DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Claims 1-19 are pending
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A preliminary amendment of claims 1, 3-5, 15 as submitted in a communication filed on 12/14/2023 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, drawn to a microcarrier, as submitted in communication filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s species election without traverse of Species e: Iron (Fe), as submitted in communication filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/13/2026.
Claims 1-15, are at issue and will be examined to the extent they encompass the elected invention and species.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to KOREA 10-2021-0128333 filed on 09/28/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
This is the US national application which entered the national stage from
Application No. PCT/KR2022/014551 filed on 09/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/14/2023, 01/25/2024, 09/23/2024, 12/17/2024, 02/19/2025, 07/14/2025, 10/01/2025, 12/08/2025 are acknowledged. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 12/14/2023 have been reviewed and are accepted by
the examiner for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to due to the recitation of “includes at least one of a hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms”. It should be amended to recite “includes at least one hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms”. In addition, the colon between comprising and polystyrene should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to due to the recitation of “contains a hydrophobic functional group on a surface of the magnetic particle”. It should be amended to recite “contains a hydrophobic functional group on the surface of the magnetic particle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to due to the recitation of “at least one of the hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms”. It should be amended to recite “at least one of the hydrocarbon oils having 12 or more carbon atoms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to due to the recitation of “an apparent density of the microcarrier is”. It should be amended to recite “the apparent density of the microcarrier is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to due to the recitation of “an average diameter of the microcarrier is… and a specific surface area of the microcarrier is”. It should be amended to recite “the average diameter of the microcarrier is… and the specific surface area of the microcarrier is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to due to the recitation of “a diameter of the void is”. It should be amended to recite “the diameter of the void is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to due to the recitation of “a density of the hydrocarbon oil is”. It should be amended to recite “the density of the hydrocarbon oil is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to due to the recitation of “a density of the magnetic particles is”. It should be amended to recite “the density of the magnetic particles is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to due to the recitation of “containing a hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms, magnetic particles, and a styrene monomer”. It should be amended to recite “containing a hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms, the magnetic particles, and a styrene monomer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to due to the recitation of “a surface of the polystyrene-based particles further includes a primer polymer layer, a cell adhesion-inducing layer, or a combination layer thereof”. It should be amended to recite “the surface of the polystyrene-based particles further includes a primer polymer layer, a cell adhesion-inducing layer, or a combination layer thereof”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or Second Paragraph (pre-AIA )
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 (claims 2-15 dependent thereon) is indefinite in the recitation of “polystyrene-based particles that includes at least one of a hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms, and a void derived therefrom; and magnetic particles”, for the following reason: it is unclear whether the claim requires the inclusion of the hydrocarbon only, the void only, or both. Therefore, a person skilled in the arts would not know the metes and bounds of the claim in this case. For examination purposes, the recitation will be interpreted as “polystyrene-based particles that includes at least one hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms, a void derived therefrom; and magnetic particles”. Correction is required.
Claim 1 (claims 2-15 dependent thereon) is indefinite in the recitation of “comprising polystyrene-based particles that include at least one of a hydrocarbon oil….and a void derived thereof and magnetic particles” for the following reasons. The term “void derived therefrom” is unclear because one cannot determine how one could have voids derived from an oil. Does the claim require the microcarrier to have voids? Does the claim require the microcarrier to have voids filled with the oil? Does the claim simply require the microcarrier to have a hydrocarbon oil, a void and magnetic particles? Correction is required.
Claim 2 is indefinite in the recitation of “the magnetic particles include magnetic particles that are surface-treated”, for the following reason: it is unclear if all magnetic particles are surface-treated or if only a subpopulation of magnetic particles are surface treated. For examination purposes, recitation will be interpreted as “the magnetic particles are surface-treated”. Correction is required.
Claim 4 is indefinite in the recitation of “include at least one metal selected from the group consisting of gold…. And tin or an oxide thereof” for the following reasons. Is the term “thereof” in reference to tin only (tin oxide)? If the term “thereof” refers to an oxide of any of the metals previously recited, it is unclear if the magnetic particles can comprise any of the recited metals or an oxide of the metals recited. Correction is required.
Claim 5 is indefinite in the recitation of “void derived therefrom” because it is unclear as to how one could have a void derived from a hydrocarbon oil. Correction is required.
Claim 6 is indefinite in the recitation of “apparent density”, for the following reason: “apparent” is a relative term that depends on measurement techniques. Therefore, it is unclear what the density of the microcarrier should be in this case. For examination purposes, no patentable weight will be given to the term “apparent density”. Correction is required.
Claims 6-11, 13-14 are indefinite in the recitation of “is X or more and Y or less”, “having X or more and Y or less”, “contains X or more and Y or less”, and “contains greater than X and less than Y” for the following reasons. As written, it appears that the claims require two values for a particular property or composition due to the recitation of “and”. If the intended limitation is a range, the claims should be amended to recite, “is between X and Y”, “having between X and Y”, “contains between X and Y”, and “contains greater than X but less than Y”. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et a. (US20040248291A1 published 12/09/2004; hereby “Yamamoto”), in view of Deshayes et. al (US 20100317113 A1 published 12/16/2010; “Deshayes”) as evidenced by Ataman chemical (Ataman Chemicals, DODECANE, 2020) and Sigma Aldrich (Sigma Aldrich, Product #44010, accessed 2026).
Yamamoto teaches a method for cell culturing using microcarriers (Page 3 [0068]). Yamamoto teaches the use of carriers that comprise a magnetic particle having a surface and a coating layer which is provided to cover a part of the surface of the magnetic particle so that cells are allowed to adhere thereto, wherein the cell culture carriers are moved in the culture solution by the application of the magnetic field, thereby agitating the culture solution (Page 1 [0014]). Yamamoto teaches the use of a thermoplastic like polystyrene to cover magnetic particles (Page 4 [0075]-[0080]). Yamamoto teaches the dispersal of the magnetic particles that create pores (voids) on the carrier (Fig. 1- Fig. 2). Yamamoto teaches the preferred density of each of the magnetic particles is in the range of 0.8 to 2.5 g/cm3 (Page 2 [0034]). Yamamoto teaches that pore diameter can be adjusted through a sintering process (Page 7 [0137]-[0139]). Yamamoto teaches that the magnetic particles comprise a coating layer that the cells are allowed to adhere to (Page 2 [0036]).
Yamamoto does not teach of a microcarrier for cell culture comprising a hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms. Yamamoto does not teach a suspension polymerization reaction.
Deshayes teaches that microcarriers can form a spherical shape by water-in-oil copolymerization with the use of dodecane for hydrophobic suspension (Page 5 [0054]). The density of Dodecane is 0.75 g/mL as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich (Page 4). Dodecane has 12 carbons and can be linear or branched as evidenced by Ataman chemical (Page 2, lines 2-3).
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15 are directed in part to a microcarrier for cell culture comprising: polystyrene-based particles that includes at least one hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms, a void derived therefrom, and magnetic particles; wherein the magnetic particles exist in a dispersed state inside at least one of the hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms, and the void derived therefrom; wherein the density of the microcarrier is 0.95 g/cm3 or more and 1.05 g/cm3 or less; wherein a diameter of the void is 0.1 um or more and 5 um or less; wherein the polystyrene-based particles include a suspension polymerization reaction product of a monomer composition containing a hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms, magnetic particles, and a styrene monomer; wherein a surface of the polystyrene-based particles further includes a primer polymer layer, a cell adhesion-inducing layer, or a combination layer thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the suspension polymerization process of Deshayes, including the use of dodecane, in the magnetic microcarrier system of Yamamoto. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to employ the suspension polymerization process of Deshayes in the magnetic microcarrier system of Yamamoto in order to form spherical porous microcarriers for cell culture, because Deshayes teaches that such process produce spherical microcarriers and Yamamoto teaches porous magnetic carries for cell growth. Specifically, regarding claim 6 and 8, one of ordinary skill could optimize the microcarrier density and void diameter to arrive at a microcarrier destiny between 0.95 g/cm3 and 1.05 g/cm3 and a void diameter between 0.1 um and 5um through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at arriving to making spherical microcarriers for cell culture because all that is required is substituting the microcarrier formation technique from Yamamoto with the microcarrier formation technique from Deshayes. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add magnetic particles of Yamamoto to the process of Deshayes. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to add magnetic particles process of Deshayes, because one could use a magnetic field to agitate the culture solution that comprises microcarriers having magnetic particles, which is taught by Yamamoto, which is more preferable than agitating with an impeller because shear forces can disrupt eukaryotic cells, which are more sensitive than bacterial cells to shear stress. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at arriving to adding magnetic particles of Yamamoto to the process of Deshayes because all that is required is adding the magnetic particles and the magnetic field taught by Yamamoto to the process taught by Deshayes. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Deshayes in further view of Caracci et. al (US 20160145600 A1 published 05/26/2016; hereby “Caracci”) as evidenced by Wong et al. (Libretext Biology, Axolotl Academia Publishing, Reyna Cell Biology, 1.7: Fatty Acids, Published Aug 16, 2021; hereby “Wong”).
The teachings of Yamamoto and Deshayes have been discussed above.
Deshayes teaches that polypeptides may be conjugated to a microcarrier. Deshayes teaches that the N-terminal alpha amine of a polypeptide may be used to conjugate to the carboxyl group of a monomer (Page 5-6 [0059]). Deshayes teaches that a microcarrier may be formed via any suitable polymerization reaction of the mixture of monomers having carboxylic acid (Page 4 [0042]). Fatty acids are long chains of carbon atoms topped off with a carboxyl group, and the length of a fatty acid chain can vary, and most are between 14 and 20 carbons as evidenced by Wong (1.7.1, first paragraph).
Yamamoto and Deshayes do not teach that the magnetic particles are surface-treated with a hydrophobic functional group. Yamamoto and Deshayes do not teach the magnetic particles comprising Iron. Yamamoto and Deshayes do not explicitly teach a fatty acid having 2 to 20 carbon atoms or a derivative thereof and a fatty acid amine having 2 to 20 carbon atoms or a derivative thereof.
Caracci teaches coating the microcarrier with functional groups to achieve efficient cell attachment and better cell growth (Page 3 [0044]-[0045]). Caracci teaches that the functional groups can be carboxylate groups, amino groups, methyl groups, methylene groups, thiol groups, anhydride groups, phosphoric acid groups, sulfuric acid groups, or phosphatide groups (Page 3 [0045]).
Claims 2-4 are directed in part to the microcarrier for cell culture according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic particles include magnetic particles that are surface-treated with a hydrophobic functional group; wherein the magnetic particles include a hydrophobic ligand that contains a hydrophobic functional group on a surface of the magnetic particle, and the hydrophobic ligand includes at least one ligand selected from the group consisting of a fatty acid having 2 to 20 carbon atoms or a derivative thereof and a fatty acid amine having 2 to 20 carbon atoms or a derivative thereof; wherein the magnetic particles include iron.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcarriers taught in Yamamoto and Deshayes with the carboxylic acid monomers, like fatty acids, to improve polymerization as taught by Dehayes, and the functional groups, including hydrophic groups like methyl and methylene, taught by Caracci. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to modify the microcarriers taught in Yamamoto and Deshayes with the functional groups taught by Caracci to improve cell attachment because Caracci teaches that said functional group coating enhance cell adhesion to microcarriers. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at arriving to using functional group coatings to enhance cell adhesion to microcarriers because all that is required is adding the functional groups taught by Caracci to the microcarriers taught in Yamamoto and Deshayes. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Deshayes in further view of Rafiq et. al (Biotechnology journal 11.4: 473-486 published 12/03/2015; “Rafiq”) as evidenced by Nazli et. al (International Society cell & gene therapy published 2021; hereby “Nazli”).
The teaching of Yamamoto and Deshayes have been discussed above.
Yamamoto and Deshayes do not teach the diameter of the microcarrier being 50 um or more and 400 um or less, and the surface area of the microcarrier is 200 cm2/g or more and 1000 cm2/g or less.
Rafiq teaches of microcarrier, Plastic, with a polystyrene matrix having a diameter of 125-212um (Page 474, Table 1). Rafiq teaches the microcarrier, Plastic is effective for cell proliferation (Page 480, left column, second paragraph. The microcarrier Plastic has a diameter of 360-480 cm2/g as evidenced by Nazli.
Claim 7 is directed in part to the microcarrier for cell culture according to claim 1, wherein an average diameter of the microcarrier is 50 um or more and 400 um or less, and a specific surface area of the microcarrier is 200 cm2/g or more and 1000 cm2/g or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the microcarrier taught by Rafiq in the magnetic carrier system taught by Yamamoto and Deshayes. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to employ the known microcarrier dimensions and surface area taught by Rafiq in the magnetic carrier system taught by Yamamoto and Deshayes to provide sufficient surface area for cell adhesion and proliferation. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at arriving to using microcarriers with the same diameter and surface area as the microcarriers taught in Rafiq because particle diameter and surface area ranges for promoting cell growth and attachment were already known, so all the is required is selecting a known microcarrier in the magnetic carrier system taught by Yamamoto and Deshayes. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Deshayes in view of Reibetanz et al. (Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 269.20 (2011): 2281-2285; “Reibetanz”) as evidenced by Mindat (Mindat.org®, accessed 2026).
The teachings of Yamamoto and Deshayes are discussed above.
Yamamoto and Deshayes do not teach the density of the magnetic particles being 5 g/cm3 or more and 6 g/cm3 or less.
Reibetanz teaches the use of magnetite nanoparticles as reporters for microcarrier processing (Abstract). The density of Magnetite (Fe2+Fe3+2O4) is 5.175 g/cm3 as evidenced by Mindat (Page 4).
Claim 10 is directed in part to the microcarrier for cell culture according to claim 1, wherein the density of the magnetic particles is 5 g/cm3 or more and 6 g/cm3 or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the magnetite particles in Reibetanz in the magnetic microcarriers taught in Yamamoto and Deshayes. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to employ the magnetite particles in the magnetic microcarriers because magnetite is a known magnetic material used in microcarrier processing.
One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at arriving to employing magnetic particles is 5 g/cm3 or more and 6 g/cm3 or less with microcarriers because all that is required is substituting the magnetic particles taught Yamamoto, with the magnetite taught by Reibetanz. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Deshayes in futher view of Michaud et al. (WO2019229384 Published 12/05/2019; hereby “Michaud”).
The teaching of Yamamoto and Deshayes are discussed above.Deshayes teaches the formation of a polymeric microcarrier base that includes 3 to 30 parts by weight of a monomer (Page 9 [0088])
Yamamoto and Deshayes do not teach of the microcarrier for cell culture according to claim 12 wherein: the monomer composition contains 0.01 parts by weight or more and 5 parts by weight or less of magnetic particles with respect to 100 parts by weight of the hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms and wherein the monomer composition contains greater than 0.033 parts by weight and less than 3 parts by weight of an ethylenically unsaturated crosslinking agent with respect to 1 part by weight of the styrene monomer
Michaud teaches an invention that relates to a monoethylenically unsaturated monomer and to the use thereof for producing a polymer (Abstract). Michaud teaches that polymers are used with amine compounds to prepare crosslinkable compositions for the production of coating materials (Page 1, line 8). Michaud teaches that the monoethylenically unsaturated monomers according to the invention advantageously lead to polymers having improved reactivities at crosslinking (Page 11, lines 4-5). Michaud teaches that monoethylenically unsaturated monomers are advantageously used in an amount ranging from 0.01% to 10% by weight, relative to the total weight of monomers introduced (Page 8, lines 43-46).
Claims 13 and 14 are directed in part to the microcarrier for cell culture according to claim 12, wherein the monomer composition contains 0.01 parts by weight or more and 5 parts by weight or less of magnetic particles with respect to 100 parts by weight of the hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms; wherein the monomer composition contains greater than 0.033 parts by weight and less than 3 parts by weight of an ethylenically unsaturated crosslinking agent with respect to 1 part by weight of the styrene monomer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the monomer and crosslinking-agent concentrations taught by Michaud with the microcarriers taught by Yamamoto and the polymerization system taught by Deshayes. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to monomer and crosslinking-agent concentrations with the microcarriers and the polymerization system taught by Yamamoto and Deshayes to control polymer formation and crosslinking because Michaud teaches that such monomer compositions provide improved crosslinking activity. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at arriving to employing the recited monomer composition concentrations with crosslinking agents because relative monomer composition concentrations and crosslinking agents were recognized as variables in the art so all that is required is routine optimization of said concentrations to obtain suitable polymer and microcarrier characteristics. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. US 20230250391 A1 (referred to as ‘391). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11 of the instant case and claims 1, 3, 5-7 of ‘391 are both directed in part to a microcarrier for cell culture comprising: polystyrene-based particles that includes at least one of a hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms, or a void derived therefrom, wherein an apparent density of the microcarrier is 0.95 g/cm3 or more and 1.00 g/cm3 or less, wherein the density of the hydrocarbon oil is 0.75 g/cm3 or more and 0.80 g/cm3 or less, wherein the hydrocarbon oil comprises a linear or branched saturated hydrocarbon compound having 12 or more and 50 or less carbon atoms, wherein the magnetic particles exist in a dispersed state inside at least one or more of the hydrocarbon oil having 12 or more carbon atoms, or the void derived therefrom.
The claims of the instant case differ from ‘391 due to the instant case further reciting the magnetic particles are dispersed within the microcarrier. However, incorporation of magnetic particles onto microcarriers is a known predictable modification and therefore would not render the instant claims as patently distinct. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYNPHANE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6318. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-7pm.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached at (408) 918-7584. 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.
/S.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1652
/ROBERT B MONDESI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights