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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 17 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a sealing arrangement” in claim 3; “a releasable locking arrangement” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asgari (US 2008/0206734) in view of Gantefort et al. (US 2010/0240094; hereinafter “Gantefort”).
It is noted that while the invention contains a fixed bed, the fixed bed is not positively recited in the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, Asgari discloses an apparatus for culturing cells, comprising: a housing having an inner compartment (FIG. 28, annotated and reproduced below: vessel (200) having an inner compartment; [0156]); and
PNG
media_image1.png
373
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a container for removable positioning in the inner compartment of the housing, the container forming a chamber within the inner compartment for circulating fluid to or from the fixed bed (FIG. 28: container defining compartment (210); [0156]). Asgari discloses wherein the container includes a housing defined by a wall, but does not explicitly disclose the container comprising first and second portions adapted to interlock for containing a fixed bed for culturing cells. Gantefort discloses an apparatus for culturing cells, comprising a container having a housing formed by a first section (first wall) and a second section (second wall) adapted to interlock (FIG. 4: defined having walls (41a,41b)). In view of Gantefort, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Asgari with the container of Gantefort to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have resulted in an apparatus having the added advantage of ease of arranging materials within the container.
Furthermore, it is noted that the recitation of functional language "for containing a fixed bed for culturing cells, the container forming a chamber within the inner compartment for circulating fluid to or from the fixed bed" is drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed apparatus and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 2, modified Asgari discloses wherein the first and second portions comprise locking means (see FIG. 4 of Gantefort), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second portions comprise interlocking male and female couplers. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the locking means of modified Asgari with interlocking male and female couplers to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been the simple substitution of one known locking means for another for the predictable result of coupling a first and second sections.
Regarding claim 3, modified Asgari discloses wherein the first and second portions include a sealing arrangement forming a tortuous path for fluid flow (bracket 43; see FIG. 4 of Gantefort).
Regarding claim 4, modified Asgari does not explicitly disclose wherein the removable container includes one or more internal grooves. However, modified Asgari does disclose wherein the removable container is coupled to the housing (see FIG. 28 of Asgari). It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling between the housing and container of modified Asgari with coupling means comprise grooves to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been the simple substitution of one known coupling means for another for the predictable result of coupling two components. Furthermore, the limitation “for engaging retainers for retaining the fixed bed therein” is drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 5, modified Asgari discloses does not explicitly disclose wherein the container comprises a central tube. However, modified Asgari does disclose wherein a stirring means is arranged within the container ([0156]). Gantefort further discloses wherein the container comprises a central tube (FIG. 4: recycling section (45)) coupled to the fixed bed ([0158]). In view of Gantefort, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the central tube of Gantefort with the container of modified Asgari to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of enhancing fluid mixing within the container. Regarding the limitation “the retainers adapted for engaging the central tube,” it should be noted that the retainers are not positively recited in the claims.
Regarding claim 6, regarding the limitation “wherein each of the retainers includes a barb adapted for insertion into an open end of the central tube,” it should be noted that the retainers are not positively recited in the claims.
Regarding claim 7, modified Asgari further discloses wherein the removable container further includes a third portion for receiving an agitator (FIG. 28: compartment (220) adapted to container magnetic stirrer; [0156]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Asgari discloses does not explicitly disclose wherein the third portion includes a door for receiving the agitator. However, modified Asgari does disclose wherein the third portion receives an agitator and thus intrinsically comprises a covered opening (Asgari at [0156]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the covering of the opening of third portion of modified Asgari with a door to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make said modification because said modification would have been the simple substitution of one known covering means for another for the predictable result of covering the opening.
Regarding claim 9, modified Asgari further discloses wherein the third portion includes
one or more openings for allowing fluid flow to enter the container (compartment (220) in fluid communication with inner compartment of the housing and thus has at least one opening; [0156]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Asgari does not explicitly disclose wherein the third portion is adapted to releasably connect to the container. However, modified Asgari does disclose, in another embodiment, that the chambers can be separated from each other (Asgari at [0143]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of modified Asgari such that the third portion is adapted to releasably connect to the container, since it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routing skill in art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have resulted in an apparatus having the added advantage of ease of cleaning and maintenance.
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Asgari further discloses wherein a cap for engaging the container (see Asgari at FIG. 28). Modified Asgari does not explicitly disclose the cap comprising a hinged plate, wherein the hinged plate comprises a releasable locking arrangement for locking with the cap in a closed position. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling between the cap and container of modified Asgari with a hinged plate to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been the simple substitution of one known coupling means for another for the predictable result of coupling two components.
Regarding claim 14, modified Asgari further discloses wherein the first and second portions comprise halves of the container (see FIG. 4 of Gantefort).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asgari in view of Gantefort as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yu (CN 201080454; with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, modified Asgari discloses the apparatus according to claim 7. Modified Asgari does not explicitly disclose a retainer comprising a plate with peripheral notches for allowing fluid to pass to the third portion of the container. However, modified Asgari does disclose wherein the third portion is coupled to the container (FIG. 28 of Asgari). Yu discloses an apparatus comprising a housing (FIG. 1: frame 1) coupled to a base (FIG. 5). The apparatus includes a retainer comprising a plate with peripheral notches for allowing fluid to pass to the third portion of the container (FIG. 1: 53a; [0035]). In view of Yu, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling between the third portion and container of modified Asgari with the coupling as disclosed by Yu to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been the simple substitution of one known coupling means for another for the predictable result of coupling two components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Castillo et al (US 2011/0223582) disclose a housing having an internal compartment and a container enclosing a fixed bed arranged within the internal compartment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIBAN M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7636. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 on 5712721374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIBAN M HASSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799