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Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11 June 2026.
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) 1-2, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche et al. (US 20250041773 A1) in view of Williamson (US 20180156701 A1) and Hamstrom et al. (US 20200182757 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Roche discloses a system for washing lipoaspirate (see Abstract), comprising:
(a) a chamber comprising a hollow body ("sealed enclosure 110" [0043]; FIGs. 2-4) formed of side walls having an exterior surface and an interior surface ("a side wall 112" [0043]), the chamber being open at a top side and a bottom side of the chamber (see FIG. 2);
(b) a lid ("cap 111" [0047]; FIG. 2) comprising: (i) a top surface (see FIG. 2); (ii) a lip extending downward from a bottom surface of the lid (see FIG. 3) and configured to securely connect the lid to the top side of the chamber (see FIG. 2), and (iii) a harvest port comprising a cylindrical tap extending outwardly from the top side of the lid and configured to connect to and receive a harvested lipoaspirate from a hose ("ports 1110, 1111 and 1112 intended to be connected respectively to a device for suctioning adipose tissue (vacuum pump allowing removal), a conduit for the introduction of the adipose tissue removed into the volume V and a device for the delivery of the washing liquid" [0047]; FIG. 3);
(c) a sub-assembly ("means 102 for retaining adipose tissue and filtering contaminants are present in the sealed enclosure 110" [0043]) comprising a mesh basket ("means 102 have a pore size configured to allow a liquid medium to pass through and retain adipose tissue" [0043]; FIG. 2) and disposed in an upper portion of the chamber (see FIG. 3), the sub-assembly configured to receive the lipoaspirate received through the harvest port ([0047]) and to separate extracted waste fluid from the lipoaspirate to form a washed lipoaspirate ("Once the introduction of the washing liquid has been completed (step E70), suction is carried out by the vacuum pump through the port 1131 in order to discharge the washing liquid containing the filtered fraction of contaminants from the device 100 and recover it in a waste container" [0059]);
(d) a tray ("collecting tray 104" [0048]; FIG. 2) configured to insert into a lower portion of the chamber through an opening in the side walls, thereby forming a bottom portion of the system (see FIG. 2), the tray comprising: (i) a plate (see FIG. 2).
Roche fails to specify (ii) raised sidewalls positioned along the entire perimeter of the plate and extending upward from a top surface of the plate; and (ii) a foam assembly fitting onto the plate and within the sidewalls so that the foam assembly is disposed in a lower portion of the chamber and configured to concentrate the washed lipoaspirate; and (e) an extraction port along one of the side walls of the chamber configured to permit removal of lipoaspirate that has been one of washed and concentrated. However, Williamson teaches a histologic tissue sample support device (see Abstract) comprising raised sidewalls positioned along the entire perimeter of the plate and extending upward from a top surface of the plate ("cassette 12 that defines a recess or interior area surrounded by at least one sidewall 12a and including a bottom wall 12b" [0079]; FIG. 1); and (ii) a foam assembly ("resilient structure 42" [0080]; FIG. 3A) fitting onto the plate and within the sidewalls so that the foam assembly is disposed in a lower portion of the chamber ("resilient structure 42 biases the tissue sample 44 towards bottom wall 12b" [0081]) and configured to concentrate the washed lipoaspirate ("foam should be constructed so as to shed or release processing fluid after each reagent cycle of a tissue processing machine" [0080-0082]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Roche to incorporate the teachings of Williamson to suitably “engage and retain tissue in place during processing and embedding” [0080]).
Roche/Williamson fails to specify an extraction port along one of the side walls of the chamber configured to permit removal of lipoaspirate that has been one of washed and concentrated. However, Hamstrom teaches devices and methods for processing and harvesting adipose tissue (see Abstract) comprising an extraction port along one of the side walls of the chamber configured to permit removal of lipoaspirate that has been one of washed and concentrated ("outlet 105 is in fluid communication with first chamber 150 through tissue extraction port 180" [0042]; FIG. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Roche/Williamson to suitably allow for removal of materials from within the chamber ([0039-0041]).
Regarding Claim 2, Roche fails to specify at least one of: the extraction port comprises a cylindrical hole in the lower portion of the chamber that protrudes outward from the side of the chamber, and the extraction port contains threads configured to couple to an extraction port cap that contains the extraction within the system. However, Hamstrom teaches at least one of: the extraction port comprises a cylindrical hole in the lower portion of the chamber that protrudes outward from the side of the chamber ("outlet 105 having proximal end 106 and distal end 107" [0042]; FIG. 3), and the extraction port contains threads configured to couple to an extraction port cap that contains the extraction within the system ("Distal end 107′ comprises various types of access means, such as a flip cap or screw cap that serve as temporary closures of distal end 107′" [0062]; FIG. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Roche/Williamson to suitably prevent leakage during use of tissue processing system ([0063]).
Regarding Claim 6, Roche discloses the lid comprises an opening on a top surface of the lid configured to permit access to an inside of the mesh basket ("ports 1110, 1111 and 1112 … a conduit for the introduction of the adipose tissue removed into the volume V" [0047]).
Regarding Claim 7, Roche discloses the mesh basket comprises a mesh bottom forming a bottom portion of the sub-assembly and a plurality of mesh sides forming side portions of the sub-assembly ("means 102 delimit a centrifugation chamber 160" [0043]; FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Roche discloses the lid further comprises a port cap fitting into an opening on a top surface of the lid and configured to be removed from the opening permit access to an inside of the chamber by the user with a spatula ("cap 111 and the cover 101, respectively, comprise an opening 1113" [0051]; FIG. 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche et al. in view of Williamson and Hamstrom et al., and further in view of Friedman et al. (US 20180057787 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Roche/Williamson/Hamstrom fails to specify the tray further comprises a squeegee. However, Friedman teaches a tissue treatment system includes a container and a flow management device ([0005]) wherein the tray further comprises a squeegee ("mesh filter 1710 can promote a “squeegee” effect" [0183]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Roche/Williamson/Hamstrom to suitably “help remove material from the mesh filter 1710 and reduce waste during extraction” ([0183]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche et al. in view of Williamson and Hamstrom et al., and further in view of Schafer et al. (US 20120271254 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Roche/Williamson/Hamstrom fails to specify the sub-assembly comprises a circular hole in a lower portion of the sub-assembly that lines up with extraction port of the chamber, and 35 wherein the circular hole is configured to form a seal with the extraction port through a slit valve. However, Schafer teaches a canister, system, and method of filtering fat (see Abstract) wherein the sub-assembly comprises a circular hole in a lower portion of the sub-assembly that lines up with extraction port of the chamber (see FIG. 3), and wherein the circular hole is configured to form a seal with the extraction port through a slit valve ("valve 328 on base 314 is used to control flow of filtered fat through outlet port 326" [0058]; FIG. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Roche/Williamson/Hamstrom to suitably extract filtered fat from the canister aseptically ([0011] & [0019]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are 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: no references were found to teach the claimed features of Claims 3-5 and 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references provided on the attached PTO-892 form are considered relevant to applicant’s disclosure and are cited to further show the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-8846. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm (EST) M-F.
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, Rebecca E. Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/Adam Marcetich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang
Examiner
Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights