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 § 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 1-12 and 21-24 is 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 recites the limitation "the work area" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as --a work area--.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the robotic arm" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as --the articulating arm--.
Claims 2-12 and 22-24 are rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-12, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golway (US 2019/0243338) in view of Ono et al. (US 2019/0310177; hereinafter “Ono”).
In regard to claims 1-3, 7-8 and 11-12, Golway discloses a biofabrication system (fabrication and assembly system 22) comprising: a cabinet 5 comprising an integration port (at rear of cabinet 5 for receipt of items from transport conveyor 20; see [0020] and Figures 1-2 and 4A-4C) through a back wall of the cabinet; a workstation (print stage 8) disposed within a work area (proximal numeral 10 in Figure 1) of the cabinet and comprising a stage configured for biofabrication (material 12 can be a bio-material; [0025]); and an articulating arm (robot arm 3 of the multi-axis robot 2) disposed within the work area of the cabinet and positioned to reach the workstation and the integration port, wherein the workstation comprises an end effector bay (printing tool storage units 6,6’; as recited in claim 11) and a temperature sensor ([0032]; as recited in claim 120) configured and positioned to measure an air temperature within the work area. See Figures 1-4C and paragraphs [0015], [0019]-[0024] and [0026]-[0032].
Golway is silent in regard to wherein the cabinet is a biosafety cabinet, in regard to a sash defining an opening, and to wherein the integration port being configured to maintain laminar flow within the biosafety cabinet.
Ono discloses a biosafety cabinet (see [0002]) for producing sterile medicinal products which is capable of being maintained under positive pressure ([0002]; as recited in claim 3) to manage the number of microorganisms and fine particles present within the workspace. Ono teaches wherein the biosafety cabinet comprises a sash (front shutter 105 made of tempered glass) and defines an opening into the biosafety cabinet beneath the sash for allowing a worker to see within the cabinet while working. See [0038] and Fig. 1. Ono further discloses wherein the cleaned air 102 is unidirectional such that it has laminar flow since there is little possibility that the dust 114 moves in a direction perpendicular to the blowing wind speed on the air flow at the time of non-work. See [0045].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the positive pressure laminar flow safety cabinet with a front sash of Ono for the enclosure of Golway for the purpose of preventing contamination of the workpiece within the enclosure and to allow for a worker to see within the enclosure while working. It is held that it would have been obvious to have the integration port positioned opposite the opening of the sash as recited in claim 8 as the integration port is placed in the rear of the cabinet of Golway and the sash is placed in the front of the cabinet of Ono. Additionally, it is held that the combined apparatus would necessarily have an integration port which is “configured to maintain laminar flow within the biosafety cabinet” as the integration port of the combined apparatus would not cause a change in direction of the unidirectional flow as the integration port is formed with a gradual slope in the entire back wall of the cabinet. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
In regard to claim 5, Golway discloses a conveyer 20 operably to extend through the integration port. See Figure 4C and [0028]-[0029]. While Golway does not explicitly disclose that the conveyor “temporarily” extends through the integration port, the broadest reasonable interpretation would include wherein the conveyor is capable of being disassembled and removed from the integration port. It is held that the conveyor 20 of Golway is either necessarily capable of being disassembled or it would have been obvious to make the conveyor of Golway capable of being disassembled for the purpose of allowing for repair and replacement of components of the conveyor. The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In regard to claim 6, Golway discloses a second articulating arm (see Figures 4A-4C) disposed outside of the biosafety cabinet in a second station (another of stations 1A-1D) and configured to pass an item into the biosafety cabinet via the integration port by delivery by the conveyor 20.
In regard to claim 21, Golway does not explicitly disclose wherein the articulating arm is mounted to a floor of the workstation. However, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have rearranged the articulating arm to be mounted to a floor of the workstation of the above combined system without creating any new or unexpected results as it is noted that the entire upper surface of biosafety cabinet of Ono is taken up by a HEPA filter 101b for filtering the laminar flow of air therein. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have found an appropriate mounting location for the articulating arm. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
In regard to claim 24, Ono discloses wherein a biosafety cabinet (see [0002]) maintains a negative pressure at the opening (front suction port 108) such that air form the work area flows into an air filtration system (HEPA filter 101a after passing through rear path 111 and being sucked into blower 103) of the biosafety cabinet and does not exit the biosafety cabinet. See Figure 1A and paragraphs [0036]-[0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the front suction port of Ono with the above combined apparatus for the purpose of preventing outside air from contaminating the interior of the cabinet.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golway in view of Ono and Chen et al. (US 2021/0106984; hereinafter “Chen”).
In regard to claim 4, Golway and Ono are silent in regard to a cabling panel through a back wall of the biosafety cabinet.
Chen discloses a configurable workstation 100 which can include a wall tunnel module 304c through the back wall of the frame 200 of the workstation such that a passageway for a user to pass items, such as cabling, through the back wall (combination of front and rear panels 244,250). See [0155] and Figures 2, 4 and 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wall tunnel module of Chen with the above combined apparatus for the purpose of allowing for objects to be passed into the chamber.
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golway in view of Ono and Pebay et al. (US 2018/0282682; hereinafter “Pebay”).
In regard to claims 9 and 22, Golway and Ono are silent in regard to wherein the workstation is coupled to the biosafety cabinet such that the workstation may be tilted upward and that the stage is coupled to a tiltable surface of the workstation.
Pebay discloses a cabinet 1 having a robotic arm 3 and a workstation stage (platform 7) which is viewed to be capable of biofabrication and is coupled to the cabinet is such a way that the stage can be tilted such that liquids can be moved around on the stage. See Figures 1A-1C, [0031] and [0059]-[0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the tiltable platform of Pebay with the above combined system for the purpose of allowing for the manipulation of liquids on the platform. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golway in view of Ono and Krippner et al. (US 7,393,373; hereinafter “Krippner”).
In regard to claim 10, Golway and Ono are silent in regard to wherein the biosafety cabinet is supported by legs having adjustable height.
Krippner discloses a receiving chamber 20 of a clean molding apparatus 10 which has adjustable-height feet on legs 14. See col. 6, lines 3-11 and Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the adjustable height feet of Krippner with the above combined system for the purpose of allowing for adjustment of the height of the cabinet such that the cabinet can be adjustably located to fit the ergonomic needs of an operator and/or to compensate for uneven support surfaces.
In regard to claim 23, Ono depicts in Figures 1A and 2A a configuration wherein the apparatus includes wheels with are elevated off of the ground due to legs being extended from the bottom of the apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ono does not explicitly disclose wherein the legs are adjustable.
Krippner discloses wherein the legs 14 may include rigid or adjustable height feet, wheels or coasters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the depicted legs and wheels of Ono and the adjustable legs of Krippner with the above combined apparatus for the purpose of allowing for legs to be retracted such that wheels can be selectively brought into contact with the ground such that the apparatus can be transported. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Golway and Ono are silent in regard to an integration port being configured to maintain laminar flow within the biosafety cabinet. The Examiner has fully considered the argument but has not found it to be persuasive. It is noted that Ono discloses that laminar flow is created in the biosafety cabinet by inducing a unidirectional air flow. As the integration port of Golway involves a gradual slope in the back wall of the cabinet, it is not viewed that a combined biosafety cabinet of Golway and Ono would result in an integration port which is not capable of maintaining a laminar flow within the cabinet. Further, Applicant has not provided any rational as to why the integration port of Golway would not be capable of maintaining a unidirectional laminar flow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights