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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (JAPAN 2020-185897 11/06/2020) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement dated 4/11/2023 has been considered and made of record.
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 control part” in claim 1;
“an energizing part” in claim 2;
“an air blowing part” in claim 2;
“a switching part” in claim 3;
“an open/close part” in claim 4;
“a heat exchanging part” in claim 6.
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 § 102
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.
Claim 1, 2, 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al.(JP 2020115765 and corresponding machine translation).
With respect to claim 1, the reference of Inoue et al. discloses:
A culture apparatus (Figs. 1-7) that cultures a subject to be cultured disposed in a culture space (12b) by supplying moisture to the subject to be cultured, the culture apparatus comprising:
a fine water generating part (30) that is disposed in a passage (21) by which moisture can be supplied into the culture space and that goes into a moisture absorption state in which moisture in air is adsorbed on a conductive polymer film (38) by reducing a temperature of a base material (36) having the conductive polymer film (page 3, paragraph 1 of the translation) and goes into a moisture release state (page 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the translation) in which fine water with a particle size of 50 nanometers or less is released from the moisture adsorbed on the conductive polymer film by increasing the temperature of the base material;
and a control part (controller)(60) that performs moisture absorption control in which the fine water generating part is brought into the moisture absorption state, and moisture release control in which the fine water released by bringing the fine water generating part into the moisture release state is supplied into the culture space, by which the subject to be cultured is irradiated with the fine water (pages 3 and 4 of the translation).
With respect to claim 2, the apparatus includes an energizing part (power supply circuit)(62) that passes current through the fine water generating part (30) and an air blowing part (fan) (28) disposed in the passage (21), wherein when the control part performs the moisture release control, the control part controls the energizing part and the air blowing part such that the fine water is supplied into the culture space by blowing air by bringing the fine water generating part into the moisture release state by increasing the temperature of the base material by passage of electric current, and when the control part performs the moisture absorption control, the control part controls the energizing part to bring the fine water generating part into the moisture absorption state by reducing the temperature of the base material by stopping passage of electric current (pages 3 and 4 of the translation).
With respect to claims 5 and 10, wherein in the moisture absorption control, the control part controls the air blowing part to have a predetermined air volume, and in the moisture release control, the control part controls the air blowing part to have an air volume smaller than the predetermined air volume (pages 3-4 of the translation).
With respect to claim 11, With respect to claim 1, the reference of Inoue et al. discloses:
A culture method in which a subject (P) to be cultured disposed in a culture space (12) is cultured by supplying moisture to the subject to be cultured, the culture method comprising:
a moisture absorbing step of providing a moisture absorption state in which moisture in air is adsorbed on a conductive polymer film by reducing a temperature of a base material having the conductive polymer film (Fig. 5 and pages 3-4 of the translation); and
a moisture releasing step (Fig. 7 and pages 3-4 of the translation) of providing a moisture release state in which fine water with a particle size of 50 nanometers or less is released from the moisture adsorbed on the conductive polymer film by increasing the temperature of the base material, and supplying the released fine water into the culture space, by which the subject to be cultured is irradiated with the fine water.
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.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al.(JP 2020115765 and corresponding machine translation).
The reference of Inoue et al. has been discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, while the reference of Inoue et al. is silent with respect to the use of a heat exchange within the passage, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the passage with a heat exchanger for the known and expected result of allowing the temperature of the culture space to be controlled.
With respect to claim 9, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal diameters of the passage and/or inlets and outlets through routine experimentation while maintaining the efficiency of the liquid supply system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 and dependent claims 4, 7 and 8 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the passage configuration and related control recited in claim 3 as recited below:
“wherein the passage is provided with a main passage in which the fine water generating part and the air blowing part are disposed; a communicating passage that provides communication between the main passage and the culture space; a switching part that can switch between a circulation state in which the main passage communicates with the culture space through the communicating passage so that air circulates through the main passage and the culture space, and an interruption state in which the communication through the communicating passage is interrupted; and a water tank part that stores water on a one-end side of the main passage, and
when the control part performs the moisture absorption control, the control part controls the air blowing part such that air flows into the main passage from the water tank part side and flows through the fine water generating part by bringing the switching part into the interruption state, and when the control part performs the moisture release control, the control part controls the air blowing part such that air containing the fine water circulates by bringing the switching part into the circulation state”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references of Nishimura et al. (US 2016/0215252) and Kiyota et al. (JP 2010124703) are cited as prior art that pertains to cell culture device with humidifying devices.
The reference of Yamaguro et al. (JP 2018054258) is cited as prior art that pertains to a fine water derivation device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H BEISNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1269. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1374. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/William H. Beisner/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1799
WHB