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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objection to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m) because figures 1 and 3 are photographs or CAD drawings, as opposed to line drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(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, 4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simons (US 20160338321 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Simons discloses a device (121) for handling model organisms during research, the device comprising a platform (123) and one or more securing stands (141), wherein the platform further comprises an area that defines a plurality of holes (Fig. 5), wherein the holes are configured to permit an organism to grasp the platform and to permit fluids to fall through the platform (This limitation would be met).
Regarding claim 2: Simons discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the platform comprises polycarbonate, polypropylene, acetal copolymer, PVC, high-density polyethylene, polyvinyl, metal such as aluminum and steel, polyvinyl, and combinations thereof (paras 26,41 describes stainless steel material).
Regarding claim 3: Simons discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the device comprises four securing stands (141, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4: Simons discloses the limitations of claim 3 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the securing stands (141) are positioned at each corner of the platform (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6: Simons discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the device comprises a portion configured to hold laboratory equipment (perforations could be used to hold laboratory equipment, this limitation is therefore met).
Regarding claim 7: Simons discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the plurality of holes are aligned in rows to permit the organism to grasp in multiple directions (As seen in Fig. 5, perforations are arranged in rows).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simons as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jeffery (US 20040163609 A1)
Regarding claim 5: Simons discloses the limitations of claim 3 as shown above.
Simon fails to teach wherein the securing stands are suction cups.
However, Jeffery teaches wherein the securing stands are suction cups (24, paras 26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the legs as disclosed by Simons with the suctions cups as taught by Jeffery with a reasonable expectation of success because providing suction cups at the ends of the platform legs would achieve the predictable result of increasing the anchoring of the platform, decreasing the likelihood that the platform is dislodged during use from either movement or force.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simons as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Odlin (US 20230363360 A1).
Regarding claim 8: Simons discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Simons fails to teach wherein the platform is coated with a material selected from the group consisting of hyaluronic acid, heparin, Teflon, and poly-N-vinylpyrrolidone.
However, Odlin teaches wherein the platform is coated with a material selected from the group consisting of hyaluronic acid, heparin, Teflon, and poly-N-vinylpyrrolidone (para 56 describes a Teflon coating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the platform surface as disclosed by Simons with the Teflon coating as taught by Odlin with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a Teflon coating would achieve the predictable result of increasing corrosion resistance which would therefore protect the surface from repetitive exposure to water.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simons as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang (US20230365907A1).
Regarding claim 9: Simons discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Simons fails to teach wherein the platform further comprises a coating that provides the platform with a charged surface.
However, Chang teaches wherein the platform further comprises a coating that provides the platform with a charged surface (para 11 describes providing a positively charged silane coating on a surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the platform surface as disclosed by Simons with the charged coating as taught by Chang with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a charged coating would achieve the predictable result of allowing greater adhesive of any tissue collected from the animal, assisting the researchers as they attempt to study the cell behavior of any tissue collected.
Regarding claim 10: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 9 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the coating is selected from the group consisting of silane, poly-lysine, keratin, mint oil, chitosan, and titanium oxide (Chang, para 11 describes providing a positively charged silane coating on a surface).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of platforms and coatings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642