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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Fujimoto et al. (EP 3854587 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimoto et al. teach:
1. A chip for cell culture (Abstract+), comprising
a laminate (e.g., 1A) having a flow path structure inside (see Fig. 3 for example),
wherein the laminate comprises a bottom plate substrate (e.g., 20a), a flow path substrate (e.g., 12, 13) in which a flow path (e.g., 3d) is formed (see ¶ 0072 & Fig. 3 for example) by laser processing (¶ 0065+), and a top plate substrate (e.g., 11) in this order (see Fig. 3 for example), and
the flow path substrate comprises a resin (¶ 0084-0098) having a glass transition temperature of 37° C. or higher, an elastic modulus at 25° C. of 1×109 Pa or more, and an elastic modulus at 150° C. of 1×107 Pa or less (Fujimoto et al. disclose various resins described in paragraphs 0084-0098 that correspond to the exemplary resins detailed in paragraphs 0041–0052 of the present application’s specification. Therefore, the resin of Fujimoto et al. satisfies the claimed properties.).
Regarding claim 5, Fujimoto et al. teach:
5. A method for producing a chip for cell culture (Abstract & ¶ 0015+), comprising
a laminate (e.g., 1A) having a flow path structure inside (see Fig. 3 for example), the method comprising:
(A) laminating a bottom plate substrate (e.g., 20a), a flow path substrate (e.g., 12, 13) in which a flow path (e.g., 3d) is formed (see ¶ 0072 & Fig. 3 for example) by laser processing (¶ 0065, 0067+), and a top plate substrate (e.g., 11) in this order (see Fig. 3 for example); and
(B) bonding the respective laminated substrates (see ¶ 0015-0019 for example),
wherein the flow path substrate comprises a resin (¶ 0084-0098) having a glass transition temperature of 37° C. or higher, an elastic modulus at 25° C. of 1×109 Pa or more, and an elastic modulus at 150° C. of 1×107 Pa or less (Fujimoto et al. disclose various resins described in paragraphs 0084-0098 that correspond to the exemplary resins detailed in paragraphs 0041–0052 of the present application’s specification. Therefore, the resin of Fujimoto et al. satisfies the claimed properties.).
Regarding claims 4 & 7, Fujimoto et al. teach:
4. A device for cell culture, comprising the chip for cell culture according to claim 1 (see Claim 1 rejection above).
7. A method for culturing cells, comprising culturing cells in the presence of a drug within the flow path of the chip for cell culture according to claim 1 (see ¶ 0008, 0100, 0178+ for example).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (EP 3854587 A1) in view of Issadore et al. (US 2019/0336973 A1).
Regarding claims 2 & 6, Fujimoto et al. teach:
2. The chip for cell culture according to claim 1, wherein the flow path substrate comprises a first flow path substrate in which a first flow path is formed and a second flow path substrate in which a second flow path is formed (see Figs. 3 & 7 for example), and
6. The method for producing a chip for cell culture according to claim 5, wherein the flow path substrate comprises a first flow path substrate in which a first flow path is formed and a second flow path substrate in which a second flow path is formed (see Figs. 3 & 7 for example), and in (A), the bottom plate substrate, the first flow path substrate, and the top plate substrate are laminated in this order through adhesive layers (see Fig. 3 for example).
However, Fujimoto et al. do not explicitly teach: the laminate further comprises a porous membrane between the first flow path substrate and the second flow path substrate.
Issadore et al. teach: A chip comprising
a laminate having a flow path structure inside (see Fig. 1C for example),
wherein the laminate comprises a bottom plate substrate (e.g., acrylic substrate), a flow path substrate (e.g., flow converter, lower layer) in which a flow path is formed by laser processing (see ¶ 0048 for example), and a top plate substrate (e.g., mylar film) in this order (see Fig. 1C for example), and
wherein the flow path substrate comprises a first flow path substrate (e.g., flow converter) in which a first flow path is formed and a second flow path substrate (e.g., lower layer) in which a second flow path is formed, and
the laminate further comprises a porous membrane (e.g., TEMPO membrane filter ¶ 0007-0008+) between the first flow path substrate and the second flow path substrate (see Fig. 1C for example).
wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the first flow path substrate and the second flow path substrate has a multilayer structure (see Fig. 1C for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Fujimoto et al. with a membrane of Issadore et al. so that the device may be used to separate magnetically tagged particles, such as cells (Issadore et al. Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, modified Fujimoto et al. teach: 3. The chip for cell culture according to claim 2, wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the first flow path substrate and the second flow path substrate has a multilayer structure (see Figs. 3 & 7 for example).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN KWAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7072. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 4:30 am - 2:30 pm EST.
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 CAPOZZI can be reached at (571)270-3638. 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.
/DEAN KWAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
DEAN KWAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights