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 9/28/2023 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 do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: "platform 100 " (para s . 0017 , 0041 ) ; “upper sub-chambers” 10-2, 10-3, 10-4 (para. 0044); “upper sub-chambers” 20-2, 20-3, 20-4 (para. 0044) . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “10-1” and “10” have both been used to designate the upper sub-chamber (para s . 0031 , 0044, 0045 ); reference characters “15-1” and “15” have both been used to designate the culture substrate ridge (paras. 0044, 0045); reference characters " FILLIN "Enter appropriate reference character" \* MERGEFORMAT 16-1 " and " FILLIN "Enter appropriate reference character" \* MERGEFORMAT 16 " have both been used to designate the FILLIN "Enter part that is referred to by different numbers" \* MERGEFORMAT separating member (para. 0022); reference characters “20-1” and “20” have been used to designate the sub-chamber (paras. 0022, 0029, 0030 , 0044, 0045 ). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “ FILLIN "Enter reference number that refers to different parts" \* MERGEFORMAT T1 ” has been used to designate both FILLIN "Identify the part" \* MERGEFORMAT the first tube and FILLIN "Identify the part" \* MERGEFORMAT the second tube (para. 0025). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because "In accordance with various embodiments of the disclosed subject matter" is a phrase which can be implied and the abstract is less than 50 words . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The use of the terms Matrigel (para. 0021), FILLIN "Identify the term that is a trade name or mark used in commerce." \d "[ 1 ]" Formlabs Form2 SLA 3D printing system (para. 0055), and Formlabs Clear Resin (para. 0055) , which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term s should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term s should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term s. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended that "This application claims benefit to U.S. provisional application 6 3 /423,689, filed November 8, 2022, said application incorporated herein by reference." be added on page 1 after the title . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT it is recommended that "open-top" should read "open top" as the unhyphenated spelling is used in the rest of the claim and in depending claims . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended that "each of the plurality of open top chambers has associated with it " should read "each of the plurality of open top chambers have " . Appropriate correction is required. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT it is recommended that "the base having formed ther e in" should read "wherein the base forms therein" . Appropriate correction is required. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT it is recommended that "configured to isolate at least some of target cells" should read "configured to isolate at least some target cells" . Appropriate correction is required. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT it is recommended that " the organ culture substrate " in line 3 should read " the organ culture substrates " . Appropriate correction is required. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT it is recommended that "open-top" should read "open top" as the unhyphenated spelling is used in claims 1-2 , which claim 16 depends on . Appropriate correction is required. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT it is recommended that "open-top" should read "open top" as the unhyphenated spelling is used in claims 1 and 7 , which claim 17 depends on . Appropriate correction is required. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT it is recommended that "open-top" should read "open top" as the unhyphenated spelling is used in the rest of the claim . Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 9 , 13 , 15, and 19 are 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 9 recites the limitation " chambers " in line 2 . It is unclear whether “chambers” refers to “open top chambers”, “lower sub-chambers”, “upper sub-chambers” , or another structure . Claim 13 is directed to an apparatus, but contains method step limitations: “using a treatment selected to promote adhesion and growth of the organ culture substrate”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP § 2173.05(p)). Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of said lid protrusions is configured to extend into and substantially seal a corresponding upper sub-chamber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination on the merits, the Examiner is interpreting claim 15 as if dependent on claim 2, which provides antecedent basis for a lid with protrusions. Claim 19 recites the limitation “ the lid ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination on the merits, the Examiner is interpreting claim 1 9 as if dependent on claim 2, which provides antecedent basis for a lid. