DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and under examination.
This Application is a Divisional of U.S. Application No. 16/77800, filed January 29, 2020, which claims priority to Korean patent document No. KR10-2019-0012159, filed January 30, 2019.
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 1-6 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.
The terms “upper side” and “lower side” in claim 1, step (b) are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “upper” and “lower” with regard to an upper side of the acoustic wave device and a lower side of the hydrogel accommodating structure, are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of these limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear what locations are intended to be encompassed within, or excluded from, the locations on an “upper” and “lower” side.
Claims 2-6 are included in this rejection, as these claims depend from above rejected claim 1, and fail to remedy the noted deficiencies.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (IDS; KR10-2017-0100314; Published 2017 – English translation provided and referred to hereafter).
With regard to claim 1, Lee et al. teach a method for three-dimensionally patterning particles, including cells, in a hydrogel, which is manufacturing an artificial tissue (claim 1, p.2, Description, Para. 1). The method includes: (a) preparing a hydrogel accommodating structure comprising a bottom plate, a container and a cover, an acoustic wave device, a hydrogel solution including cells, and an acoustic coupling medium (claims 1-3; p.2, Description, Para. 1, last para-p. 3, para. 1; Fig.); (b) combining the acoustic wave device, the hydrogel accommodating structure, the acoustic coupling medium and the hydrogel solution while injecting the acoustic coupling medium into a space located at an upper side of the acoustic wave device and a lower side of the hydrogel accommodating structure, and injecting the hydrogel solution into the hydrogel accommodating structure (p. 3, para. 10-20; Fig. 3-5); and (c) applying acoustic waves to the hydrogel solution and gelling the hydrogel solution after setting acoustic wave applying conditions (Fig. 3-5, 8, 9; p. 4, Para. 13-14).
As the method produces a manufactured artificial tissue, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thus manufactured artificial tissue is necessarily removed from its production system after completion of the process. As such, the steps of (d) detaching the hydrogel accommodating structure from the acoustic wave device after completing gelation of the hydrogel solution; (e) disassembling the bottom plate, the cover and the container of the hydrogel accommodating structure; and (f) extracting the manufactured artificial tissue, would have to be performed to turn off the manufacturing system and remove the finished tissue for use as desired.
With regard to claim 2, Lee et al. teach that the acoustic waves are applied, which causes gelation of the hydrogel (Fig. 7-8). Thus, applying the acoustic waves and the gelling of the hydrogel are carried out simultaneously.
With regard to claim 3, Lee et al. teach that the container is made of PDMS (polydimethylsiloxane) (p. 3, Para. 9), which Application indicates is a material usable in the claimed method (see Spec., p. 12, line 8-11). Thus, an attenuation coefficient of the container and a reflection coefficient of the cover are set according to conditions of aligning cells in the hydrogel in the beginning step, and the cells in the hydrogel are aligned by adding a standing wave, and the positions of the cells in the hydrogel are controlled 3-dimensionally by adjusting the attenuation coefficient of the container and the reflection coefficient of the cover (Fig. 8-9; p. 3, para. 2-7; p. 4, para. 13-14).
With regard to claim 4, Lee et al. teach that the acoustic wave device comprises at least one pair of IDT electrodes; where the pair of IDT electrodes are aligned in desired directions according to the cells/conditions in the hydrogel at the start of the method (Fig. 8-9; p. 3, Para. 5-17).
With regard to claims 5-6, as Lee et al. teach a container including a cover as claimed, including where the container is made of PDMS (polydimethylsiloxane) (p. 3, Para. 9), which is a material used by Applicant (see Spec., p. 12, line 8-11), the coefficient of the cover is necessarily calculated as recited in claim 5, and is necessarily capable of providing the result of a vertical pattern forming in case the reflection coefficient of the cover is 0.15 or more.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M.H. TICHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Sharmila G. Landau can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/JENNIFER M.H. TICHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights