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 .
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 2 and 8 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:
Applicant amended claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, deleting “a length” and adding “a selected length of the second tubular connector”. It is unclear whether “the length of the second tubular connector” in claim 2 refers to the “selected length” of claim 1, or to the entire length or some other length.
In claim 8, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the second tubular member”. There is no other mention of any “member” in any claim.
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 6, 9, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watkins (US 2010/0149907):
Regarding claim 6, Watkins discloses a method for operating a bioreactor, comprising passing a drive shaft (22) through a first tubular connector (18) and into a second tubular connector (38), the first tubular connector at least partially disposed within a container (12); disposing a first mixing element (36) on the second tubular connector such that the first mixing element encircles and is supported by the second tubular member connector (see Fig. 3 and [0030]: "impellor 36 may have a central shaft element 38"); and rotating the drive shaft so as to rotate the second tubular connector and the first mixing element within the container, wherein the drive shaft engages an interior surface of the second tubular connector over a selected length (40) of the second tubular connector to impart the rotation of the second tubular connector.
Regarding claim 9, the second tubular connector projects from the first tubular connector (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, the first tubular connector is more flexible than the second tubular connector (see [0030]).
Regarding claim 13, the drive shaft is linear (see Fig. 3).
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 1-5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins (US 2010/0149907):
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Watkins discloses a method for operating a bioreactor comprising passing a drive shaft (22) into a first tubular connector (18) and a second tubular connector (38) projecting from the first tubular connector (see Fig. 3), the first tubular connector and the second tubular connector being at least partially disposed within a container (12), the first tubular connector being more flexible than the second tubular connector (see [0030]), wherein the drive shaft engages an interior surface of the second tubular connector over a selected length (40) of the second tubular connector thereof to impart the rotation of the second tubular connector (see Fig. 3). The relative lengths of the connectors are not numerically stated; however, the discussions of length in [0023], [0029] and [0044] would have suggested finding a workable length ratio range to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, mixing elements (blades of 36) are disposed on the second tubular connector, but are not disclosed to be removable from them tubular connector. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) concerning the obviousness of making parts removable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the mixing elements removable to facilitate, repair, cleaning, assembly and/or disassembly.
Regarding claim 5, the first tubular connector is comprised of an elastomeric material (see [0040]) and the second tubular connector is not comprised of elastomeric material (see [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, the mixing element is not disclosed to be removable from them tubular connector. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) concerning the obviousness of making parts removable. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the mixing element removable to facilitate, repair, cleaning, assembly and/or disassembly.
Regarding claim 8, while blades are disclosed, it also would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have duplicated the entire set of blades, to improve mixing. See also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) concerning the obviousness of duplicating parts.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have understood from [0023], [0029] and [0044] and Fig. 3 to have discovered optimal or workable ranges for these recited numerical parameters.
Response to Arguments
Concerning claim 6, applicant states “Watkins does not disclose or suggest selecting the length of engagement between the drive shaft and the central shaft element so as to strengthen the central shaft element for higher torque applications, as expressly required by the present specification and reflected in amended claim 6.” However, applicant’s statement that claim 6 expressly recites anything about “higher torque” or strengthening is simply false. Watkins discloses that the drive shaft engages an interior surface of the second tubular connector (38) along a length (40) thereof to impart the rotation of the second tubular connector.
In Watkins, drive coupling recess (40), as depicted in Fig. 3, corresponds to about 28% of the entire length of tubular connector (38) when barb (42) is included, and even more than 28% if barb (28) is considered a separate element.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights