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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “receiving space” in claims 1, 7 and 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
In the patentability analysis of apparatus/device claims, aspects or limitations the examiner interprets as functional are shown below as generally italicized whereas aspects interpreted as structural components are normally bolded. The bold font and italics are shown when the structure and function are initially introduced in a claim, though not necessarily repeated, particularly in dependent claims. The examiner applies this formatting for both the examiner and applicant’s convenience. However, absent the referenced typestyles, the patentability analysis will still be clear regarding which limitations the examiner interprets as structural versus functional.
Apparatus/device/system claims are defined by the positively recited structural components. Functional limitations state either an intended use or operation/process, a manner of operating a device, apparatus or system, or what the apparatus/system does. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Also, a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114 II.
In this case, the instant claims contain multiple uses of the phrase “adapted to”. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. The examiner recommends that applicant amend all recitations of “adapted to” into “configured to”, as “configured to” is interpreted in US patent practice to mean the structure can perform the function without additional modification. See MPEP 2183.
Of course, in the patentability analysis of these apparatus/system claims, functional features are not ignored and applicant can and should employ such language where appropriate and helpful. However, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, or if such apparatus can operate in the manner described, then it meets the claim limitation (MPEP §§ 2114, 2173.05(g)).
In summary, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus should be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The examiner's referral to applicant's specification will pertain to the corresponding US published application (US 2024/0034982; hereinafter ’982). The below patentability analysis provides one or more interpretations and claim mappings of the claimed structures and/or limitations although other interpretations may be possible. In the patentability analysis, the Office applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. However, specific limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §§2111, 2173.01 I.
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 limitations are:
i. “clamping member” in claim 1 has been interpreted by the examiner as corresponding to two cross bars 21, two connection member 22, and two sliding members 23 (as defined in para [0020] et seq., of ‘982) or structural equivalents thereof;
ii. “pulling mechanism” in claim 1 has been interpreted by the examiner as corresponding to at least two gripping members 30, wherein the gripping members 30 have been interpreted as two magnetic pieces, clips (as defined in para [0019] et seq., of ‘982) or structural equivalents thereof; and
iii. “pushing mechanism” in claim 8 has been interpreted by the examiner as corresponding to a rotation device 51, an eccentric cam 52, and a pushing plate 53 (as defined in para [0022] et seq., of ‘982) or structural equivalent thereof.
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 1-10 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 1 recites “a main body enclosing a receiving space and having a platform on a top face thereof”. This is vague and indefinite. The phrase “receiving space” is not a structural limitation itself but merely an area. The recitation of “a main body enclosing a receiving space” is unclear as to what structure the main body comprises to enclose a space. That is, does the main body include a top wall, sidewall and a bottom wall to enclose (define) a receiving space? Furthermore, how is a platform on the top of space? Is the platform used to enclose the space of the main body or is the platform a separate element disposed on the top surface of the main body used to enclose the receiving space? The examiner suggests that applicant define the main body in the claims using structural elements rather than enclosing a space.
In addition, as currently written, claim 1 does not positively recite “a culture bag” as part of the automated cell culture device. However, claim 1 attempts to further limit the culture as having at least one fluid inlet. For clarity, a device claim should list the structural elements on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase such as “comprising” (or in this case “including” which a transitional term that is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements). Again, the claimed invention is defined by only positively recited elements. The “culture bag”, as currently recited in the claims, can be reasonably interpreted as an article intended to be worked upon, not necessarily part of the device. See MPEP § 2111.02. Applicant’s attempt to further limit an element that is not positively recited is confusing and definite as to whether this culture bag should receive patentable weight. The examiner recommends applicant positively recite the “culture bag” since it appears applicant does intend the culture bag as part of the cell culture device. Accordingly, in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the “culture bag” as positively recited. However, the examiner requests that applicant clarify the intention so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Claim 5, line 2, recites “the clamping member includes two cross bars arranged spacedly”. The term “spacedly” is not commonly found in the art. In addition, the claim recites “each of the cross bars is perpendicular to the sliding direction”. It is unclear which axis of the cross bars is considered spaced and perpendicular to which axis of the platform. This is confusing and indefinite. The examiner recommends defining the axial and radial directions of each cross bar relative to each other and a specific axis of the platform.
Also, the recitation “one of the cross bars is closer to the platform”. The phrase “closer to” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “closer to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear, from the claim, along which axis one cross bar is closer and perpendicular relative to which axis of the platform. This reasoning is applicable to claim 8, which also recites “closer to”.
Claim 6 recites “one said sliding track is arranged at each of two sides of the platform”. This is confusing and indefinite as to how one sliding track (within the scope of the claim) is arranged at two different slides of the platform. The examiner believes this should read --the at least one sliding track includes two sliding tracks each disclosed on opposite sides of the platform-- for clarity.
Claim 7 recites “a movement driving mechanism configured in the receiving space of the main body” and “the sliding direction”. As set forth above, these are indefinite recitations. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al., (US 2010/0075406; hereinafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches an automated cell culture device, including:
a main body (reads on cell culture apparatus 10), enclosing a receiving space and having
a platform (reads on container table 12) on a top face thereof (i.e., main body), the platform having at least one sliding track (rail 15-3) extending along a sliding direction, two ends of the platform along the sliding direction being defined as a first end and a second end respectively, the platform being adapted for support a culture bag 11 lying thereon (see Fig. 1, para [0085], and [0127] et seq.),
wherein the culture bag has at least one fluid inlet (tubes 18) located at an end thereof closer to the first end of the platform (see Fig. 1 and para [0090] et seq.);
a clamping member (reads on roller 13), slidably disposed on the at least one sliding track (see Fig. 1), the clamping member being adapted for clamping and pressing the culture bag to avoid fluid in the culture bag from flowing toward an end of the culture bag closer to the second end of the platform, the clamping member being slidable on the culture bag along the sliding direction.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches at least one pulling mechanism disposed on the second end of the platform, the at least one pulling mechanism being adapted for pulling and retaining the end of the culture bag closer to the second end of the platform (specifically, Tanaka teaches beginning at para [0093], “the upper surface of the container table 12, a stop member 12-1 is vertically provided at each of the four corners of part on which the culture container 11 is placed. At each of the four corners of the culture container 11, a hole 11-2 is provided so as to allow the stop member 12-1 to pass therethrough. By allowing each of the stop members 12-1 to pass through each of the holes 11-2 of the culture container 11, the culture container 11 can be stationary fixed on the upper surface of the container table 12. In addition, shift of the culture container 11 with the move of the roller 13 can be prevented. The stop member is not limited to the above-mentioned member, and any stop member can be used as long as it has a mechanism which can prevent the culture container 11 from shifting.”)
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka teaches the at least one pulling mechanism includes at least two gripping members (reads on posts 12-1) to hold two sides of the end of the culture bag closer to the second end of the platform respectively (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Tanaka teaches the clamping member includes two cross bars 13-1, 13-2 arranged spacedly and each of the cross bars is perpendicular to the sliding direction, one of the cross bars is closer to the platform than the other cross bar (see Fig. 4a,b and para [0114] et seq.)
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Tanaka teaches one said sliding track is arranged at each of the two sides of the platform, the clamping member includes two connection members 14 and two sliding members 19, two ends of each of the cross bars are detachably connected to the two connection members 14 on the two sliding members respectively, the two sliding members are slidably disposed on the two sliding tracks, respectively (see para [0097] et seq.) Note: the examiner considers most coupled elements “detachably connected” given the right tool.
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka teaches a pushing mechanism 16 arranged in the receiving space (underneath the platform), the pushing mechanism being liftable to lift and lower the end of the culture bag close to the first end reciprocately. That is, Tanaka teaches a means 16 for keeping the culture medium and/or the cells being cultured which are enclosed in the culture container 11 uniform, it may be a means capable of shaking or the like of the container table 12, and the examples of which include the following: a) a means which allows the container table 12 to advance straightwardly, rotate or move on the same plane as that of the means; b) a means which allows the container table 12 to move like a seesaw; c) a means which allows the container table 12 to swing at a fixed or a plurality of angles relative to the same plane; d) a means which allows the container table 12 upside down; e) a means which has a mechanism capable of stirring a culture medium and cells being cultured within the culture container 11 by allowing the roller 13, a roller with an irregular surface or the like to move between the container table 12 and the lower surface of the culture container 11; f) a means which has a mechanism capable of stirring a culture medium or cells being cultured within the culture container 11 by pushing up or pressing a plurality of locations of the lower surface or the upper surface of the culture container 11 (both upper and lower surfaces may be pushed up or pressed); and g) a means having at least one of the above mentioned mechanisms (see para [0139] et seq.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Yu (CN 105385597).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka teaches stop members 12-1 to pass through each of the holes 11-2 of the culture container 11 such that the culture container 11 can be stationary fixed on the upper surface of the container table 12. In addition, shift of the culture container 11 resulting from movement of the roller 13 can be prevented. Tanaka also teaches the stop member is not limited to the above-mentioned member, and any stop member can be used as long as it has a mechanism which can prevent the culture container 11 from shifting (see para [0093] et seq.) However, Tanaka does not specifically disclose the gripping members include two magnetic pieces, one of the magnetic pieces is fixedly disposed on the platform, the other one of the magnetic pieces is detachably attached to the magnetic piece fixedly disposed on the platform so as to clamp a corner of the culture bag between the two magnetic pieces.
In the related art of cell culturing devices, Yu teaches using magnetic fixing pieces as a fixing member 2 to attach the cell culture bag 11 to the cultivating platform. Specifically, Yu discloses all kinds of existing fixing means can be used for the fixation of the cell culturing bag to the platform. For example, adhesive components can be set on the cultivating platform to fix the component, mechanical force, viscous force, or magnetic fixed parts and so on. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to have used in the cell culturing device of Tanaka, the magnetic pieces to attach the culture bag to the platform, like that taught by Yu as it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to determine the optimum means of attachment based on considerations such as cost, ease of manufacture, etc.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Colin (US 2016/0272432).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka teaches a movement driving mechanism 15 configured in the receiving space of the main body (see para [0131] et seq.) However, Tanaka is silent to the movement driving mechanism including a belt assembly and two magnetic portions, the two magnetic portions being arranged on the belt assembly and being driven by the belt assembly to move along the sliding direction, each of the sliding members having a magnetic member, the magnetic members of the two sliding members being attached magnetically to the two magnetic portions respectively so that the two sliding members are driven to move along the sliding direction by the belt assembly.
In the related art of conveying devices in the field of processing and biological analysis of samples, Colin teaches a movement driving mechanism including a belt assembly 14, 16 and two magnetic portions 26, 28, the two magnetic portions being arranged on the belt assembly and being driven by the belt assembly to move along the sliding direction (see para [0068] et seq.), each of the sliding members having a magnetic member 52, 54 attached magnetically to the two magnetic portions respectively so that the two sliding members are driven to move along the sliding direction by the belt assembly (see para [0073] et seq. and Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed used as the conveying system of Tanaka, the particular magnetic/belt conveying system as taught by Colin, since Colin recognizes that this magnetic/belt conveying system enables the conveying of objects using a simple structure, suitable for any type of object and offering various possibilities for moving the object, such as a clamping member. Furthermore, this configuration provides a conveying device which makes it possible to easily clean and disinfect the conveying surface. It also enables the use of a conveying device integrated within a conveying system which is inexpensive, while offering a substantial number of possibilities for moving the object (see para [0009] et seq.)
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Hata et al., (US 2017/0362559; hereinafter “Hata”).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, Tanaka teaches a pushing mechanism arranged in the receiving space of the main body at the first end of the main body, the pushing mechanism being liftable to lift and lower the end of the culture bag closer to the first end reciprocatedly. Tanaka is silent as to the specific mechanism used by the pushing mechanism, wherein the pushing mechanism includes a rotation device, an eccentric cam, and a pushing plate, the eccentric cam is eccentrically disposed on the rotation device to eccentrically rotate with the rotation device, an edge of the eccentric cam is adapted for abutting against the pushing plate, the pushing plate is adapted for abutting against the culture bag, the pushing plate is lifted and lowered reciprocatedly by the eccentric cam when the eccentric cam rotates eccentrically.
In the related art of automated cell culture devices, Hata teaches a pushing mechanism includes a rotation device, an eccentric cam, and a pushing plate, the eccentric cam is eccentrically disposed on the rotation device to eccentrically rotate with the rotation device, an edge of the eccentric cam is adapted for abutting against the pushing plate, the pushing plate is adapted for abutting against the culture bag, the pushing plate is lifted and lowered reciprocatedly by the eccentric cam when the eccentric cam rotates eccentrically. Specifically, Hata teaches the base 2 is rotatably moved upward when the push-up member 5 has moved upward to contact a contact member 50 provided on the shorter side opposite to the side on which the rotation axis of the base 2 is provided. A beam-like contact piece 51 is bridged over the contact member 50. Then, when the push-up member 5 contacts the contact member 50 to allow the base 2 to move upward rotatably, as shown in FIG. 7, the contact piece 51 contacts a lower tongue piece 41a of the hook 41, that is one of the hooks, then the hook 41 is rotatably moved so that the engagement is released. Then, when the base 2 is further rotatably moved upward, as shown in FIG. 8, the other hook 42 is rotatably moved so as to be pushed by the base 2, and the engagement with the hook 42 is also released. After allowing the base 2 to move rotatably by a predetermined angle, the push-up member 5 is moved downward. As a result, as shown in FIG. 9, the base 2 is rotatably moved downward and returns to the initial position. At this time, vibration is transmitted to the container 1 held on the mounting surface 20 of the base 2 by the impact generated by receiving of the base 2 by the supporting frame 4. Due to such a configuration, by repeating the rotating operation of the base 2 by moving the push-up member 5 up and down, an operation in which after allowing the container 1 to be moved to a position higher than the initial position, returning the container 1 to the initial position and applying vibration to the container 1 that has returned to the initial position are repeated, whereby the content liquid of the container 1 can be stirred. Hata teaches a driving mechanism for moving the push-up member 5 up and down which is configured as a cam mechanism that includes a plate cam 5b having a first cam surface 5c with an arcuate contour and a second cam surface 5d with a linear contour, and a receiving plate 5a provided horizontally at the base end of the push-up member 5 as a follower. The configuration of the driving mechanism is not limited thereto. In the example shown in FIG. 10, the curvature of the earn surfaces 5c and 5d, the position of a drive shaft 5e for rotating the plate cam 5b, and the rotational speed of the drive shaft 5e are appropriately set so that the push-up member 5 moves upward as the first cam surface 5c pushes up a receiving plate 5a (see FIGS. 10(a) to 10(e)), the plate cam 5b leaves from the receiving plate 5a when switching to the second cam surface 5d, and then the push-up member 5 falls down (see FIGS. 10(f) to 10(h)), whereby the up-and-down movement of the push-up member 5 is repeated as the plate cam 5b rotates in a fixed direction. When the driving mechanism is configured as described above, the base 2 rotates downward to return to its initial position, the base 2 rotatably moves as if it falls down, so that an impact is generated when the supporting frame 4 receives the base 2. After the rotational operation of the base 2 is repeated several times to sufficiently stir the content liquid of the container 1. At this time, since the engagement of the hooks 41 and 42 is released, the pressing plate 23 is pushed up by the container 1 of which the amount of the content is increased to have an increased thickness. When the pin 26 projecting from the pressing plate 23 reaches the upper edge of the guide hole 24, the pressing plate 23 cannot move upward anymore and is fixed at the upper position (see FIG. 12). This makes it possible to increase the pressure inside of the container 1 of which the amount of the content has been increased by additional supply of the culture medium M, and even in the expansion culture step, by allowing the inside of the container to be in a pressurized state, it is possible to prevent the cells C from being damaged by excessive flow of the content liquid and to effectively prevent the gas dissolved in the medium M from becoming bubbles and staying in the container (see para [0082] et seq.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed to have substituted the pushing device as taught Tanaka, with the particular pushing mechanism taught by Hata, since Hata recognizes this particular configuration of the pushing mechanism results in, not only the content liquid in the container being stirred efficiently in the up-and-down direction, the distribution of the cells C in the content liquid or the concentration of the culture medium M in the container such that it is uniform to maintain good culture environment, but also adhesion to the inner wall of the container or excessive aggregation of the cells C can be suppressed, whereby proliferation of the cells C can be promoted. Further, when the cells C to be cultured are adherent cells, by vibration applied to the container 1, it is possible to promote peeling of the cells C from the culture surface of the container (see para [0058] et seq.)
Regarding claim 10, Hata teaches a ventilation member 3 disposed on the platform 2 and having a bumpy surface, wherein the ventilation member being adapted for being sandwiched between the platform 2 and the culture bag 1 so as to facilitate breathing of a bottom of the culture bag (see para [0052] et seq. and Fig. 1).
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include:
i. Otto-Nagels (US 5,900,374) teaches a cell culture harvesting device consisting of a scraper head with a blade and a guide strip, the scraper head and the guide strip being connected with one another only by magnetic attraction. The magnetic attraction is achieved by the fact that one of the ends of the scraper head and the guide strip which are turned toward one another have a magnet and the other has either a magnet or a material which can be magnetized by the magnet of the respective counterpart. In this way, the scraper head and the guide strip can be moved synchronously and in parallel at a distance from one another. This has the advantage that the scraper head can be placed into the cell culture vessel before a cell culture is started and can be sterilized together with it thereby eliminating the risk of contamination due to a cell culture harvesting device later being placed into the cell culture vessel. Furthermore, the scraper head can have a net-like collection container arranged on it which collects the cells lifted off the growth surface of the cell culture vessel in a manner that avoids damage to the cells.
ii. Suengaga et al., (US 2014/0011186) teach a cell culturing apparatus to culture cells using a culture container. The cell culturing apparatus includes a loading base on which the culture container is placed, and an agitating member configured to press the culture container to a predetermined pressing degree and movable at a predetermined speed in a horizontal direction. The agitating member is configured to move to apply an external force to the culture container so as to control at least one of cell aggregate formation and cell aggregate disintegration with respect to the cells in the culture container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:30am-7pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on 571-270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798