DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebauer et al. (WO2018122247A1) in view of McCaffrey et al. (AU2011217862A1) and Staheli et al. (US20180071700A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gebauer teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
423
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A support housing for a flexible bioprocessing bag (a bioprocessing apparatus) having a bottom, a peripheral sidewall defining an interior space for receiving a flexible bioprocessing bag (para 15, and Fig. 1, below)
The base segment includes an opening 117 for receiving an end portion of a flexible bioprocess bag (see Fig. 1, above).
Gebauer further teaches the supporting part 104 which may have arrangements such as snap fit members for securing the flexible bioprocess bag on the supporting part 104 (para 68)(a locking mechanism to retain the base plate). While Gebauer does not explicitly teach the snap fit arrangement to be in the recess 117, a rearrangement of parts without changing the operation of the device has been held prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Gebauer does not explicitly teach a locating mechanism adjacent to the recess to locate the base plate in the recess, the locating mechanism comprising one of a slot or tongue configured to engage the other of a slot or tongue on the base plate.
Stahli discloses a bioprocessing apparatus comprising a bottom 110 and a peripheral sidewall 104 that define an interior space for receiving a flexible bioprocessing bag 16. A recess 140 is provided in the bottom for receiving a base plate of the flexible bioprocessing bag. A locking mechanism 53 and a locating mechanism in the form of a slot 54 are disposed adjacent to the recess. Additional locking/locating mechanisms are also provided.
PNG
media_image2.png
176
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
McCaffrey teaches an analytical assembly which has multiple parts being joined together (para 104). McCaffrey further teaches alignment of parts may be accomplished through the use of structural alignment elements such as pins (tongues) and holes (slots) on opposing surfaces (para 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gebauer with the locating and locking mechanisms as taught by McCaffrey and Staheli. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would allow necessary alignment of two different parts (para 106).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebauer et al. (WO2018122247A1) in view of McCaffrey et al. (AU2011217862A1) and and Staheli et al. (US20180071700A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Troughton (“Handbook of Plastics Joining”, Ch. 18, pages 175-201, 2008, William Andrew Inc.).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Gebauer in view of McCaffrey and Staheli teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Gebauer in view of McCaffrey and Staheli does not teach the locking mechanism to include a pair of apertures adjacent to the recess and configured to receive a corresponding latch of the base plate.
Troughton teaches cantilever beam snap-fits which consist of hook (latch) and groove (apertures) joints where the hook interlocks with a groove on the other part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gebauer in view of McCaffrey and Staheli with two hook and groove locks adjacent to the recess. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Troughton teaches this as a method of attaching and joining two plastics together and this type results in a tight fit with low stress induced on the system (18.6.3.1).
Claim 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebauer et al. (WO2018122247A1) in view of McCaffrey et al. (AU2011217862A1) and and Staheli et al. (US20180071700A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of AlarmGrid (“How Do Plunger Switches Work?”) and further in view of Larner (US1679774A).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Gebauer in view of McCaffrey and Staheli teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Gebauer in view of McCaffrey and Staheli does not teach an indicator mechanism with a plunger located within the bottom and a top portion of the plunger configured to protrude into the recess and a rocker arm having a first and second end, the first end connected to the plunger.
AlarmGrid teaches plunger switches work by when a door or face is closed and pressed onto the plunger surface, the plunger is pressed down, and when it is opened or removed from the surface, it pops back up (para 1).
Larner teaches a plunger device which has a lever 21 (rocker arm) which is connected to the plunger and to a suitable form of indicator to indicate the plungers position (para 12 and Fig. 3, below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gebauer in view of McCaffrey and Staheli with a plunger being depressed when the base plate is in position and rocker arm to indicate the position of the plunger as taught by AlarmGrid and Larner. One would have been motivated to make this modification as AlarmGrid teaches a plunger is a suitable way to detect if a substrate is in a specific position and Larner teaches an effective indicator for
PNG
media_image3.png
383
545
media_image3.png
Greyscale
knowing the position which the plunger is in.
Regarding Claim 11, Gebauer in view of McCaffrey and Staheli further in view of AlarmGrid and further in view of Larner teach all of the limitations of Claim 10. Larner further teaches the plunger connected to a suitable form of indicator to indicate the plungers position (the second end of the rocker arm comprising an indicator to move in response to movement of the plunger)(para 12 and Fig. 3, above). The modification of Gebauer in view of McCaffrey with the AlarmGrid plunger and the indicator of Larner would result in the movement of the indicator providing indication that the base plate is properly or improperly placed within the recess.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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.
Claim 56 is allowed.
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed 09 July 2026 are sufficient to place these claims in condition for allowance.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s amendment filed 09 July 2026, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the combination of Gebauer with McCaffrey and Staheli.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights