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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 55-77 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 55-56, 59, 61, 63, 65-66, 68, 70-71, and 73 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,200 B2 in view of Erdenberger et al. (US 2014/0349385 A1). The Claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,200 B2 discloses all the limitations of the present Claims 55-56, 59, 61, 63, 65-66, 68, 70-71, and 73 except for the disposable container is a single-use container and the reaction vessel is constructed of a material comprising a corrosion-resistant alloy. Erdenberger et al. reference discloses a magnetic agitation mixing systems for use with flexible or collapsible plastic container reaction vessels. In one aspect of the invention, the orientation of magnetic coupling between the impeller magnets and the external driver magnets is modified such that the coupling is neither strictly axial nor strictly radial (Abstract and Paragraph [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the disposable reaction container as a single-use container within the collapsible plastic reaction vessel as taught by Erdenberger et al., since Erdenberger et al. states at Abstract and Paragraph [0004] that such a modification would establishes a sterile environment that is especially important for biopharmaceutical manufacturing.
Claims 57, 64, 69, 72 and 74 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,200 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 5 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,200 B2 discloses all the limitations of the present Claims 57, 64, 69, 72 and 74 except for the disposable container is a single-use container and the reaction vessel is constructed of a material comprising a flexible material and/or plastic. Erdenberger et al. reference discloses a magnetic agitation mixing systems for use with flexible or collapsible plastic container reaction vessels. In one aspect of the invention, the orientation of magnetic coupling between the impeller magnets and the external driver magnets is modified such that the coupling is neither strictly axial nor strictly radial (Abstract and Paragraph [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the disposable reaction container as a single-use container within the collapsible plastic reaction vessel as taught by Erdenberger et al., since Erdenberger et al. states at Abstract and Paragraph [0004] that such a modification would establishes a sterile environment that is especially important for biopharmaceutical manufacturing.
Claims 58 and 67 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,200 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,200 B2 discloses all the limitations of the present Claims 58 and 67 except for the disposable container is a single-use container and the reaction vessel is constructed of a material comprising a corrosion-resistant alloy. Erdenberger et al. reference discloses a magnetic agitation mixing systems for use with flexible or collapsible plastic container reaction vessels. In one aspect of the invention, the orientation of magnetic coupling between the impeller magnets and the external driver magnets is modified such that the coupling is neither strictly axial nor strictly radial (Abstract and Paragraph [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the disposable reaction container as a single-use container within the collapsible plastic reaction vessel as taught by Erdenberger et al., since Erdenberger et al. states at Abstract and Paragraph [0004] that such a modification would establishes a sterile environment that is especially important for biopharmaceutical manufacturing.
Claims 75, 76 and 77 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,200 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,200 B2 discloses all the limitations of the present Claims 75, 76, and 77 except for the disposable container is a single-use container and the reaction vessel is constructed of a material comprising a corrosion-resistant alloy. Erdenberger et al. reference discloses a magnetic agitation mixing systems for use with flexible or collapsible plastic container reaction vessels. In one aspect of the invention, the orientation of magnetic coupling between the impeller magnets and the external driver magnets is modified such that the coupling is neither strictly axial nor strictly radial (Abstract and Paragraph [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the disposable reaction container as a single-use container within the collapsible plastic reaction vessel as taught by Erdenberger et al., since Erdenberger et al. states at Abstract and Paragraph [0004] that such a modification would establishes a sterile environment that is especially important for biopharmaceutical manufacturing.
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 HUY-TRAM NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3167. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 7:00am - 3pm, EST.
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.
/HUY TRAM NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1774