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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-5 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 28, 2026.
Accordingly, the requirement is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6, 10-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamble (Design and Development of Cell Stretching Platforms for Mechanobiology Studies).
Regarding claim 6, Kamble teaches a method of cell stretching using a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) platform by electromagnets (5.2.1 Device design and working principle, page 96), wherein the stretching is in one-dimensional (see figure 5.1 a) (method of forming an elect4romagnetically driven one-dimensional stretching). Kamble teaches a 200µm deformable membrane (stretchable surface) was bonded with the PDMS device after oxygen plasma treatment, wherein the PDMS device is mounted to a 3D platform/clip coupled to electromagnetic actuator and the magnetic forces deforms the PDMS device and the deformable membrane, which in turn induce a strain onto the cells culture on the membrane upon actuation (page 97, figure 5.1) (coupling an electromagnetic actuator to the stretchable surface, and stretching the stretchable surface along one-dimension using the electromagnetic actuator). Kamble further teaches the deformable membrane can be a 200µm deformable PDMS membrane, and is fabricated by spin coating a mixture of PDMS: crosslinker (curing agent) mixture (10:1 volume ratio) on to a substate to form the membrane and the substate is peeled off after the membrane is attached to the PDMS device (pages 123-124 and 23-24, figure 6.3). Since the crosslinker is used to facilitate crosslinking (curing) of the PDMS, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the amount crosslinker (curing agent) (weight or volume ratio) in the process to facilitate the curing of the PDMS. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Kamble teaches to cure the PDMS at 80ºC for 1 hour, which overlaps with the claimed range of about 75ºC (±10%). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Since curing process is intended to cure the PDMS, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the duration of the curing process in the process to achieve the complete curing of the PDMS. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Kamble teaches to mount the membrane (stretchable surface) on a PDMS device and attach to a 3D platform/clip (stretching part) (pages 96-97, figure 5.1).
Regarding claim 12, Kamble teaches to mount the membrane (stretchable surface) on a PDMS device between stretched (moving component) in one direction (X-direction) and not stretched in the perpendicular direction (Y-direction) (pages 96-97, figure 5.1), thus, the PDMS device/frame in Y-direction is considered as fixed component.
Regarding claim 13, Kamble teaches the stretchable surface is clamped on each end on the stretching part by the holding clip (pages 96-97, see figure 5.1).
Regarding claim 15, Kamble teaches the stretching part comprises a track (see the space holding the electromagnet), one of more clamps (holder), a container (see the space between the permanent magnet) and one or more dowels (see the constrained corners) (page 96, figure 5.1).
Regarding claim 16, Kamble teaches the stretching part is 3-D printed (paragraphs 96-97).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamble (Design and Development of Cell Stretching Platforms for Mechanobiology Studies) as applied to claims 6, 10-13 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Juncker (US 20100101670).
Regarding claim 7, Kamble teaches all limitations of this claim, except the mixture is spin coating on a plastic film. However, Juncker teaches a method of making an electrical microvalve (paragraph 0001) and discloses PDMS is spin coating on a thin plastic film to form a membrane, wherein the plastic film is peeled off after the membrane is formed (pargraph 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a plastic film as temporary substrate for forming a PDMS membrane by spin coating as suggested by Juncker in the method of Kamble because Juncker teaches the plastic film can be peeled off easily (paragraph 0037).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamble (Design and Development of Cell Stretching Platforms for Mechanobiology Studies) as applied to claims 6, 10-13 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Duan (CN110398259)
Regarding claim 8, Kamble teaches the spin coating is conducted at 400rpm for 2 mins (pages 123-123 and 23-24). Thus, Kamble teaches all limitations of this claim, except the claimed rpm and duration. However, Duan teaches a method of making a flexible sensor (abstract, paragraph 0001). Duan teaches PDMS thin film is formed by spin coating on glass and then cured, wherein the rational speed and time are adjusted to control the film thickness (claim 6). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the revolutions per minute and duration of the spin coating in the process to yield the desired thickness of the PDMS film. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamble (Design and Development of Cell Stretching Platforms for Mechanobiology Studies) as applied to claims 6, 10-13 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Leduc (US20060270023), Juncker (US 20100101670) and Ozturk (US20210305915).
Regarding claim 9, Kamble teaches all limitation of this claim, except the thickness gradient or the plastic and glass coverslips. However, Leduc teaches a method of making a cell growing substrate (abstract) and discloses the cell growing substrate comprises a PDMS membrane (paragraph 0008). Leduc teaches the thickness of the membrane can be varied over the membrane with a portion being thicker than another portion to produce two or more portions of the membrane having different elasticity wherein the thickness different can be cured in a mold having a desired profile (paragraph 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the thickness gradient of the PDMS membrane as suggested by Leduc in the method of Kamble because Leduc teaches such gradient creates portions of the membrane having different elasticity which provide different level of stretches of the cell during cell stretching (paragraphs 0019, 0028 and 0037).
Kamble in view of Leduc does not explicitly teaches mixture is spin coated on the plastic film and glass coverslip (glass). However, Juncker teaches a method of making an electrical microvalve (paragraph 0001) and discloses PDMS is spin coating on a thin plastic film to form a membrane, wherein the plastic film is peeled off after the membrane is formed (pargraph 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a plastic film as temporary substrate for forming a PDMS membrane by spin coating as suggested by Juncker in the method of Kamble because Juncker teaches the plastic film can be peeled off easily (paragraph 0037). Ozturk teaches a method of forming a thin PDMS film (abstract) and discloses PDMS is spin coated on a glass slide sport substrate and the thin film is peeled off from the glass substrate after forming of the thin film (paragraph 0046). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a glass film (coverslip) as temporary substrate for forming a PDMS membrane by spin coating as suggested by Leduc in the method of Kamble because Ozturk teaches the glass coverslips can be peeled off (paragraph 0046). Since Ozturk and Juncker teaches both glass and plastic film are suitable temporary substate for forming PDMS membrane by spin coating, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the two temporary substrate materials, glass film and plastic film, to be used as temporary mold of forming the PDMS membrane by spin coating. It is prima facie obvious to combine two elements each of which is taught be the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third element which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072. Thus, the combination of Kamble in view of Leduc, Juncker, and Ozturk, teaches to spin coat the mixture on one end touching a plastic film and another end by glass coverslips (a thickness gradient mold) to form a thickness gradient.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamble (Design and Development of Cell Stretching Platforms for Mechanobiology Studies) as applied to claims 6, 10-13 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Leduc (US20060270023)
Regarding claim 14, Kamble teaches dimension is about 1cm to about 2cm (see page 96 figure 5.1a). Thus, Kamble teaches all limitation of this claim, except the thickness gradient. However, Leduc teaches a method of making a cell growing substrate (abstract) and discloses the cell growing substrate comprises a PDMS membrane (paragraph 0008). Leduc teaches the thickness of the membrane can be varied over the membrane with a portion being thicker than another portion to produce two or more portions of the membrane having different elasticity wherein the thickness different can be cured in a mold having a desired profile (paragraph 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include and optimize the thickness gradient of the PDMS membrane as suggested by Leduc in the method of Kamble because Leduc teaches such gradient creates portions of the membrane having different elasticity which provide different level of stretches of the cell during cell stretching (paragraphs 0019, 0028 and 0037).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights