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 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.
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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekler et al. (US 2012/0244608) in view of Damdar et al. (Proceedings of the ASME Symposium on Elevated Temperature Application of Materials for Fossil, Nuclear, and Petrochemical Industries March 25-27, 2014) and Shen et al. (Nuclear Engineering and Technology 48, 2016, 533-544).
Considering Claim 23: Sekler et al. teaches a composite element for a bioreactor (¶0030) comprising an outer frame (130) made of polyethylene; an inner component (136) made of glass; (¶0062; Fig. 14), where the outer frame and the inner component form an aseptic seal/hermetic seal (¶0057); and the component allows for optical monitoring of the reactor (¶0062).
Sekler et al. does not teach the glass component as being affixed with a compression seal Sekler et al. teaches using an o-ring seal/connecting part to provide compression fit (¶0063). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used an o-ring compression seal to affix the glass component in the polymer, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Sekler et al. suggests, they are functionally equivalent to adhesive bonding (¶0004).
Sekler et al. is silent towards the material of the o-ring. However, Shen et al. teaches using a metallic o-ring in a reactor (Abstract). Sekler et al. and Shen et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely sealing reactors. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used a metallic o-ring in the reactor of Sekler et al., as in Shen et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Shen et al. suggests, metal o-rings provide good sealing properties with low tightening force (pg. 534).
Sekler et al. is silent towards the compressive stress. However, Damdar et al. teaches the recommended compressive stress on a polymeric seal as being 25 to 103 MPa (pg. 8). Sekler et al. and Damdar et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same technical difficulty, namely polymer sealing materials. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used a compressive stress in the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Damdar et al. suggests, it is the recommended compressive stress in polymeric seals.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekler et al. (US 2012/0244608) in view of Damdar et al. (Proceedings of the ASME Symposium on Elevated Temperature Application of Materials for Fossil, Nuclear, and Petrochemical Industries March 25-27, 2014).
Considering Claim 24: Sekler et al. teaches a composite element for a bioreactor (¶0030) comprising an outer frame (130) made of polyethylene; an inner component (136) made of glass; (¶0062; Fig. 14), where the outer frame and the inner component form an aseptic seal/hermetic seal (¶0057); and the component allows for optical monitoring of the reactor (¶0062).
Sekler et al. does not teach the glass component as being affixed with a compression seal Sekler et al. teaches using an o-ring seal/inner frame to provide compression fit (¶0063). The o-ring of the inner frame would only have one surface in contact with the outer frame. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used an o-ring compression seal to affix the glass component in the polymer, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Sekler et al. suggests, they are functionally equivalent to adhesive bonding (¶0004).
Sekler et al. is silent towards the compressive stress. However, Damdar et al. teaches the recommended compressive stress on a polymeric seal as being 25 to 103 MPa (pg. 8). Sekler et al. and Damdar et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same technical difficulty, namely polymer sealing materials. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used a compressive stress in the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Damdar et al. suggests, it is the recommended compressive stress in polymeric seals.
Considering Claim 25: Sekler et al. teaches the sensor as comprising a base plate portion/connecting part between the o-ring and the outer frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17, 21, and 22 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Considering Claim 1: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed structure. The closest prior art of record is Sekler et al. (US 2012/0244608). Sekler et al. teaches a composite element for a bioreactor (¶0030) comprising an outer frame (130) made of polyethylene; an inner component (136) made of glass; (¶0062; Fig. 14), where the outer frame and the inner component form an aseptic seal/hermetic seal (¶0057); and the component allows for optical monitoring of the reactor (¶0062). Sekler et al. does not teach the glass component as being affixed with an adhesive or a compression seal. Sekler et al. teaches using an o-ring seal/inner frame to provide compression fit (¶0063).
Sekler et al. does not teach directly contacting the transparent material to the polymeric outer frame, as the reference teaches an intermediate adhesive component or o-ring. There is no suggestion in the prior art of record to modify Sekler et al. to replace the attachment means with a direct contacting between the polymeric outer frame and the transparent material.
Considering Claim 5: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed structure. The closest prior art of record is Sekler et al. (US 2012/0244608). Sekler et al. teaches a composite element for a bioreactor (¶0030) comprising an outer frame (130) made of polyethylene; an inner component (136) made of glass; (¶0062; Fig. 14), where the outer frame and the inner component form an aseptic seal/hermetic seal (¶0057); and the component allows for optical monitoring of the reactor (¶0062). Sekler et al. does not teach the glass component as being affixed with an adhesive or a compression seal. Sekler et al. teaches using an o-ring seal/inner frame to provide compression fit (¶0063).
Sekler et al. does not teach directly contacting the transparent material to the tubular connecting part, as the reference teaches an intermediate adhesive component or o-ring. There is no suggestion in the prior art of record to modify Sekler et al. to replace the attachment means with a direct contacting between the tubular connecting part and the transparent material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767