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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment filed 12/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, 10, 12-13, 17, 20-21, 26, 28-29, 32-33, 36-44, 46-51, and 55-57 are pending in the application; claims 40-44, 46-51, and 55-56 are withdrawn; and claims 2-6, 8-9, 11, 14-16, 18-19, 22-25, 27, 30-31, 34-35, 45, and 52-54 are cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each objection, 112(f) claim interpretation, 112(a) rejection, and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/19/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been considered but they are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant argues on pp. 19-21 of Remarks that Streeter does not teach emitted electromagnetic energy in the frequency range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz, as required by newly amended claim 1 in the instant application. Rather, Streeter discloses near infrared and visible light frequencies being emitted. The Examiner agrees that Streeter discloses electromagnetic frequencies outside of the claimed range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz. However, Eckelberry et al. discloses electromagnetic frequencies in the range of about 300 MHz to about 3 GHz, which overlaps the claimed range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz. It would have been obvious to modify the device of Streeter with the device of Eckelberry et al. because it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05). The claimed range is obvious in view of Eckelberry et al. because Eckelberry et al. discloses a range of about 300 MHz to about 3 GHz, which overlaps the claimed range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because the prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range. It is also to be noted that the term “about” permits some tolerance.
Applicant argues on pp. 21-23 of Remarks that Eckelberry et al. fails to recognize the advantages of the instant application’s claimed pulsed electromagnetic radiation in the frequency range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz. This is not persuasive. Streeter discloses “pulses of applied electromagnetic radiation” (para. 0047) “in a first wavelength range sequentially with electromagnetic radiation in a second wavelength range” (para. 0035), only in a different frequency range than the claimed invention. Eckelberry et al. discloses a range of electromagnetic radiation that overlaps the claimed range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz which remedies the deficiency of Streeter’s disclosure of radio, infrared light, and visible light frequencies. Eckelberry et al. also provides motivation for choosing a frequency within the range of about 300 MHz to about 3 GHz as Eckelberry et al. teaches that emitting electromagnetic fields at this frequency range increases yields in biomass production (p. 12, lines 23-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range from the broader prior art range to arrive at a device which increases yields in biomass production.
Applicant also argues on pp. 22-23 of Remarks that, contrary to both Streeter and Eckelberry et al.’s alleged lack of motivation for emitting electromagnetic radiation in the range of about 300 MHz to about 3 GHz, the claimed range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz provides the advantage of repeated rotation of dipoles of water molecules to align with the pulsed electromagnetic field. This is not persuasive as this is an advantage of using the claimed invention and does not impart structure to the apparatus. It has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Streeter modified by Eckelberry et al. would be fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use of electromagnetic pulses in the range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz because the prior art apparatus discloses electromagnetic radiation in the range of about 300 MHz to about 3GHz and would be structurally capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation in the range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz absent clear evidence otherwise.
Drawings
The drawings were objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for not showing every feature of the invention specified in the claims, specifically “the one or more hollow elongated members” recited in claim 31. Applicant has cancelled claim 31 which recited this feature, and accordingly, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended that "wherein when there are two or more modules, wherein the controller allows" should read "wherein when there are two or more modules, the controller allows". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended that "wherein there are two or more modules" should read "wherein . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended that "wherein the the bioreaction mixture" should read "wherein the bioreaction mixture". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 57 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is believed that “molecular dipole of water molecules” should read “molecular dipoles of water molecules”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 7, 10, 12-13, 17, 20-21, 26, 28-29, 32-33, 36-39, and 57 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 recites the limitation "the form of the pulsed electromagnetic fields" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the form of the pulsed electromagnetic fields" in line and “the molecular dipole of water molecules” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 57 recites the broad recitation "a bioreaction mixture", and the claim also recites "including water" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 12-13, 17, 20-21, 26, 38-39, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streeter (US 2006/0223155 A1) (already of record) in view of Eckelberry et al. (WO 2013/055819 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Streeter teaches an apparatus for improving the yield and/or acceleration and/or quality of a bioreaction (abstract “apparatus… for enhancing or improving cell cultures”), the apparatus comprising: a vessel (Fig. 1 110 reservoir) formed from a plurality of walls (para. 0023 “one or more walls 111”) comprising at least one side wall (Fig. 1 111 wall on side of reservoir) and a base (Fig. 1 111 wall on bottom of reservoir) forming an internal space within the vessel suitable for holding a bioreaction mixture (para. 0023 “for holding a cell culture… comprises cells and a culture medium”), one or more agitators for inducing movement of the bioreaction mixture (Fig. 1 130 impellers), and one or more modules, the one or more modules comprising a housing and each module comprising a transmitter disposed within the housing (Fig. 1 161 emitter), the transmitter being capable of emitting pulsed electromagnetic fields (para. 0047 “pulses of applied electromagnetic radiation”), wherein the one or more modules are located proximate to at least one portion of the plurality of walls of the vessel (Fig. 1 161 emitter) and the at least one portion is made from a material which is transmissive for the pulsed electromagnetic fields (para. 0023 “walls 111 of the reservoir 110 is composed of a transparent or translucent material”), and/or wherein the one or more modules are disposed in the internal space within the vessel (Fig. 1 161 emitter), and wherein the apparatus further comprises a controller (Fig. 1 180 control circuit, Fig. 7 186 programmable controller) for controlling the pulsed electromagnetic fields emitted from the one or more modules such that the pulsed electromagnetic fields are emitted from the one or more modules as a sequence of pulses (para. 0046 “control circuit 180 is configured to adjust the power of the electromagnetic energy emitted by the emitter 161”; para. 0035 “generate electromagnetic radiation in a first wavelength range sequentially with electromagnetic radiation in a second wavelength range”).
Streeter is silent to an emitter emitting electromagnetic radiation “at a plurality of emission frequencies in a range of 2.4-2.5GHz”. However, Eckelberry et al. teaches an electromagnetic field emitted at a frequency of about 300 MHz to about 3 GHz (claim 20). Eckelberry et al. teaches that emitting electromagnetic fields at this frequency range increases yields in biomass production (p. 12, lines 23-30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Eckelberry et al. configuration of emitting a frequency of about 300 MHz to about 3 GHz in Streeter’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would increase yields in cell production. This method for improving Streeter’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Eckelberry et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Streeter and Eckelberry et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more agitators are one or more electrical and/or mechanical components (Fig. 1 130 impellers, 140 motor) and comprise any, or any combination of; an agitator within the vessel’s internal space (Fig. 1 130 impellers inside 110 reservoir); an agitator external to the vessel’s internal space; a wave generator; an actuator causing an input flow of material into the vessel’s internal space and/or an actuator causing an output flow of material from the vessel’s internal space.
Regarding claim 10, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more modules are included with, attached to, or integral with the one or more agitators (Fig. 1 reservoir 110 includes emitter 161 and impellers 130 disposed inside).
Regarding claim 12, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more agitators move the bioreaction mixture so as to periodically expose substantially all of the bioreaction mixture to the one or more electromagnetic fields emitted from the one or more modules and/or to retain cells in the bioreaction mixture substantially in suspension in the bioreaction mixture (para. 0024 “impellers 130 for agitating the cell culture… electromagnetic radiation source 160 for irradiating the cell culture”).
Regarding the limitation “to periodically expose substantially all of said bioreaction mixture to the one or more electromagnetic fields emitted from the one or more modules and/or to retain cells in the bioreaction mixture substantially in suspension in the bioreaction mixture”, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Streeter would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to be for agitating and irradiating a cell culture (para. 0024) and would be structurally capable of periodically exposing substantially all of said bioreaction mixture to the one or more electromagnetic fields emitted from the one or more modules and/or retaining cells in the bioreaction mixture substantially in suspension in the bioreaction mixture absent clear evidence otherwise.
Regarding claim 13, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the apparatus further comprises a frame (Fig. 1 230 platform), and the vessel is a bag (para. 0029 “rocking bag system”) made from a flexible, resilient, plastic material (para. 0029 “flexible plastic”) and is supported by the frame.
Streeter does not teach these features in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1, but does teach these features in the embodiment shown in Fig. 2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the embodiment in Fig. 1 for the embodiment in Fig. 2 because Streeter teaches that this configuration of a flexible bag supported by a frame is known in the art (para. 0029). The substitution of one known element for another would have predictably yielded an apparatus that agitates cell culture (para. 0029) with reasonable expectation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the embodiment of Fig. 1 with the embodiment of Fig. 2 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the bioreaction mixture includes water (para. 0034 “cell culture contains water”), and the one or more electromagnetic fields are emitted at a wavelength of approximately 10 nanometers (para. 0033), but does not teach that the one or more electromagnetic fields are emitted at a frequency so as to cause rotation of the molecular dipole of water contained in the bioreaction mixture. However, Eckelberry et al. teaches an electromagnetic field emitted at a frequency of about 300 MHz to about 3 GHz (claim 20). Eckelberry et al. teaches that emitting electromagnetic fields at this frequency range increases yields in biomass production (p. 12, lines 23-30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Eckelberry et al. configuration of emitting a frequency of about 300 MHz to about 3 GHz in Streeter’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would increase yields in cell production. This method for improving Streeter’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Eckelberry et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Streeter and Eckelberry et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more electromagnetic fields are emitted at a plurality of different frequencies (para. 0034) in a random sequence during a period of time (para. 0047 “time intervals between pulses of applied electromagnetic radiation”).
Regarding claim 21, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein when there are two or more modules (para. 0028 “plurality of emitters”), the controller (Fig. 1 180 control circuit; Fig. 7 186 programmable controller) is capable of allowing the one or more electromagnetic fields emitted therefrom to be emitted in a synchronized manner.
Regarding the limitation “allows the one or more electromagnetic fields emitted therefrom to be emitted in a synchronised manner”, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Streeter would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to have a controller that controls timing intervals of the applied electromagnetic radiation (para. 0047) and would be structurally capable of allowing the one or more electromagnetic fields emitted therefrom to be emitted in a synchronized manner absent clear evidence otherwise.
Regarding claim 26, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the apparatus comprises one or more locators for locating the one or more modules proximate to, or within the vessel (para. 0025 “fixedly… attached to the interior surface 112 of a wall 111 of the reservoir 110”).
Regarding claim 38, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the apparatus includes a charging and/or control unit (Fig. 1 180 control circuit; Fig. 7 186 programmable controller) to which the one or more modules, when not in use, are connected electrically (Fig. 1 161 emitter connected to 180 control circuit) and/or data connected so as to allow charging and/or control of activation.
Regarding claim 39, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the bioreaction mixture is any, or any combination of, a biofuel, cultures of genetically modified cells and organisms, insulin, monoclonal antibodies, growth hormones, interferon, interleukins, blood factor VIIa, blood factor VIII, blood factor IX, erythropoietin, gonadotrophin, glucagon, vaccine antigenic sequences, mammalian cell culture (abstract “monoclonal antibodies”).
Regarding claim 57, Streeter teaches an apparatus for improving the yield and/or acceleration and/or quality of a bioreaction (abstract “apparatus… for enhancing or improving cell cultures”), the apparatus comprising; a vessel (Fig. 1 110 reservoir) formed from a plurality of walls (para. 0023 “one or more walls 111”) comprising at least one side wall (Fig. 1 111 wall on side of reservoir) and a base (Fig. 1 111 wall on bottom of reservoir) forming an internal space within the vessel suitable for holding a bioreaction mixture (para. 0023 “for holding a cell culture… comprises cells and a culture medium”), one or more agitators for inducing movement of the bioreaction mixture (Fig. 1 130 impellers), and one or more modules, the one or more modules comprising a housing and each module comprising a transmitter disposed within the housing (Fig. 1 161 emitter), the transmitter being capable of emitting pulsed electromagnetic fields at a plurality of emission frequencies (para. 0047 “pulses of applied electromagnetic radiation”), wherein the one or more modules are located proximate to at least one portion of the plurality of walls of the vessel (Fig. 1 161 emitter) and the at least one portion is made from a material which is transmissive for the pulsed electromagnetic fields (para. 0023 “walls 111 of the reservoir 110 is composed of a transparent or translucent material”), and/or wherein the one or more modules are disposed in the internal space within the vessel (Fig. 1 161 emitter), and wherein the apparatus further comprises a controller (Fig. 1 180 control circuit, Fig. 7 186 programmable controller) for controlling the form of the pulsed electromagnetic fields emitted from the one or more modules such that the pulsed electromagnetic fields are emitted as a sequence of pulses having a plurality of different emission frequencies (para. 0046 “control circuit 180 is configured to adjust the power of the electromagnetic energy emitted by the emitter 161”; para. 0035 “generate electromagnetic radiation in a first wavelength range sequentially with electromagnetic radiation in a second wavelength range”).
Regarding the limitation “a bioreaction mixture including water”, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (MPEP § 2115). Therefore, the apparatus disclosed by Streeter would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is disclosed to contain liquid (para. 0024) and would be structurally capable of containing water absent clear evidence otherwise.
Streeter discloses electromagnetic radiation at radio, infrared light, and visible light frequencies (para. 0020), but is silent to an emitter emitting electromagnetic radiation that causes “rotation of the molecular dipole of water molecules contained in the bioreaction mixture”. However, Eckelberry et al. teaches an electromagnetic field emitted at a frequency of about 300 MHz to about 3 GHz (claim 20). Eckelberry et al. teaches that emitting electromagnetic fields at this frequency range increases yields in biomass production (p. 12, lines 23-30).
Regarding the limitation “the pulsed electromagnetic fields are emitted as a sequence of pulses having a plurality of different emission frequencies that cause rotation of the molecular dipole of water molecules”, Effect of Sterilization Methods on Plastics and Elastomers (4th Edition) discloses that microwave frequencies (2450 MHz or 2.45 GHz) produce friction of water molecules (p. 21). Thus, the frequency range disclosed by Eckelberry et al. of 300 MHz to about 3 GHz (claim 20) encompasses the frequency at which water molecules vibrate and therefore discloses electromagnetic fields that “cause rotation of the molecular dipole of water molecules”. Furthermore, it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05). The claimed range is obvious in view of Eckelberry et al. because Eckelberry et al. discloses a range of about 300 MHz to about 3 GHz, which overlaps the claimed range of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because the prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Eckelberry et al. configuration of emitting a frequency of about 300 MHz to about 3 GHz in Streeter’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would increase yields in cell production. This method for improving Streeter’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Eckelberry et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Streeter and Eckelberry et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 57.
Claims 28-29 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streeter (US 2006/0223155 A1) (already of record) in view of Eckelberry et al. (WO 2013/055819 A1) (already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ott et al. (US 2019/0309241 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 28, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more modules are disposed in the vessel’s internal space (Fig. 1 161 emitter) but does not teach at least one buoyancy portion for holding the one or more modules at a depth in the bioreaction mixture when the bioreaction mixture comprises a liquid. However, Ott et al. teaches a mount inside a bioreactor housing (Fig. 1 6 mounting means). Ott et al. teaches that the mount allows devices for emitting electromagnetic radiation to be in the most favorable area of flow distribution in the bioreactor (para. 0227).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Ott et al. configuration of a mount inside a bioreactor housing in Streeter’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow devices for emitting electromagnetic radiation to be in the most favorable area of flow distribution in the bioreactor. This method for improving Streeter’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ott et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Streeter and Ott et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 28.
Regarding claim 29, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein there are two or more modules (para. 0028 “plurality of emitters”), but does not teach a buoyancy portion of a selected form to retain the at least one module at a different depth than another module or modules in the bioreaction mixture when the bioreaction mixture comprises a liquid. However, Ott et al. teaches mounts inside a bioreactor housing (Fig. 1 4 holding device, 6 mounting means). Ott et al. teaches that the mounts allow devices for emitting electromagnetic radiation to be in the most favorable area of flow distribution in the bioreactor (para. 0227).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Ott et al. configuration of a mount inside a bioreactor housing in Streeter’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow devices for emitting electromagnetic radiation to be in the most favorable area of flow distribution in the bioreactor. This method for improving Streeter’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ott et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Streeter and Ott et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 29.
Regarding claim 32, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more modules are two or more modules (para. 0028 “plurality of emitters”), but does not teach that each of the two or more modules is located at a node of another module. However, Ott et al. teaches a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs), each located at a node of another light source (Fig. 13; para. 0027). Ott et al. teaches that the array of LEDs allows illumination of a larger volume within the bioreactor and provide the light energy required for optimized cultivation (para. 0027).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Ott et al. configuration of an array of LEDs in Streeter’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow illumination of a larger volume within the bioreactor and provide the light energy required for optimized cultivation. This method for improving Streeter’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ott et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Streeter and Ott et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more modules are two or more modules (para. 0028 “plurality of emitters”), but does not teach that the modules are located in an array which extends along a single axis or is provided to extend along a plurality of axes. However, Ott et al. teaches an array of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (Fig. 13; para. 0027). Ott et al. teaches that the array of LEDs allows illumination of a larger volume within the bioreactor and provide the light energy required for optimized cultivation (para. 0027).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Ott et al. configuration of an array of LEDs in Streeter’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow illumination of a larger volume within the bioreactor and provide the light energy required for optimized cultivation. This method for improving Streeter’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ott et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Streeter and Ott et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 33.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streeter (US 2006/0223155 A1) (already of record) in view of Eckelberry et al. (WO 2013/055819 A1) (already of record) and Ott et al. (US 2019/0309241 A1) (already of record) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Boudier et al. (US 2023/0113048 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 36, Streeter teaches an apparatus comprising a plurality of modules (para. 0028 “plurality of emitters”), but does not teach wherein the modules are located in the array with a spacing within a range of 5 - 10cm between adjacent modules in the array. However, Boudier et al. teaches a plurality of lighting modules spaced apart by a distance between 2 and 10 centimeters (para. 0034 “light diffusers”). Boudier et al. teaches the spacing between light diffusers allows an injection system to be disposed between them (para. 0042-0043) to dispose carbon dioxide into the medium (para. 0061).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Boudier et al. configuration of lighting modules spaced apart by a distance between 2 and 10 centimeters in modified Streeter’s device with a reasonable expectation that the spacing between modules would allow other components such as a carbon dioxide injection system to be disposed between the modules. This method for improving modified Streeter’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Boudier et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Streeter and Boudier et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 36.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streeter (US 2006/0223155 A1) (already of record) in view of Eckelberry et al. (WO 2013/055819 A1) (already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Axelrod et al. (US 2015/0099274 A1) (already of record).
Regarding claim 37, Streeter teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more modules communicates with a controller (para. 0047), but does not teach a wireless receiver to allow reception of signals to cause a change in at least one operating parameter of the one or more modules to be transmitted wirelessly and received by the same, and the change implemented. However, Axelrod et al. teaches a light source in wireless communication with a control system (para. 0081). Axelrod et al. teaches that wireless communication allows the control system to tune the wavelengths emitted by the light source to improve the accuracy and sensitivity of the system (para. 0081).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Axelrod et al. configuration of wireless communication between a light source and a control system in Streeter’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow the control system to tune the wavelengths emitted by the light source to improve the accuracy and sensitivity of the system. This method for improving Streeter’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Axelrod et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Streeter and Axelrod et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 37.
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 ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA whose telephone number is (703)756-5517. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:30-5:00.
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, 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.
/ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights