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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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) 1, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez-Badiola (US 2024/0426812) in view of Lapham (US 2021/0396776).
As to claim 1, Chavez-Badiola discloses a system for automated, artificial-intelligence-based oocyte identification and processing, the system comprising:
an imaging system positioned in proximity to a biological sample containing a candidate cumulus-oocyte-complex (COC), wherein the imaging system is configured to identify and locate the candidate COC within the biological sample (para. 0005, 0017);
a set of robotic arms (para 0230, 0611) configured to:
move the biological sample between one or more stations (para. 0125, 0137, 0183-0197), and
denude the candidate COC from the biological sample (para. 0272-0073, 0368); and
a control system configured to control at least one of: the imaging system, the set of robotic arms, or the set of stations (para. 0136, 0176).
Chavez-Badiola is silent regarding a set of stations, wherein each station of the set of stations is configured to receive the biological sample;
Lapham teaches a set of stations, wherein each station of the set of stations is configured to receive the biological sample (para. 0054, 0111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Laphamr’s teachings into Chavez-Badiola since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and provide high throughput sample processing.
As to claim 10, the combination of Chavez-Badiola and Lapham discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the biological sample includes a plurality of candidate COCs (Chavez-Badiola, para. 0005, 0017).
As to claim 11, the combination of Chavez-Badiola and Lapham discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the set of robotic arms is configured to receive a pipette (Chavez-Badiola, para. 0119, 0230, 0241).
As to claim 12, the combination of Chavez-Badiola and Lapham discloses the system of claim 11 wherein the pipette is configured to collect the biological sample (Chavez-Badiola, para. 0119, 0230, 0241).
As to claim 13, the combination of Chavez-Badiola and Lapham discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the control system includes an artificial intelligence/machine learning system (AI/ML system) (Chavez-Badiola, abstract, para. 0176).
As to claim 14, the combination of Chavez-Badiola and Lapham discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the set of robotic arms includes a grabber configured to move a culture container between the set of stations (Chavez-Badiola, para. 0111, 0119, 0158, 0953).
As to claim 15, the combination of Chavez-Badiola and Lapham discloses
15. The system of claim 14 wherein the biological sample is contained within the culture container (Chavez-Badiola, para. 0111, 0119, 0158, 0953).
As to claim 16, the combination of Chavez-Badiola and Lapham discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the set of stations includes at least one of: an incubation station, a viewing station, or a working station (Chavez-Badiola, para. 0125, 0129, 0145, 0154).
As to claim 17, the combination of Chavez-Badiola and Lapham discloses the system of claim 16 wherein: the set of stations includes the incubation station, and the incubation station includes a first incubation station and a second incubation station (Chavez-Badiola, para. 0125, 0129, 0145, 0154; Lapham, para. 0054, 0111).
As to claim 18, the combination of Chavez-Badiola and Lapham discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the set of robotic arms includes a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm (Chavez-Badiola, para 0230, 0611).
As to claim 19, the combination of Chavez-Badiola and Lapham discloses the system of claim 1 wherein each robotic arm of the set of robotic arms is movable in six degrees of freedom (Chavez-Badiola, para 0161, 0176).
As to claim 20, the combination of Chavez-Badiola and Lapham discloses the system of claim 1 further comprising a transfer bay configured to receive the biological sample (Chavez-Badiola, para 0113, 0114, 0255, 0256).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art discloses the claim limitations discussed above, but fails to disclose the combined features required by dependent claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7399. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/PHUOC TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights