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 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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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) because the claim limitation 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 is:
“culture medium control member” in independent claim 1, which reads on a porous material and other known equivalents (see paragraphs [0067]-[0070] and Fig. 4)
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is 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 limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 102187633)1 in view of Anderson (US 6168948).
With respect to claim 1, Choi discloses a cell culture device comprising a culture medium supply unit. The culture medium supply unit includes a base (Figure 4:120) and a first reservoir (Figure 4:111a-c) disposed on the base. The first reservoir includes an accommodation space for holding a culture medium and a surface through which a through hole (Figure 4:H1-H3) is formed. A culture medium control member (Figure 4:320) is positioned over the through hole and is configured to control a flow of the culture medium discharged from the first reservoir (“The fluid flow control membrane 320 controls the supply rate of the culture solution through which the culture solution in the first and third microwells 111a and 111c flows into the flow path 121”). The culture medium control member is depicted as a film that is positioned over the through hole, as opposed to passing through the through hole.
Anderson discloses a fluidic system for handling and processing biological samples. Anderson indicates that flow between adjacent reservoirs (Figure 3:202, 206, 210, 214, 218) and channels (Figure 3:204, 208, 212, 216) is regulated using a fluidic control member (Figure 10:1116 and Figure 19:2002) fabricated from porous material. This is described in column 42, line 58 to column 43, line 6. The fluidic control member is shown in the Figures as configured to pass through a corresponding channel (“through hole”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ensure that the Choi culture medium control members are disposed to pass through an associated through hole. Anderson indicates that porous fluidic control members configured as plugs and/or wicks are well known in the art (“Such restrictions are known to ones skilled in the art and include optimization of critical dimensions and the use of porous plugs”) and may be made from biocompatible and inexpensive porous materials designed to be incorporated into a microscale system.
With respect to claims 2-4, Choi and Anderson disclose the combination as described above. Choi shows that multiple reservoirs 111a, 111b, 111c are disposed on the base 120 and are spaced apart from each other. Choi shows in Fig. 4 how the multiple reservoirs 111a, 111b, 111c are created using partition walls disposed therebetween. Each reservoir 111a, 111b, 111c includes a corresponding through hole H1, H2, H3.
With respect to claim 5, Choi and Anderson disclose the combination as described above. Choi and Anderson each teach a porous culture medium control member.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Choi and Anderson disclose the combination as described above. Choi additionally teaches that a plate unit (Figure 4:200) is detachably connected to the culture medium supply unit. The plate unit includes a channel (Figure 3:121) configured to guide a path through with the culture medium is supplied from the culture medium supply unit. At least one well (Figure 4:220) is connected to the channel.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Choi and Anderson disclose the combination as described above. Although Choi appears to disclose a single channel and a single well, Anderson indicates that it is common to provide multiple channels that link multiple wells in series and/or in parallel. See Figs. 3, 5a, 6a, 6b and 11c, for example, in Anderson. A mere duplication of parts (here, providing a plurality of channels and wells) to produce a cumulative, redundant, or otherwise predictable result is considered to be prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Cheng (US 20150369796), Baron (US 20080050768) and McCormick (US 4743537) references teach the state of the art regarding porous fluidic control members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8613. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (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 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.
/NATHAN A BOWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
1 See provided English translation
