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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant attempts to justify not providing copies of non-patent literature references by stating “those references appearing on Form PTO/SB/08 and indicated by the double asterisk (**) are not supplied because they were previously cited by or submitted to the Office in prior Application Serial No. 29/728,310 and relied upon in this application for an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120.” However, the record does not reflect any reliance upon 29/728,310.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaques (US 2017/0349874):
Regarding claim 1, Jaques discloses a system comprising: a mixing compartment (100) comprising a biological fluid (see [0012]) and a mixing element (6,7,8); a sensor (11 or 19 or a sensor as described in [0136]) in communication with the mixing compartment, the sensor configured to detect an environmental condition within the mixing compartment (see [0041]-[0045]); and an integrated control unit comprising a memory (104) for storing the environmental condition, sensor information relating to the sensor, and process workflow information; a user interface (108) comprising a display ("display 110", see [0252] and [0255]); and a central processing unit (102) in electronic communication with the sensor (see [0248]), memory (see Fig. 36) and user interface (see Fig. 36). Recitation of what the display is intended to depict during an intended operation does not structurally distinguish the claimed structure over the prior art structure.
Regarding claim 2, the sensor is in physical, electrochemical, optical, or fluidic communication with the compartment (see [0041]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 3, the sensor is a pH sensor, a temperature sensor, a load cell, a pressure sensor, or a conductivity sensor (see [0041]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 4, while recitation of what the display is intended to depict during an intended operation does not structurally distinguish the claimed structure over the prior art structure, displaying pressure readings is nonetheless disclosed (see [0301]).
Regarding claim 5, the environmental condition comprises a temperature, pressure, conductivity, pH, or mass of the biological fluid (see [0041]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 6, an operational range of the environmental condition is stored in the memory (see [0297]).
Regarding claim 7, the integrated control unit is configured to receive the environmental condition from the sensor and control a speed of the mixing element only if a value of the environmental condition is outside of the operational range (see [0171]).
Regarding claim 8, the sensor information comprises sensor identification information (see [0248]).
Regarding claim 9, the integrated control unit is configured to receive the environmental condition value from the sensor and control a speed of the mixing element based on a value of the environmental condition (see [0171]).
Regarding claim 10, a pump (see [0192], [0208], [0220]) is in fluid communication with the mixing compartment and a heating or a cooling element (130) is in contact with the mixing compartment.
Regarding claim 11, the integrated control unit is configured to receive the environmental condition from the sensor and control power to the pump only if a value of the environmental condition is outside of an operational range of the environmental condition (see [0259]).
Regarding claim 12, the integrated control unit is configured to receive the environmental condition from the sensor and control power to the heating or cooling element only if a value of the environmental condition is outside of an operational range of the environmental condition (see [0210]).
Regarding claim 13, the plurality of bioprocess modules comprises at least one acid module configured to display and control power to the pump for introducing acid to the biological fluid (see [0258]-[0263]).
Regarding claim 14, recitation of what the display is intended to depict during an intended operation does not structurally distinguish the claimed structure over the prior art structure.
Regarding claim 15, recitation of what the display is intended to depict during an intended operation does not structurally distinguish the claimed structure over the prior art structure.
Regarding claim 16, while recitation of what the display is intended to depict during an intended operation does not structurally distinguish the claimed structure over the prior art structure, see [0171] concerning control and display of rotation speed of the mixing element.
Regarding claim 17, while recitation of what the display is intended to depict during an intended operation does not structurally distinguish the claimed structure over the prior art structure, see [0258]-[0263] concerning pH control and display.
Regarding claim 18, while recitation of what the display is intended to depict during an intended operation does not structurally distinguish the claimed structure over the prior art structure, see [0153] and [0254] concerning mass and volume.
Regarding claim 19, while recitation of what the display is intended to depict during an intended operation does not structurally distinguish the claimed structure over the prior art structure, see [0153] concerning mass.
Regarding claim 20, while recitation of what the display is intended to depict during an intended operation does not structurally distinguish the claimed structure over the prior art structure, see [0313] and [0314] concerning alarms.
Regarding claim 21, while recitation of what the display is intended to depict during an intended operation does not structurally distinguish the claimed structure over the prior art structure, see [0313] and [0314] concerning alarms.
Response to Arguments
The claims do not recite any circuitry which encodes the bioprocess modules. Instead, the claims leave open the possibility that the display receives a transient signal representing the bioprocess modules. The signal is open to being a radio signal like broadcast television, an electrical signal for example from a computer that is not a required element of the claimed structure, or even the display being simply a screen like a movie screen upon with images are transiently displayed by an optical projector. Over, just as a television for displaying Scooby-Doo is not a different machine from a television displaying Sesame Street, the recitation of what is displayed on the display is not a structural distinction.
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 DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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 X 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights