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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of India on 06/12/2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN201911023337 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Note: The Office attempted to download this priority document, but it does not appear to be a part of the PCT file. It is further noted that the only priority document listed on the WIPO publication is IN201911023338. That document has been provided. Further, this was noted in the previous Office Action with no acknowledgement received from Applicant.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-55 are pending.
Claims 12-55 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected.
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Note: No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of "canceled" or "not entered." See MPEP 714(4). Correction is requested.
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 1-5 and 7-11 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.
Claim 1, line 8 and 9, recite “comprising one of a slot and tongue configured to engage the other of a slot and tongue on the base plate”. It is unclear if both the slot and tongue are adjacent to the recess and on the base plate or there is a slot or tongue on the base plate and the other is located adjacent to the recess in the bottom. For examination purposes, it is interpreted as a slot or tongue is located adjacent to the recess in the bottom and configured to engage the other slot or tongue on the base plate.
Claims 2-5 and 7-11 are further rejected as they depend from Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the recess in the bottom of a bioreactor apparatus" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The recess of claim 1 is located in the bottom of the bioprocessing device so it is unclear whether this recess is located in the bottom of a bioreactor apparatus or whether this is the same recess as the one in the bottom of the bioprocessing device. Further clarification is requested. For examination purposes, it is interpreted as the recess in the bottom of the bioprocessing device.
Claims 3-5 are further rejected as they depend from Claim 2.
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).
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.
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 alignment elements as taught by McCaffrey. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would allow necessary alignment of two different parts (para 106).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebauer et al. (WO2018122247A1) in view of McCaffrey et al. (AU2011217862A1) and further in view of Akerstrom (WO2013137813).
Regarding Claim 2, Gebauer in view of McCaffrey teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Gebauer in view of McCaffrey does not teach the locking mechanism to include a latch, wherein the latch is moveable between an engagement position where the latch engages the base plate when the base plate is positioned in the bottom of the bioprocessing apparatus to retain the base plate in the recess, and a clearance position where the base plate can be withdrawn from the recess.
Akerstrom teaches a bag locking mechanism for bioreactor bags (page 4, lines 1-6). Akerstrom further teaches a movable locking means 208 (latch) which is moveable linearly between the locking and releasing position (page 7, lines 22-23)(moveable between and engagement position and a clearance position).
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 with the locking mechanism as taught by Akerstrom. One would have been motivated to make this modification as the locking mechanism can be manufactured without any protruding external clamps which can be a safety hazard (page 4, lines 23-25).
The locking mechanism of Akerstrom being incorporated within the device of Gebauer in view of McCaffrey would have the latch engage the base plate when positioned in the bottom of the bioprocessing apparatus.
Regarding Claim 3, Gebauer in view of McCaffrey and further in view of Akerstrom teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2 (see above). Akerstrom further teaches the force of the spring means 226 will automatically return the moveable locking means towards the fixed locking means 106 to the locking position (page 7, lines 31-33)(the latch is spring-biased toward the engagement position).
Regarding Claim 4, Gebauer in view of McCaffrey and further in view of Akerstrom teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2 (see above). Akerstrom further teaches it is possible to have a handle for manual movement of the moveable locking means 208 to the releasing position (page 8, lines 1-2)(the locking mechanism includes a handle that is operable to move the latch from the engagement position to the clearance position).
PNG
media_image2.png
556
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Gebauer in view of McCaffrey and further in view of Akerstrom teaches all of the limitations of Claim 3 (see above). Akerstrom further teaches the latch to include an angled upper surface configured to translate a downward force from the base plate into a lateral force for moving the latch to the clearance position against the spring bias during installation of the base plate in the recess (see Fig. 6, below).
Given the modification of the latch taught by Akerstrom into the bioprocessing device of Gebauer in view of McCaffrey, the angled surface would be the upper surface and as the baseplate is inserted into the recess, the spring would be moved towards the releasing position by way of the downward force from pressing into the baseplate.
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 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 teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Gebauer in view of McCaffrey 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 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 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 teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Gebauer in view of McCaffrey 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 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended claims or prior art which is no longer relied upon. New references Gebauer et al. (WO2018122247A1) and McCaffrey et al. (AU2011217862A1) have been introduced and the reasons for rejection are stated above.
The amendments to Claim 2 to address the 112(b) rejections from the 12/09/2025 Office Action have not been accepted and the 112(b) rejection still remains as insufficient antecedent basis still remains.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN E LEPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3971. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 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, 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.
/J.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799