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 with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims have been amended and require two distinct special technical features. As such, claims 1-7, 9-15, 19, and 20 as amended are directed to Group II and will be examined.
Claims 8 and 16-18 have been canceled from consideration therein.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 8, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 has incorporated the curve in the graph in Figure 5. Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table "is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience." Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 6 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 the limitation "the at least one opening of said first component" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and thus, inherit the same deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takatsuka (US 2015/0190735 A1).
With respect to claim 11 Takatsuka discloses a cell culture system comprising:
a first component (holding unit 11) that is cylindrical or frustoconical (See Fig. 1 and Para. 0032 for circular cylindrical shape) and of axis A (angle ϴ depicted in Fig 1, See Para. 0039), and that has a first radius R1, the first component having a height H1 measured along the axis A (See Fig. 1 reproduced below);
a second component (main body unit 21) that is cylindrical or frustoconical (See Para. 0035 for discussion of a circular cylindrical shape), arranged inside the first component (See Para. 0035 for discussion of the main body unit being stored in the opening of the holding unit) and having a second radius R2 (See Fig. 1 reproduced below), the central axis of the second component being substantially identical to the axis A of the first component (See Para. 0035 for discussion of the main body unit being arranged in such a manner that the center line as a virtual straight line passing through the center of the main body unit overlaps the rotation axis L, See Fig. 1), said second radius R2 being less than the first radius R1, the second component having a height H2 substantially identical to the height H1 of the first component (See Fig. 1 reproduced below);
the first component and the second component forming a ring-shaped container open at the top (See Para. 0036 for discussion of how the lid 22 is removable) and able to hold a liquid at a height H measured along the axis A (See Fig. 1 and Para. 0029 for depiction of a material M being held in container 20; Para. 0032 describes a medium 13 being held in holding unit 11); and
a drive member (drive source 40, See Para. 0029) for driving the container in a rotational movement about the axis A (See Para. 0037 for discussion of how a rotation mechanism 30 rotates the storage container 20 around the rotation axis L by transferring a rotational force from the drive source 40 to the storage container 20),
the container being inclined in such a way that the axis A forms a non-zero angle a that is less than or equal to 30° with respect to the vertical direction (See Para. 0039 for discussion of how the angle ϴ is preferably set between 20° and 70°).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 (reproduction)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatsuka (US 2015/0190735 A1) in view of Meunier et al (WO 2017149034 A1) (reference is made to related application US 2021/0187453 A1).
With respect to claim 19, Takatsuka discloses a cell culture method using a system as claimed in claim 11, the method comprising:
A step of supplying a liquid containing species to be culture in the container up to a height H measured on the axis A (See Para. 0041 for discussion for putting the material to be processed M into the main body unit 21, then inserting the main body unit into the holding unit while arranging the storage container 20 and the rotation mechanism 30 in such a manner that their respective center lines overlap the rotation axis L), and
A step of rotating the container using the drive member (See Para. 0042).
Takatsuka fails to disclose that the aspect ratio H/(R1) is comprised between 0.5 and 2.
Meunier teaches a bladeless mixer for mixing a liquid, wherein said mixer includes a cylindrical or truncated cone-shaped receptacle having an axis A and a radius R, the radius R being the shortest distance between the axis A and a sidewall of the receptacle, the liquid to be mixed being placed in the receptacle and having an exposed surface at a height H measured along axis A; a member for tilting the receptacle such that axis A forms a non-zero-degree angle of up to 30° relative to the vertical direction; a member for imparting a rotational movement to the receptacle along axis A at an angular speed of rotation Ω; wherein the aspect ratio H/R of the height H to the radius R and the angular speed of rotation Ω are selected such that an inherent mode of inertia of the liquid has an unstable resonance when the receptacle is tilted and rotates (See abstract). Aspect ratio H/R is preferentially chosen such that it is roughly equal to 0.62-1.99 for first through third inertial eigenmodes. This helps facilitate the appearance of a resonance of the first-third inertial eigenmodes (See Paras. 0064-0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the taught aspect ratio of the container Meunier into the container of Takatsuka to help facilitate the appearance of resonance of various inertial eigenmodes of the system during rotation (See Paras. 0064-0067 of Meunier).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatsuka (US 2015/0190735 A1) in view of Goodwin et al (US 2013/0267020 A1).
With respect to claim 20 Takatsuka discloses an assembly (centrifuge 1, See Fig. 1 and Para. 0029) comprising a system as claimed in claim 11 (see rejection above) and a liquid (material M may be composed of a liquid material and a powder material, See Para. 0040).
Takatsuka fails to teach that the liquid in the container of the system contains a species to be cultured.
Goodwin teaches a culture system and an alternating ionic magnetic resonance electromagnetic chamber for culturing cells, tissues or organoid bodies (See abstract). The culture apparatus comprises means for containing the cells in a growth environment and means for continually randomizing the gravity vector in the growth environment (See Para. 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the liquid of Goodwin into the liquid of Takatsuka such that the system of Takatsuka is enabled to process liquids comprising cells in a growth environment while continually randomizing the gravity vector in the growth environment (See Para. 0015 of Goodwin).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10, and 12-15 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: The closet cited prior art of reference fails to disclose or teach:
That the first component is transparent to visible light (claim2); Takatsuka discloses that the second component (unit 21) may be formed of glass, but there is no discussion of the light transmission abilities of the material of holding unit 11 or of the system is utilized with a light generation system; claim 3 is dependent upon claim 2 and inherits the same status;
The first component being opaque to visible light (claim 4); Takatsuka discloses that the second component (unit 21) may be formed of glass, but there is no discussion of the light transmission abilities of the material of holding unit 11 or that the system is utilized with a light generation system;
That first radius R1 being comprised between 5 cm and 100 cm (there is no discussion of the dimensions of any of the components of the system of Takatsuka);
The container having a height H1 measured along the axis A that is suitable for holding the liquid at a height H measured along the axis A, even when it is inclined by the angle α, H1 being equal to H+R1 x tan(α) (claim 7); there is no disclosure or teaching of the dimensions of the container;
The difference between the second radius R2 and the first radius R1 being less than 30 cm, preferably less than 20cm (claim 9); there is no disclosure or teaching of the dimensions of the container;
The system comprises at least one light source arranged inside the second component that is able to be directed toward the container (claim 10); there is no discussion that the system is utilized with a light generation system;
the first component and the second component being transparent to visible light and the system comprising at least one first light source arranged outside the first component and able to be directed toward the container, and at least one second light source arranged inside the second component and able to be directed toward the container (claim 12); there is no discussion that the system is utilized with a light generation system;
the specifics of the height H being chosen to satisfy equation 1 of claim 13; there is no disclosure or teaching of the dimensions of the container;
the aspect ratio H/R1 and the ratio of radii R2/R1 being defined according to the curve in the graph of figure 5, R2/R1 being non-zero (claim 14); there is no disclosure or teaching of the dimensions of the container; and
the ratio of radii R2/R1 being equal to 0.333 and the aspect ratio H/R1 being comprised between 1.2 and 1.5, preferably being comprised between 1.3 and 1.4, and even more preferably being 1.35 (claim 15); there is no disclosure or teaching of the dimensions of the container.
Claims 1 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The closest cited prior art of reference fails to disclose or fairly teach the incorporation of a membrane for diffusing a gas into a liquid by dissolution, the membrane being arranged at the lower part of the first component and positioned in such a way as to cover at least one opening of said first component, the first component, the second component, and the membrane being configured to form the container able to hold the liquid at the liquid head heigh H measured along the axis A, and an enclosure able to hold a volume of gas, the enclosure being assembled with the container and arranged in such a way that the volume of gas can diffuse into the liquid via the membrane (claim 1). Specifically, there is no disclosure or teaching of the membrane being positioned to cover an opening of said first component. Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and inherits the same status.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY I FISHER whose telephone number is (469)295-9182. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRITTANY I FISHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1796 May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights