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 .
Response to Amendment
The claim objections and 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haddock et al (US Pat No. 9,459,044 B1 published 10/04/2016; hereinafter Haddock).
Regarding claim 1, Haddock teaches a device (freeze dryer 700 – Fig. 7) for the cryogenic freezing of units for packaging a biological substance, comprising:
a receptacle (a cabinet 702 that houses a refrigeration system – Fig. 7) configured in order for a stream of vapor of a cryogenic agent to flow therein (the cabinet 702 capable of allowing a vapor of cryogenic agent to flow therein – Fig. 7), having at its top an opening (a port 724 – Fig. 7) for introduction of said units into said receptacle (the port 724 allows for – Fig. 7);
a lid (a transparent door 704 – Fig. 7) movable between a closed position in which it closes said opening (the transparent door 704 in a closed position – Fig. 7) and an open position in which it leaves said opening free (the transparent door 704 capable of opened – Fig. 7); and
an aperture (drain port 508 extending through the cabinet 702 through a drain valve 720 – Fig. 5 and column 8 lines 44-45) for venting said vapor, provided in said receptacle (the drain port 508 is capable of venting vapor – Fig. 7); and
an obturator (a drain valve 720 connected by a drain line to drain port 508 – Fig. 7 and column 8 lines 44-45) mechanically connected to said lid (the drain valve 720 is mechanically connected the transparent door 704 by the cabinet 702 – Fig. 7) such that when said lid is in closed position, said obturator is away from said aperture (when the transparent door 704 is closed the drain valve 720 is capable of being opened – Fig. 7) and when said lid is in open position, said obturator closes said aperture (when the transparent door 704 is open the drain valve 720 is capable of being closed – Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Haddock teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein said obturator is mechanically connected to an edge of said lid (the drain valve 720 is mechanically connected the edge transparent door 704 by the cabinet 702 and hinge 706 – Fig. 7 – Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 3, Haddock teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein said receptacle comprises a bottom wall (bottom of the cabinet 702 – Fig. 7) and four lateral walls (the front, back, left, and right walls of the cabinet 702 – Figs. 7-8), respectively a first lateral wall (front wall – Fig. 7), a second lateral wall (left wall – Fig. 7), a third lateral wall (back wall – Fig. 7) and a fourth lateral wall (right wall – Fig. 3), the first lateral wall being opposite the third lateral wall (the front wall being opposite the back wall – Figs. 7-8), the second lateral wall being opposite the fourth lateral wall (the left wall being opposite the right wall – Fig. 7), the first lateral wall and the third lateral wall connecting together the second lateral wall and the fourth lateral wall (the front wall and the back wall connecting together the left wall being opposite the right wall – Fig. 7), each of the lateral walls projecting from said bottom wall and extending to said opening (the front, back, left, and right walls projecting from the bottom of the cabinet 702 and extending to the top opening of the mounting base 51 – Fig. 7-8), said aperture being provided in one of said lateral walls (the drain hole is in the back wall of the cabinet 702 – Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Haddock teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein said lid is linked to one of the lateral walls of said receptacle by means of an articulation member (a hinge 706 – Fig. 7) forming a hinge (the hinge 706 – Fig. 7) around which the lid pivots so as to be movable between its open position and its closed position (the transparent door 704 is capable of pivoting around the hinge 706 – Fig. 7 and column 8 line 34), said lid being connected to the lateral wall in which is provided said aperture (the transparent door 704 is connected to the back wall with the cabinet 702 by the top of the cabinet 702 – Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Haddock teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the device is configured for the cryogenic freezing of straws containing diluted animal semen (the freeze dryer 700 is capable of being used for the cryogenic freezing of straws containing diluted animal semen – Fig. 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Point 1: The applicant’s argument that “The drain circuit described in Haddock is thus a condensate evacuation line and in contrast does not constitute an aperture for venting the vapor of the cryogenic agent as claimed” is not persuasive.
The examiner points out that the drain port 508 reads on the claimed aperture because 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 (MPEP 2114II). The drain port 508 teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed aperture.
Point 2: The applicant’s argument that “the drain circuit of freeze dryer 700 described in Haddock does not allow venting of vapors (in particular cryogenic vapors), especially when the door 704 closes the cabinet 702” is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “Haddock does not allow venting of vapors”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Point 3: The applicant’s argument that “opening and/or closing the door 704 described in Haddock has no influence on the closing and/or the opening of the drain valve 720” and “the refrigeration system 400/450 operates in a closed circuit and does not communicate with the chamber 500” is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “opening and/or closing the door and influence on the closing and/or the opening of the drain valve 720” and “refrigeration system”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Point 4: The applicant’s argument that “it would not have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the freeze dryer” is not persuasive.
The examiner points out that the claims are anticipated by Haddock and no modification was made to the Haddock reference. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 5-9 are allowed.
Regarding claim 5, with dependent claims 6-7 and 9, Haddock does not teach “wherein said obturator comprises an arm an obturating plate, the obturating plate being linked to said second end of said arm such that when the lid is in closed position said obturating plate is away from said aperture and when the lid is in open position said obturating plate closes said aperture”. Furthermore, the examiner did not find a motivation to modify Haddock to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Haddock does not teach “the obturator pivoting with a path in a circle arc of which the radius is equal to the length of said arm, said aperture being provided at a distance from the top of the receptacle equal to the length of said arm”. Furthermore, the examiner did not find a motivation to modify Haddock to arrive at the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TINGCHEN SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/T.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798