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 1-12, in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 fluid machinery configured to supply the fluid from the distribution flow path to the supply flow path” in claim 2.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12 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 11 recites the limitation "the fluid storages" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The prior lines of the claim provide antecedent basis for “one or more fluid storages” rather than “fluid storages”.
Dependent claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as the base claim upon which it depends.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magness et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0024875).
Regarding claim 1, Magness et al. discloses a culturing system (Abstract, para. 3-5) comprising:
a cell storage configured to store cells (the system receives yeast from a feed line and therefore necessarily comprises a storage to store yeast cells such that yeast can be fed, see para. 30-31 and Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 9);
a plurality of culture apparatuses (“two separate series” for fermentation) (para. 29); and
a distribution flow path configured to distribute the cells from the cell storage to the plurality of culture apparatuses (“feed line” for feeding yeast) (para. 30) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 9);
wherein each of the plurality of culture apparatuses comprises:
a plurality of culture vessels (e.g., vessels 1A and 5A in the first culture apparatus; vessels 1B and 5B in the second culture apparatus) (para. 29) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 9);
a supply flow path (111) configured to supply a fluid from the distribution flow path to the plurality of culture vessels (para. 31) (Figs. 1-2, sheets 1-2 of 9); and
a connection flow path configured to connect the plurality of culture vessels (comprising line 113) (para. 30-31) (Figs. 1-2, sheets 1-2 of 9);
wherein the plurality of culture vessels is connected in series with the connection flow path in each of the plurality of culture apparatuses (para. 30-31) (Figs. 1-2, sheets 1-2 of 9); and
wherein the supply flow path is configured to supply the fluid to the plurality of culture vessels so that the cells are sequentially transferred among the plurality of culture vessels through the connection flow path in each of the plurality of culture apparatuses (para. 30-31) (Figs. 1-2, sheets 1-2 of 9).
Magness et al. does not expressly teach wherein the supply flow path is configured to selectively supply a fluid from the distribution flow path, in each of the plurality of culture apparatuses.
However, Magness et al. contemplates controlling the flow rate of “various processing lines” of the system (para. 35) and specifically discloses providing “an automatic or manual adjustment valve between fermentation vessels” (that is, on the connection flow path) (para. 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the each of the supply flow paths disclosed by Magness et al. to be configured to selectively supply a fluid from the distribution flow path, e.g., by equipping each of the supply flow paths with a valve as is disclosed by Magness et al. elsewhere in the system, in order to achieve flow control in each supply flow path, as is already envisioned by Magness et al.
Regarding claim 2, Magness et al. discloses a pump configured to supply the fluid from the distribution flow path to the supply flow path in each of the plurality of culture apparatuses (para. 35) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 9) (reads on the claimed “a fluid machinery configured to supply the fluid from the distribution flow path to the supply flow path”, a limitation invoking 112(f) and interpreted to cover a pump and structural equivalents thereof for performing the claimed function, consistent with Applicant’s specification).
Regarding claim 3, modified Magness et al. teaches each of the plurality of culture apparatuses comprising a supply valve provided in the supply flow path, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Although Magness et al. does not expressly teach a plurality of such supply valves, this limitation is nonetheless prima facie obvious as it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04). Duplication of the supply valve as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, would yield the predictable outcome of duplicating valve function, which would be beneficial in the event that a first valve loses functionality.
Regarding claim 4, Magness et al. discloses wherein each of the plurality of culture apparatuses further comprises a connection valve provided in the connection flow path, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above (see also para. 35).
Regarding claim 5, Magness et al. discloses wherein each of the plurality of culture apparatuses further comprises an intermediate tank in the connection flow path (e.g., intermediate tank 2A provided between first culture vessel 1A and last culture vessel 5A in the first culture apparatus, and likewise intermediate tank 2B in the second culture apparatus) (para. 29-30) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 9).
Regarding claim 6, Magness et al. discloses wherein each of the plurality of culture apparatuses further comprises a discharge flow path configured to discharge a fluid from the plurality of culture vessels (each culture apparatus has a discharge flow path to tank 6, see Fig. 1) (para. 29).
Magness et al. does not expressly teach wherein the discharge flow path is configured to selectively discharge the fluid.
However, Magness et al. contemplates controlling the flow rate of “various processing lines” of the system (para. 35) and specifically discloses providing “an automatic or manual adjustment valve between fermentation vessels” (that is, on the connection flow path) (para. 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discharge flow path disclosed by Magness et al. to be configured to selectively discharge fluid, e.g., by equipping the discharge flow path with a valve as is disclosed by Magness et al. elsewhere in the system, in order to achieve flow control in the discharge flow path, as is already envisioned by Magness et al.
Regarding claim 7, Magness et al. teaches wherein the discharge flow path is configured to selectively discharge the fluid, as set forth above, wherein the fluid is discharged from the plurality of culture vessels so that the cells are sequentially transferred among the plurality of culture vessels through the connection flow path in each of the culture apparatuses (para. 29-31) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 9).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magness et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0024875) in view of Farmer et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0269760).
Regarding claim 11, Magness et al. discloses the distribution flow path configured to distribute fluid to the plurality of culture apparatuses, as set forth above.
Magness et al. is silent as to the system further comprising one or more fluid storages configured to store a fluid, wherein the distribution flow path is configured to distribute the fluid from the one or more fluid storages to the plurality of culture apparatuses.
Farmer et al. discloses a fermentation system (Abstract) comprising a vessel for storing nutrient medium (para. 18), wherein the vessel is connected to a fermentation vessel via a flow path (para. 163) to supply cells within the fermentation vessel with nutrients needed for metabolism (para. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Magness et al. to comprise comprising one or more medium fluid storages configured to store a medium fluid, wherein the distribution flow path is configured to distribute the medium fluid from the one or more fluid storages to the plurality of culture apparatuses, based on the teachings of Farmer et al., in order to supply cells with nutrients needed for fermentation.
Regarding claim 12, Magness et al. in view of Farmer et al. teaches wherein the fluid comprises a medium, as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Maisch et al. (US Patent Application Publication ) is directed to a culture system for culturing animal or plant cells comprising parallel series coupling of individual culture modules.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799