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 3-6, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(2) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Singh ( W O 2023/036942 A 1) . Regarding claim 1, Singh discloses an apparatus (cell culture apparatus 100) , comprising: a base (cell culture plate 102) , having a top surface and a bottom surface and having formed therein a plurality of open-top chambers (cell culture modules 106, first chamber 206 ) and at least a first fluidics circuit (first flow channel 210, second flow channel 212) ; each open top chamber being divided into respective upper (first (apical or top) chamber 206) and lower sub-chambers (second (basal or bottom) chamber 208) by a respective chamber separating membrane (membrane 214; p. 16, lines 25-26 “ The membrane 214 has through pores (see FIG. 2C) and is arranged between the first chamber 206 and the second chamber 208 such that the first chamber 206 and the second chamber 208 are in flow communication with each other via the through pores of the membrane 214 ”; abstract “ The apical and basal chambers are separated by a porous membrane ”) , wherein the upper and lower sub-chambers are defined by interior surfaces configured to allow organ culture substrates to be secured thereto (abstract “ cultivate cells of the same or different types on the basal surface of the porous membranes in the cell culture module ”) ; the first fluidics circuit configured to support a first fluid flow between a first port (first culture medium reservoir 202, inlet 216) on the base and second port (second culture medium reservoir 204, inlet 220) on the base, the fluidics circuit being further configured to support a fluid flow through a lower sub-chamber of at least one of the plurality of open top chambers (p. 17, lines 14-16 “ The first and second flow channels 210 and 212 are microchannels providing the passage of the culture medium between the first and second culture medium reservoirs 202 and 204 through the second chamber 208 ”). Regarding claim 3 , Singh discloses an apparatus wherein the first fluidics circuit is further configured to support a fluid flow through a lower sub-chamber of at least a second one of the plurality of open top chambers (p. 15, lines 22-26) . Regarding claim 4, Singh discloses an apparatus the base having formed therein a second fluidics circuit configured to support a second fluid flow between a bottom port on the base in fluid communication with a lower sub-chamber and a top port on the base in fluid communication with a respective upper sub-chamber (p. 15, lines 22-26) . Regarding claim 5 , Singh discloses an apparatus wherein each of the plurality of open top chambers has associated with it a respective second fluidics circuit for supporting a respective second fluid flow therethrough (p. 14, lines 16-17; p. 15, lines 22-25). Regarding claim 6 , Singh discloses an apparatus wherein the base having formed therein a third fluidics circuit configured to support a third fluid flow between a port on the base in fluid communication with an upper sub-chamber and a top port protruding through the top surface of the base convey thereby a portion of the first fluid flow (p. 14, lines 16-17; p. 15, lines 22-25) . Regarding claim 10 , Singh discloses an apparatus wherein each chamber separating membrane is capable of isolating at least some of target cells harbored in the respective sub-chambers separated thereby. Regarding the limitation “ configured to isolate at least some target cells harbored in the respective sub-chambers separated thereby ”, i t has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Singh would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to have a membrane that separates chambers and allow cells to be cultivated on it ( abstract) and would be structurally capable of isolating cells in the respective sub-chambers absent clear evidence otherwise . Regarding claim 11, Singh discloses an apparatus wherein interior chamber surfaces are configured to allow organ culture substrates to be secured thereto (abstract “ cultivate cells of the same or different types on the basal surface of the porous membranes in the cell culture module ”) . Regarding claim 12, it has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production; if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process (MPEP § 2113 I). Therefore, the cell culture apparatus disclosed by Singh would anticipate the 3D printed apparatus of the claimed invention even though both were made by a different process. Regarding claim 13, Singh discloses an apparatus wherein interior chamber surfaces are configured to allow organ culture substrates to be secured thereto using a treatment selected to promote adhesion and growth of the organ culture substrate (p. 13, lines 1-10; p. 3, line 16 “the cells in the culture medium to cause the cells to bond”) . Regarding claim 14, Singh discloses an apparatus wherein at least one of the sub-chambers includes a growth matrix associated with a desired organ culture (p. 10, lines 12-13 “ the culture medium comprises human brain vascular endothelial cells and said another culture medium comprises human astrocytes ”) . 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. Claim s FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 2, 7-8, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Singh (WO 2023/036942 A1) in view of Mackowiak et al. (US 2019/0249126 A1) . Regarding claim 2 , Singh discloses a cell culture apparatus, but does not disclose a lid, having a top surface and a bottom surface, the bottom surface having formed thereon a plurality of protrusions, each protrusion configured to mate with a corresponding upper sub-chamber of the plurality of open top chambers. However, Mackowiak et al. discloses an inset with protrusions that sits on top of a culture plate to allow a second population of cells to be cultured in the wells of a culture plate (abstract; Fig. 6 well insert 10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Mackowiak et al. configuration of an inset with protrusions that sits on top of a culture plate in Singh ’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow a second population of cells to be cultured in the wells of a culture plate. This method for improving Singh ’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Mackowiak 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 Singh and Mackowiak et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2 . Regarding claim 7 , Singh discloses a cell culture apparatus, but does not disclose a lid, having a top surface and a bottom surface, the bottom surface having formed thereon a plurality of protrusions, each protrusion configured to mate with a corresponding upper sub-chamber of the plurality of open top chambers; the lid having formed therein a recess configured to allow passage therethrough of a top port protruding through the top surface of the base. However, Mackowiak et al. discloses an inset with protrusions that sits on top of a culture plate to allow a second population of cells to be cultured in the wells of a culture plate (abstract; Fig. 6 well insert 10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Mackowiak et al. configuration of an inset with protrusions that sits on top of a culture plate in Singh ’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow a second population of cells to be cultured in the wells of a culture plate. This method for improving Singh ’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Mackowiak 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 Singh and Mackowiak et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7. Regarding claim 8 , it has been held that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production; if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process (MPEP § 2113 I). Therefore, the cell culture apparatus disclosed by Singh would anticipate the 3D printed apparatus of the claimed invention even though both were made by a different process. Regarding claim 15 , Singh discloses a cell culture apparatus , but does not disclose a lid wherein at least one of said lid protrusions is configured to extend into and substantially seal a corresponding upper sub-chamber. However, Mackowiak et al. discloses an inset that protrudes into the wells of a culture plate to allow a second population of cells to be cultured in the wells of a culture plate (abstract; Fig. 6 well insert 10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Mackowiak et al. configuration of an inset that protrudes into the wells of a culture plate in Singh ’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow a second population of cells to be cultured in the wells of a culture plate. This method for improving Singh ’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Mackowiak 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 Singh and Mackowiak et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15. Regarding claim 16 , Singh discloses an apparatus wherein said base comprises four open-top chambers (Fig. 1 cell culture plate 102 comprises multiple cell culture modules), but does not disclose a lid comprising four corresponding protrusions. However, Mackowiak et al. discloses an inset with protrusions that sits on top of a culture plate to allow a second population of cells to be cultured in the wells of a culture plate (abstract; Fig. 6 well insert 10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Mackowiak et al. configuration of an inset with protrusions that sits on top of a culture plate in Singh ’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow a second population of cells to be cultured in the wells of a culture plate. This method for improving Singh ’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Mackowiak 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 Singh and Mackowiak et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16. Regarding claim 17 , Singh discloses an apparatus wherein said base comprises four open-top chambers (Fig. 1 cell culture plate 102 comprises multiple cell culture modules) but does not disclose a lid comprising four corresponding protrusions. However, Mackowiak et al. discloses an inset with protrusions that sits on top of a culture plate to allow a second population of cells to be cultured in the wells of a culture plate (abstract; Fig. 6 well insert 10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Mackowiak et al. configuration of an inset with protrusions that sits on top of a culture plate in Singh ’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow a second population of cells to be cultured in the wells of a culture plate. This method for improving Singh ’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Mackowiak 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 Singh and Mackowiak et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17. Regarding claim 20, Singh discloses a system (cell culture apparatus 100), comprising: a base (cell culture plate 102), having a top surface and a bottom surface and having formed therein a plurality of open-top chambers (cell culture modules 106, first chamber 206) and at least a first fluidics circuit (first flow channel 210, second flow channel 212); each open top chamber being divided into respective upper (first (apical or top) chamber 206) and lower sub-chambers (second (basal or bottom) chamber 208) by a respective chamber separating membrane (membrane 214; p. 16, lines 25-26 “ The membrane 214 has through pores (see FIG. 2C) and is arranged between the first chamber 206 and the second chamber 208 such that the first chamber 206 and the second chamber 208 are in flow communication with each other via the through pores of the membrane 214 ”; abstract “ The apical and basal chambers are separated by a porous membrane ”), wherein the upper and lower sub-chambers are defined by interior surfaces configured to allow organ culture substrates to be secured thereto (abstract “ cultivate cells of the same or different types on the basal surface of the porous membranes in the cell culture module ”); the first fluidics circuit configured to support a first fluid flow between a first port (first culture medium reservoir 202, inlet 216) on the base and second port (second culture medium reservoir 204, inlet 220) on the base, the fluidics circuit being further configured to support a fluid flow through a lower sub-chamber of at least one of the plurality of open top chambers (p. 17, lines 14-16 “ The first and second flow channels 210 and 212 are microchannels providing the passage of the culture medium between the first and second culture medium reservoirs 202 and 204 through the second chamber 208 ”). Singh does not disclose a lid, having a top surface and a bottom surface, the bottom surface having formed thereon a plurality of protrusions, each protrusion configured to mate with a corresponding upper sub-chamber of the plurality of open top chambers. However, Mackowiak et al. discloses an inset with protrusions that sits on top of a culture plate to allow a second population of cells to be cultured in the wells of a culture plate (abstract; Fig. 6 well insert 10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Mackowiak et al. configuration of an inset with protrusions that sits on top of a culture plate in Singh ’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow a second population of cells to be cultured in the wells of a culture plate. This method for improving Singh ’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Mackowiak 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 Singh and Mackowiak et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20. Claim FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Singh (WO 2023/036942 A1) in view of Sbrana et al. ( WO 2015/044813 A1) . Regarding claim 9 , Singh discloses an apparatus wherein the base comprises four chambers defined therein (Fig. 1 cell culture plate 102 comprises multiple cell culture modules), but does not disclose wherein the base comprises a cylindrical component. However, Sbrana et al. teaches that a support for cell cultures having a cylindrical body is known in the art (Fig. 1). Though Singh does not explicitly teach a cylindrical apparatus , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a cylindrical-shaped apparatus because the substitution of one known element for another would have predictably resulted in a n apparatus that supports cell cultures, with reasonable expectation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teachings of Singh with the teachings of Sbrana et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9 . Claim FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Singh (WO 2023/036942 A1) in view of Klausner et al. (US 20 24/0368508 A1) . Regarding claim 18 , Singh discloses a cell culture apparatus , but does not disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a first apparatus and the top surface of the lid of the first apparatus is configured to cooperate with a bottom surface of a base of a second apparatus such that the first and second apparatus may be combined into a stacked apparatus. However, Klausner et al. discloses stackable multi-well culture plates (abstract; Fig. 10) which allows crosstalk between physiological systems (para. 0002). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Klausner et al. configuration of stackable culture plates in Singh ’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow crosstalk between physiological systems. This method for improving Singh ’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Klausner 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 Singh and Klausner et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18. Claim FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Singh (WO 2023/036942 A1) in view of Mackowiak et al. (US 2019/0249126 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Klausner et al. (US 20 24/0368508 A1) . Regarding claim 19 , Singh discloses a cell culture apparatus , but does not disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a first apparatus and the top surface of the lid of the first apparatus is configured to cooperate with a bottom surface of a base of a second apparatus such that the first and second apparatus may be combined into a stacked apparatus; wherein each upper sub-chamber of the first apparatus is in fluid communication with a respective lower sub-chamber of the second apparatus. However, Klausner et al. discloses stackable multi-well culture plates (abstract; Fig. 10) which allows crosstalk between physiological systems (para. 0002). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Klausner et al. configuration of stackable culture plates in Singh ’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow crosstalk between physiological systems. This method for improving Singh ’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Klausner 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 Singh and Klausner et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19. Citation of Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mohaptra et al. (US 11,198,842) discloses a microfluidic device including a well with a porous membrane between an inlet and an outlet chamber. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5517 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri: 8:30-5:00 . 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 Michael Marcheschi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1799 /MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799