DETAILED ACTION
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10, 12-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reed et al. (US 20140178865 A1).
Considering claim 1, Reed teaches a computer-implemented method of detecting mass changes of cells ([0012] how the mass of one or more cells changes), wherein the cells are on a surface, the method comprising:
exposing a first group of cells (cancer) to a control condition (test composition) and a second group of cells (treated/untreated) to a non- control condition (does not comprise the test composition) ([0012] exposing the cells, [0019], [0042] observing cells of the same lineage (e.g. a cancer lineage));
measuring masses of individual cells in the first group (treated/untreated) and in the second group (treated/untreated) using live cell interferometry (LCI) as a function of time (Fig.2, 5, 8, [0017] measurements of cell mass with LCI, [0024] precision mass measurements with LCI…period, [0052] each individual cell);
determining an aggregate mass for the first group (treated/untreated) and an aggregate mass for the second group (treated/untreated) (Fig.5, [0020] compares the mass distribution of all cells measured (both treated and untreated; dashed line), [0043] mass property of one or more cells in the first environment can be observed a plurality of times so as to observe how the mass property of the one or more cells changes over a period of time, [0044] determining the mass of one or more cells); and
determining whether the aggregate mass of the second group (treated/untreated) has decreased relative to the aggregate mass of the first group for the time series (Fig.7, [0022] There is a trend toward a slower growth as cell mass increases in the untreated controls, [0043] observed a plurality of times so as to observe how the mass property of the one or more cells changes over a period of time, [0044] determining the mass of one or more cells).
Considering claim 12, Reed teaches an imaging system for detecting mass changes of cells, wherein the cells are on a surface, the imaging system comprising at least one processor configured to:
expose a first group of cells (cancer) to a control condition (test composition) and a second group of cells (treated/untreated) to a non- control condition (does not comprise the test composition) ([0012] exposing the cells, [0019], [0042] observing cells of the same lineage (e.g. a cancer lineage));
measure masses of individual cells in the first group (treated/untreated) and in the second group (treated/untreated) using live cell interferometry (LCI) as a function of time (Fig.2, 5, 8, [0017] measurements of cell mass with LCI, [0024] precision mass measurements with LCI…period, [0052] each individual cell);
determine an aggregate mass for the first group (treated/untreated) and an aggregate mass for the second group (treated/untreated) (Fig.5, [0020] compares the mass distribution of all cells measured (both treated and untreated; dashed line), [0043] mass property of one or more cells in the first environment can be observed a plurality of times so as to observe how the mass property of the one or more cells changes over a period of time, [0044] determining the mass of one or more cells); and
determine whether the aggregate mass of the second group (treated/untreated) has decreased relative to the aggregate mass of the first group for the time series (Fig.7, [0022] There is a trend toward a slower growth as cell mass increases in the untreated controls, [0043] observed a plurality of times so as to observe how the mass property of the one or more cells changes over a period of time, [0044] determining the mass of one or more cells).
Considering claim 20, Reed teaches a computer program product for detecting mass changes of cells, wherein the cells are on a surface, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to:
expose a first group of cells (cancer) to a control condition (test composition) and a second group of cells (treated/untreated) to a non- control condition (does not comprise the test composition) ([0012] exposing the cells, [0019], [0042] observing cells of the same lineage (e.g. a cancer lineage));
measure masses of individual cells in the first group (treated/untreated) and in the second group (treated/untreated) using live cell interferometry (LCI) as a function of time (Fig.2, 5, 8, [0017] measurements of cell mass with LCI, [0024] precision mass measurements with LCI…period, [0052] each individual cell);
determine an aggregate mass for the first group (treated/untreated) and an aggregate mass for the second group (treated/untreated) (Fig.5, [0020] compares the mass distribution of all cells measured (both treated and untreated; dashed line), [0043] mass property of one or more cells in the first environment can be observed a plurality of times so as to observe how the mass property of the one or more cells changes over a period of time, [0044] determining the mass of one or more cells); and
determine whether the aggregate mass of the second group (treated/untreated) has decreased relative to the aggregate mass of the first group for the time series (Fig.7, [0022] There is a trend toward a slower growth as cell mass increases in the untreated controls, [0043] observed a plurality of times so as to observe how the mass property of the one or more cells changes over a period of time, [0044] determining the mass of one or more cells).
Considering claims 2, 13, Reed teaches wherein the cells are cancer cells and the non-control condition comprises a compound capable of inhibiting cancer growth ([Fig.15, 0030], [0118]).
Considering claims 3, 14, Reed teaches determining whether the aggregate mass of the second group has decreased relative to the aggregate mass of the first group within four to twelve hours ([0043] observed a plurality of times so as to observe how the mass property of the one or more cells changes over a period of time).
Considering claims 6, 17, Reed teaches wherein the cells include at least one of H929 cells, MM.1 cells, patient-derived cells, multiple myeloma cancer cells, breast cancer cells, lung cancer cells, leukemia cells, and lymphoma cells ([0028]).
Considering claims 7, 18, Reed teaches wherein the non-control condition comprises at least one therapeutic, and the at least one therapeutic is a small molecule, a protein ([0069]), an antibody ([0010]) or fragment thereof, a NK cell, or a CAR T cell.
Considering claim 10, Reed teaches Reed teaches using machine learning to classify the cells into a first subpopulation of cells sensitive to a therapeutic (sensitivity to the test composition) and into a second population of cells resistant to a therapeutic (resistance to the test composition) ([0043]).
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 8-9, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. (US 20140178865 A1) in view of Parks et al. (US 20240000842 A1).
Considering claims 8, 19, Reed do not clearly teach wherein the non-control condition comprises immune cells and the second group of cells expresses a surface ligand to which the immune cells bind.
Parks teaches wherein the non-control condition (immunotherapy) comprises immune cells and the second group of cells expresses a surface ligand to which the immune cells bind ([0037]-[0038]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide above teaching of Parks to Reed, in order to improve for enhanced immune stimulation and used to deliver immune targetable ligand.
Considering claim 9, Reed do not clearly teach wherein the cells are immune cells and the non-control condition comprises a compound capable of activating the immune cells.
Parks teaches wherein the cells are immune cells and the non-control condition comprises a compound capable of activating the immune cells ([0038], [0049]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide above teaching of Parks to Reed, in order to improve for enhanced immune stimulation and used to deliver immune targetable ligand.
Considering claim 11, Reed do not clearly teach using machine learning to identify immune cells that eliminate target cancer cells.
Parks teaches wherein using machine learning to identify immune cells that eliminate target cancer cells ([0037]-[0038]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide above teaching of Parks to Reed, in order to improve for enhanced immune stimulation and used to deliver immune targetable ligand.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAI MINH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7923. The examiner can normally be reached 6-3.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/KHAI M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641