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/Restriction REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group I , claim(s) 1- 16 , drawn to a sensor cap . Group II , claim(s) 17-21 , drawn to a cell culture media monitoring system . Group III, claim(s) 22-30, drawn to a method of measuring cell culture media. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the sensor cap having a cylindrical cap with a closed and open end, a sample collection chamber and a plurality of sensors in communication with the cap , this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Jooris et al. (US 2016/0184817 A1 – hereafter ‘817) . ‘817 discloses a cap for monitoring a biological reaction in a culture vessel that includes a cap (cap 11) with a sample region, i.e. a sample collection chamber (region 20) and a sensor (optical microscope 19a, 19b; Fig. 1) that includes a plurality of sensors ([0077]). During a telephone conversation with Chandra Duncan on 03/11/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I , claim s 1-16 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim s 17-30 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17( i ). The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/01/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Assimiti et al. (US 2017/0205356 A1 – hereafter ‘356) . ‘356 discloses a portable fluid analyzer (Abstract) that includes the following limitations for claim 1: “ A sensor cap for a cell culture device ”: ‘356 discloses a cartridge (cartridge 106) and a reader (reader 102; Fig. 1) that forms a lid over a container ([0022]; [0023]). This lid covers a sample collection cup (cup 108; Fig. 1; [0022]) where this is being interpreted as the cell culture device of the instant application. “ a cylindrical body hav ing a closed end and an open end, wherein the open end is configured to attach to a cell culture device ”: The lid of ‘356 is cylindrical in shape (Fig. 1-3) where the lid has closed end which is the reader (reader 312; Fig. 3) and an open end which is the cassette (cassette 210; Fig. 2) which is opened to the cup via a lateral slit (slit 204; [0026]; [0031]). “ a sample collection chamber disposed on an interior surface of the cylindrical body ”: ‘356 discloses chamber (chamber 202; Fig. 2) within the cassette portion of the lid that is on an interior surface of the lid and collects a sample. “ a plurality of sensors in communication with the sample collection chamber. ”: ‘356 discloses a plurality of chemical reagent pads (pads 206; Fig. 2; [0026]) that reacts to the sample and acts like a sensor. Furthermore, ‘356 includes a plurality of color sensors (sensors 306; Fig. 3; [0030]). For claim 5, ‘356 discloses that threads are used to attach the lid to the container ([0023]). For claim 7, the cap of ‘356 is fully capable of being disposable. For claim 8, the sensor of ‘356 are integrated into the body of the sensor as the color pads are within the cassette ([0026]; [0030]) and the electronic reader. For claim 9, the sensor of ‘356 are integrated into the body of the sensor as the color pads are within the cassette ([0026]; [0030]) and the electronic reader and are therefore attached to the bode of the cap. For claim 10, ‘356 discloses that the sensors measure cel culture conditions such as pH protein, specific gravity and nitrites ([0042]). For claim 12, ‘356 discloses that the sensors measure protein where this is being interpreted as including amino acids ([0042]). For claim 13, ‘356 discloses measuring the glucose content ([0042]). For claim 14, ‘356 discloses measuring the pH of the system ([0042]). For claim 16, the bottle of ‘356 is being interpreted as a cell culture media bottle. Therefore, ‘356 meets the limitations of claims 1, 5, 7 -10, 12-14 and 16. 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assimiti et al. (US 2017/0205356 A1 – hereafter ‘356) in view of Berghahn (US 3,757,979 A – hereafter ‘979) For claim 6, ‘356 ( Assimiti ) does not specifically disclose that the cap is textured, however, having a cap that is textured in order to improve the grip when removing the cap is well-known and conventional within the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would have been familiar with pill bottles which have a textured lid for the purposes of improving the grip when removing the cap. ‘979 ( Berghahn ) discloses a safety closure assembly that is used to prevent children from removing pills from bottles (col. 1 lines 1-5) that for claim 6 include serrations (serrations 11; Fig. 1; col. 2 lines 31-34). These serrations provide a gripping surface to enable rotation of the safety closure. While not being from the same art as ‘356 and the instant application, ‘979 is analogous art in that the serrations of the cover serve the same purpose as the textured cap of the instant application. That purpose being to allow a user to grip the cap in such a way as to rotate the cap in order to remove it, i.e. the user’s fingers do not slip off the cap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to employ the serrations of ‘979 within ‘356 as a way to grip the cap. The suggestion for doing so at the time would be to enable rotation of the cap (col. 3 lines 33-34). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assimiti et al. (US 2017/0205356 A1 – hereafter ‘356) in view of Bezer et al. (CN 101886039 B – hereafter ‘039 and reference will be made to the enclosed machine translation). ‘356 ( Assimiti ) differs from the instant claim regarding a dissolved oxygen sensor. ‘039 ( Bezer ) discloses a cover that contains sensors ([0015]; Fig. 1) that for claim 11 discloses using a dissolved gas sensor such as a sensor that measures dissolved oxygen [0067]). This allows for the measurement of oxygen within the cell culture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time o filing to include a dissolved oxygen sensor as suggested by ‘039 within ‘356 in order to measure the oxygen content of the culture media. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to control the pH value of the bioreactor and the supply or discharge of gas ([0075]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-4 and 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: For claim 2, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the cap includes inductor coils disposed on the exterior of the cap. Claims 3 and 4 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 2. For claim 15, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the sensors within the cap are an inductance-capacitance sensor. The closest prior art is Assimiti et al. (US 2017/0205356 A1 – hereafter ‘356) which discloses a cap with sensors and sample collection chamber, but does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations of claims 3 and 15. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Steffan et al. (EP 3718632 B1) discloses a cap that includes a sample chamber and sensors within the cap. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3724 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Marcheschi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 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. /MICHAEL L HOBBS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799