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Claims 32, 37 and 55 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/19/2026.
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, 3, 5, 6, 11-15, 19-21, 23, 26- 29 are considered eligible subject matter. Even if the claims were considered an abstract idea, the claims provide additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, i.e. measurement of cell migration capacity.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-15, 19-21, 23 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites “the scratching operation in line 6 and “the at least one scratch” in the second to last line. The applicant previously newly claims “a scratching operation” and “at least one scratch” in the preamble of claim 12, which have been previously claimed in the claims in which it depends. Therefore, the later referral to “the” item appears to be the same item claimed in the independent claim and the preamble of claim 12, but does not clearly claim such a limitation. Similarly, claim 23 recites “the plurality of preset time points” in the last line, when “a plurality of preset time points” is newly claimed in the preamble of the claim, when it had been previously claimed in a claim in which claim 23 depends upon. Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-15, 19-21, 23 and 26 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 13 recites the limitation "the photographing parameter" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the extension direction" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the plurality of scratches” in line 10. It is uncelar as to which plurality of scratches the applicant is referring to, because multiple “plurality of scratches” are previously claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240092793 (Freitas Da Costa et al).
Regarding claim 1, Freitas Da Costa et al discloses a method for determining a cell migration capacity, comprising: performing a scratching operation on cells through a cell scratching device to form at least one scratch, i.e. making a scratch with a pipette tip (page 22, paragraph 142); positioning and photographing the at least one scratch by a cell image analysis device to obtain at least one image of the at least one scratch by capturing images of the scratch by a microscope (page 22, paragraph 142); and determining a migration capacity of the cells based on the at least one image of the at least one scratch by assessing the cell migration distances (page 22, paragraph 142).
Regarding claim 6, Freitas Da Costa et al discloses the cell image analysis device performs the positioning and photographing of the at least one scratch based on a same photographing parameter to obtain the at least one image of the at least one scratch, the photographing described in page 22, paragraph 142, the photographing parameter including at least one of a sample feed coordinate, a total photographing length of the at least one scratch, a count of view fields of the at least one scratch, an exposure degree, i.e. the amount of time (page 22, paragraph 142), or a photographing focal length, i.e. the focal length at magnification 100x (page 22, paragraph 142).
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 3, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Freitas Da Costa et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220327694 (Ichihashi et al)
Regarding claim 3, Freitas Da Costa et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Freitas Da Costa et al does not disclose expressly a fluorescent marker is provided at an endpoint of the at least one scratch, and the positioning and photographing the at least one scratch by the cell image analysis device includes: determining, by the cell image analysis device, the endpoint of the at least one scratch by tracing the fluorescent marker to achieve the positioning and photographing of the at least one scratch, or a bottom of the at least one scratch is provided with an irradiated light, and the positioning and photographing the at least one scratch by the cell image analysis device includes: positioning, by the cell image analysis device, the at least one scratch based on a light transmission performance of the at least one scratch to achieve the positioning and photographing the at least one scratch.
Ichihashi et al discloses a bottom of the at least one scratch is provided with an irradiated light, i.e. fig. 2, item 35 irradiates sample on stand 31, and the positioning and photographing the at least one scratch by the cell image analysis device includes: positioning, by the cell image analysis device, by the stage (fig. 2, item 31) the at least one scratch based on a light transmission performance of the at least one scratch to achieve the positioning and photographing the at least one scratch, because the transmission performance of light from item 35 is used in the imaging done by imaging device 34.
Freitas Da Costa et al & Ichihashi et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. imaging scratch data.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a irradiated light and positioning based on the light transmission.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by providing a specialized means for imaging scratch assays.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Freitas Da Costa et al with the imaging of Ichihashi et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 27, Ichihashi et al discloses the positioning and photographing the at least one scratch by the cell image analysis device to obtain at least one image of the at least one scratch includes: inputting a position coordinate of a first photographing view field of the at least one scratch into the cell image analysis device (the position described in page 3, paragraph 55); determining, by the cell image analysis device, a sample feed coordinate of a sample stage based on a coordinate of a zero position of the sample stage and the position coordinate of the first photographing view field by imaging the area based on the original position of stage 39 of fig. 2; and controlling, by the cell image analysis device, a movement direction and/or a movement distance of the sample stage based on the sample feed coordinate of the sample stage to photograph, by the cell image analysis device, the first photographing view field of the at least one scratch on the sample stage, since the scratch is imaged based on the input coordinates (page 3, paragraph 55, page 44, paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 29, Ichihashi et al discloses the positioning and photographing the at least one scratch by the cell image analysis device to obtain at least one image of the at least one scratch includes: inputting position coordinates of a plurality of view fields of the at least one scratch into the cell image analysis device (the position described in page 3, paragraph 55); and automatically photographing, by the cell image analysis device, the plurality of view fields based on the position coordinates of the plurality of view fields of the at least one scratch (page 3, paragraph 55, page 44, paragraph 64), the plurality of fields of view being defined by the fields of view that re processed on page 7, paragraphs 115-117) .
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Freitas Da Costa et al in view of Ichihashi et al, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140301632 (Ikeda et al).
Regarding claim 5, Freitas Da Costa et al (as modified by Ichihashi et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Ichihashi et al further disclose the cell image analysis device includes at least one global camera (fig. 2, item 34), and the positioning and photographing the at least one scratch by the cell image analysis device includes: photographing a global image of the at least one scratch by the global camera (page 3, paragraph 55); determining scratch information of the at least one scratch based on the global image (page 7, paragraph 117); and processing images of a plurality of view fields, i.e. the image processed field and the user field, of the at least one scratch based on the scratch information (page 8, paragraph 130).
Freitas Da Costa et al (as modified by Ichihashi et al) does not disclose expressly the image analysis device includes at least one local camera that photographs images of a plurality of view files of the imaged object based on the information from the global image to achieve the positioning and photographing of the at least one scratch.
Ikeda et al discloses the image analysis device includes at least one local camera (fig. 21, items 102-2, 104-2), in addition to the global camera (fig. 21, item 102-1, 104-2) that photographs images of a plurality of view fields of the imaged object based on the information from the global image to achieve the positioning and photographing of the imaged object (fig. 22).
Freitas Da Costa et al (as modified by Ichihashi et al) &Ikeda et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. image capture.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a narrow field of view camera.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by getting a more detailed image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Freitas Da Costa et al (as modified by Ichihashi et al) with the additional camera for main areas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claims 11-13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Freitas Da Costa et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 9664600 (Bergmann et al).
Regarding claim 11, Freitas Da Costa et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Freitas Da Costa et al further discloses the cell scratching device includes a cultivation portion, the portion that is scratched in the plate (page 22, paragraph 142) and a scratching portion, the pipette (page 22, paragraph 142), the cultivation portion is configured to cultivate the cells (page 22, paragraph 142).
Freitas Da Costa et al does not disclose expressly the scratching portion includes a scratching cover plate and a scratching member, the scratching cover plate includes a base plate, a connecting member, and a position-limiting structure that are connected sequentially, the base plate and the position-limiting structure are respectively located at two ends of the connecting member, and the base plate is provided with at least one scratching gap.
Bergmann et al discloses the scratching portion (fig. 2) includes a scratching cover plate (fig. 2, item 16) and a scratching member (fig. 2, item 52), the scratching cover plate includes a base plate, i.e. the plate 28 of fig. 2, a connecting member, i.e. the platform in which arrow 12 is pointing at, and a position-limiting structure that are connected sequentially, i.e. the legs of item 18 of fig. 2, the base plate and the position-limiting structure are respectively located at two ends of the connecting member, because item 28 and item 18 are connected by means of the platform 12, and the base plate is provided with at least one scratching gap (fig. 2, item 60).
Freitas Da Costa et al & Bergmann et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. scratch assays.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set up a scratching portion with parts.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by allowing more control of consistency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Freitas Da Costa et al with the scratching portion of Bergmann et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Bergmann et al discloses the performing a scratching operation on the cells through a cell scratching device to form at least one scratch includes: securing the scratching cover plate to the cultivation portion through the position- limiting structure (fig. 2, item 52 secured by item 18, which secures the entire apparatus); and performing the scratching operation on the cells by inserting the scratching member into the at least one scratching gap (fig. 2, item 52 inserted in item 60) and moving the scratching member along one end of the at least one scratching gap to the other end of the at least one scratching gap (col. 2, lines 55-60), wherein a position of the at least one scratch is determined by a position of the at least one scratching gap (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Freitas Da Costa et al discloses automatically photographing, through the cell image analysis device, the at least one scratch based on the photographing parameter and the position of the at least one scratch to obtain a plurality of images of the at least one scratch (page 22, paragraph 142), wherein each image of the plurality of images corresponds to a preset time point (page 22, i.e. 0, 12, 24, 28 and 72 hours); and determining the migration capacity of the cells based on the plurality of images of the at least one scratch and a plurality of preset time points corresponding to the plurality of images, i.e. migration distance (page 22, paragraph 142).
Regarding claim 23, Freitas Da Costa et al discloses the determining the migration capacity of the cells based on the plurality of images of the at least one scratch and a plurality of preset time points corresponding to the plurality of images includes: determining a migration distance (page 22, paragraph 142) or a migration area of the cells based on the plurality of images; and determining the migration capacity of the cells based on the migration distance or the migration area, and the plurality of preset time points, as described in the migration calculations according to the time points on page 18, paragraphs 105-106.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Freitas Da Costa et al in view of Bergmann et al, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ichihashi et al.
Regarding claim 15, Freitas Da Costa et al (as modified by Bergmann et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Freitas Da Costa et al (as modified by Bergmann et al) does not disclose expressly the cell image analysis device includes a sample stage and a photographing module, and the automatically photographing, through the cell image analysis device, the at least one scratch based on the photographing parameter and the position of the at least one scratch to obtain a plurality of images of the at least one scratch includes: at each of the plurality of preset time points, positioning the cultivation portion of the cell scratching device at a target position of the sample stage; and controlling the photographing module to automatically photograph the at least one scratch based on the photographing parameter and the position of the at least one scratch to obtain at least one image of the at least one scratch at the preset time point.
Ichihashi et al discloses the cell image analysis device includes a sample stage (fig. 2, item 31) and a photographing module (fig. 2, item 34), and the automatically photographing, through the cell image analysis device, the at least one scratch based on the photographing parameter and the position of the at least one scratch to obtain a plurality of images of the at least one scratch includes: at each of the plurality of preset time points, positioning the cultivation portion of the cell scratching device at a target position of the sample stage (fig. 8, s200, page 3, paragraph 55); and controlling the photographing module to automatically photograph the at least one scratch based on the photographing parameter and the position of the at least one scratch to obtain at least one image of the at least one scratch at the preset time point (page 3, paragraph 55).
Freitas Da Costa et al (as modified by Bergmann et al) & Ichihashi et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. cell assays.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a stage and photographing system carry out the imaging.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust, user-friendly system by being able to control positioning automatically.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Freitas Da Costa et al (as modified by Bergmann et al) with the stage and imaging of Ichihashi et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 19-21, 26 and 28 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.
Claim 14 contains allowable subject matter regarding the automatically photographing, through the cell image analysis device, the at least one scratch based on the photographing parameter and the position of the at least one scratch includes: controlling the cell image analysis device to automatically photograph the claimed first scratch based on the claimed photographing parameter and a position of the first scratch; determining a positional relationship between the first scratch and the claimed second scratch based on a positional relationship between a first scratching gap to the first scratch and a second scratching gap corresponding to the second scratch; and controlling the cell image analysis device to automatically photograph the second scratch based on the claimed positional relationship between the first scratch and the second scratch and the photographing parameter.
Claim 19 contains allowable subject matter regarding positioning the cultivation portion of the cell scratching device at the target position of the sample stage includes: determining a center point of the claimed cultivation portion by analyzing the claimed obtained image of the cultivation portion; determining a movement direction and a movement distance of the cultivation portion based on a positional relationship between the center point of the cultivation portion and a zero position of the sample stage; and positioning, through the claimed moving mechanism, the cultivation portion at the target position of the sample stage based on the claimed movement direction and the claimed movement distance of the cultivation portion.
Claim 20 contains allowable subject matter regarding the claimed controlling the photographing module to automatically photograph the at least one scratch includes: automatically photograph the at least one scratch by matching the claimed first adapter with the claimed second adapter.
Claim 21 contains allowable subject matter regarding the claimed controlling the photographing module to automatically photograph the at least one scratch includes: controlling the claimed sample stage or the photographing module to move along a direction parallel to an extending direction of the at least one scratch to obtain a plurality of images of multiple fields of view of the at least one scratch along the extension direction, or a plurality of scratches extending in a direction parallel to each other are formed after the scratching operation is performed on the cells, and the claimed controlling the photographing module to automatically photograph the at least one scratch includes: controlling the claimed sample stage or the photographing module to move along a direction perpendicular to an extending direction of the plurality of scratches to obtain a plurality of images of the plurality of scratches.
Claim 26 contains allowable subject matter regarding determining the claimed migration capacity of the cells includes: determining migration abilities of a plurality of candidate cells corresponding to the claimed plurality of scratches; and determining the migration capacity of the cells based on an average value of the migration abilities of the plurality of candidate cells.
Claim 28 contains allowable subject matter regarding the positioning and photographing including: positioning and photographing the at least one scratch sequentially based on a total photographing length and a count of view fields of the claimed at least one scratch, and further obtaining a total photographing length and a count of view fields for each of a first scratch to be photographed of the claimed at least one scratch and the claimed other scratches of the at least one scratch, and also the total photographing length and the count of view fields of the other scratches of the at least one scratch are based on a positional relationship between the other scratches and the first scratch to be photographed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen Yuan Dulaney whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights