), column 1, lines 25-39. Since this method has been established in the prior art, and was FDA approved for the treatment of glioblastoma since before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would suggest that the claimed steps of applying the field to cells, including cancer cells, would be well-understood, routine, and conventional . See Khagi , et al ( The Oncologist , 30, oyae227, 2025) , page 2, left column, first [full] paragraph; MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, the claim, as a whole, can be interpreted to be an abstract idea, as defined by the MPEP. Since the additional step does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim as a whole must be considered a judicial exception, and cannot be eligible under 35 USC 101. Since the claimed observation, including dependent claims. does not provide for any quantitative data that would inform the artisan of any meaningful limits to the abstract idea, there are no steps that can be considered patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) . For example, for the claimed method to not be considered an abstract idea, the claims must include some limitations drawn to the acquired data, and how this would affect the skilled artisan’s decision to change glioblastoma treatment. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, et al ( Cell Death Discovery , 4, 113, 2018) and Merz, et al ( Neuro-Oncology , 15, 670-681. 2013) . Chang teaches methods of culturing glioblastoma cells, and applying an alternating electric field to these cells; Chang observed the outcome of the study, which is considered equivalent to “determining the efficacy.” Chang provides for cells on glass coverslips, and does not discuss microtumors, or organoids that have been formed from culturing cells using “organotypic tissue slice cultures.” Merz provides for methods of using glioblastoma-based organotypic hippocampal slice cultures (OHSC) as a means of determining the efficacy of glioblastoma drugs. Merz notes that using OHSCs for determining drug efficacy allows for personalized treatments and therapies. See page 670, “Abstract” section. Merz provides the ordinary artisan with ample implicit motivation to apply OHSC methods to any determination of glioblastoma treatment efficacy, since it is clear that this method allows for robust, personalized results for a particular treatment regimen. With respect to claim s 1-3 , 13-16 , and 19, Chang teaches the claimed method, and Merz motivations the ordinary artisan to apply a microtumor that is generated by OHSC. With respect to claims 4 and 5, Merz describes the OHSCs as being acquired from patent primary glioblastoma cells. See page 671, “Tissue Slice Preparation” section. With respect to claim 6, although both references describe human cells, mouse cells are routinely used as a model organism for in vitro testing. There is nothing non-obvious about the application of mouse cells in a method of testing other mammalian cells, especially when mouse cells are routine in the art . With respect to claim 7, Merz provides for time points ranging from 1 hour to 4 weeks. See page 672, first three lines. With respect to claim 8, Chang teaches 1 x 10 4 cells. See page 2, “Seeding of cells onto glass cover slips for TTFields experiments” section. With respect to claim 9, Merz describes culturing on a membrane. See page 671, right column, 1 st [full] paragraph. With respect to claims 10, 11, and 18, Chang observes proliferating and non-proliferating cells. See page 10, left column, last paragraph. Although Chang does not explicitly state observing proliferation markers, and observing the tumor size change, this would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan, who is explicitly testing cancer cells for susceptibility to cancer treatments. With respect to claim 12, Chang describes using TTFields for cancer treatment, and as such, this step would be obvious to the ordinary artisan. With respect to claim 17, although neither Chang nor Merz describe a general size of the organoid, there is nothing non-obvious about the claimed size. With respect to claim 20, Chang describes the alternating electric field in TTField methods as between 100 and 500 kHz. See page 1, right column, 1 st [incomplete] paragraph. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID W BERKE-SCHLESSEL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3643 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8AM-5:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Melenie Gordon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8037 . 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. /DAVID W BERKE-SCHLESSEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651