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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (GERMANY 10 2021 106 047.8 03/12/2022) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement dated 10/3/2023 has been considered and made of record.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At ¶[0005] of the instant specification, the use of claim numbers should be avoided since the numbering of the claims may change during the prosecution of the application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control device” in claims 9 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7 and 13-15 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.
In claims 7 and 8, “the connection lines” lacks clear antecedent basis. Note: Claim 1 only requires “at least one connection line”.
Claim 13 is considered indefinite because the claim is devoid of a transitional term, such as, “comprising” or “consisting”. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be clearly determined since it is not clear if the claim is limited to only the recited method steps or can include additional steps not specifically stated in the claim. It is also suggested that the claim positively recite the intended method steps rather than “wherein” phrases. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claims 14 and 15 are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite claim and do not cure the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (European Micro. Pack. Conf.)(Cited in the attached 892) in view of Hilliard et al. (US 4,695,547).
With respect to claim 1, the reference of Fisher et al. discloses:
A plasma source (Fig. 1), comprising a carrier (depth stop) on which a plasma source (plasma chip) is arranged, wherein the plasma source (plasma chip) comprises:
an LTCC substrate,
wherein the plasma source (plasma chip) is connected to at least one connection line (high voltage cables).
While the reference of Fisher et al. discloses that the plasma source device can be used in a well of an array of cell culture receptacles (Fig. 10)(page 4, “V. Cell Culture Experiments”), the reference does not disclose the use of an array of plasma sources arranged on a carrier as a lid or part of a lid for the array of cell culture receptacles.
The reference of Hilliard et al. discloses that a device for exposing cells to an electrical field can be constructed using an individual probe (10) for a single well (Fig. 1) as is also disclosed in the reference of Fisher et al.; or alternatively, a plurality of probes can be incorporated into a cover for the wells (Fig. 3).
In view of this teaching and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of the plasma sources the reference of Fisher et al. into a carrier or lid (cover) for the array of cell culture receptacles for the known and expected result of allowing all of the wells to be simultaneously treated as suggested by the reference of Hilliard et al. (Col. 3, lines 55-63). The structure resulting from the combination as discussed above would include an array of plasma sources on a carrier such that an individual plasma source (plasma chip) is assigned to each cell culture receptacle (well), wherein each plasma source (plasma chip) is connected to at least one connection line (high voltage cable).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, the structure resulting from the combination of the references as discussed above with respect to claim 1 would by connected to at least two connection lines (high voltage cables) (Fig. 1 of Fisher et al.).
With respect to claim 4, the substrate of the plasma source (plasma chip) has conductor paths comprising gold (page 2, “A. LTCC Basic Chip”, of Fisher et al.).
With respect to claim 5, the structure resulting from the combination of the references as discussed above with respect to claim 1 would encompass a device wherein each plasma source would have an individual substrate (Fig. 1 of Fisher et al.).
With respect to claim 6, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the construction of the device based on considerations such as the size, shape, etc. of the wells while providing the required plasma exposure to each of the wells in the array of culture wells.
With respect to claim 7, the structure resulting from the combination of the references as discussed above with respect to claim 1 would encompass a device wherein each substrate has it’s own connection lines (high voltage cables). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the connection lines such that each plasma source can be individually controlled.
With respect to claim 8, as disclosed in the reference of Hilliard et al., multiple plasma sources can have a common connection line when operating the plasma sources simultaneously.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, the structure resulting from the combination of the references as discussed above with respect to claim 1 would be capable of being connected to and controllable by an external control device. Note: The external control device has not been positively recited as an element of the claimed plasma array structure.
With respect to claim 11, the structure resulting from the combination of the references as discussed above with respect to claim 1 would include a carrier with a housing element (housing) having a protrusion that include a plasma source (Fig. 1 of Fisher et al.).
With respect to claim 12, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, if the depth stop and housing elements of Fisher et al. (Fig. 1) do not meet the limitations of claim 12, it would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the construction of the device based on considerations such as the size, shape, etc. of the wells while providing the required plasma exposure to each of the wells in the array of culture wells.
With respect to claim 13, use of the structure resulting from the combination of the references as discussed above with respect to claim 1 in a manner as disclosed by the reference of Fisher et al. would include the following steps:
Providing an array of culture receptacles (culture wells) ((Fig. 10)(page 4, “V. Cell Culture Experiments”);
Inserting (seeding) cell material into at least one cell culture receptacle ) ((Fig. 10)(page 4, “V. Cell Culture Experiments”);
Placing the array of plasma sources on the array of culture receptacles (page 4, “V. Cell Culture Experiments”);
Controlling the plasma sources (page 4, “V. Cell Culture Experiments”); and
Treating the cell material within the culture receptacles (page 4, “V. Cell Culture Experiments”).
With respect to claim 14, use of the structure resulting from the combination of the references as discussed above with respect to claim 1 in a manner as disclosed by the reference of Fisher et al. would include controlling a plurality of the plasma sources.
With respect to claim 15, treatment of the culture receptacles with the plasma prior to providing the cell material would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art for the known and expected result of disinfection of the culture receptacle as is known in the art as evidenced by the reference of Fisher et al. (page 1, “Introduction”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference of Weltmann et al. (US 2012/0288934) is cited as prior art which pertains to the treatment of living cell with plasma.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H BEISNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1269. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/William H. Beisner/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1799
WHB