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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 5 in the amendments filed 7/24/2026.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claim 1 filed 7/24/2026 has overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented in the previous Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6-12, and 18 filed 7/24/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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 1-3, 6-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolcet Sanjuan et al. (US 12,414,513 B2) (hereinafter referred to as Sanjuan; previously presented) in view of Yuan (CN 201390745 Y) (previously presented), Clark, II (US 5437202) (hereinafter referred to as Clark; previously presented), and Wood et al. (WO 2021/221689 A1 – US equivalent US 2023/0175959 A1 cited herein) (hereinafter referred to as Wood; see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Sanjuan teaches an apparatus for the establishment and maintenance of a sample in a controlled environment (claim 13-14; Col. 2, lines 10-15 and col. 5, lines 11- 20), the apparatus comprising:
a sample container (abstract, “sampling container”; Fig 7, receptacle 1);
a lid that attaches to the sample container (Fig. 7, lid 2 attached to receptacle 1), wherein the lid has two orifices (claim 9; Fig. 7, two orifices 5, 9),
a chamber inlet channel inserted into one of the orifices and a chamber outlet channel inserted into the other of the two orifices (Fig. 7, inlet channel and outlet channel shown; Col. 6, lines 44-45 imply requirement of inlet/outlet channels), wherein the insertion produces a seal between each of the channels and respective orifices (Col. 7, lines 42-64 teach that the assembly ensures sterility, requiring a seal between each channels and respective orifices), and
PNG
media_image1.png
957
1428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a sample (Col. 5, lines 34-45; Fig. 7, plant material 11) (see annotated figure below).
Sanjuan does not disclose or teach (d) an inlet valve connected to the chamber inlet channel, (e) an outlet valve connected to the chamber outlet channel, wherein the inlet valve and/or the outlet valve are of ballcock design, (g) a composition inlet channel connected to the inlet of valve (d), and (h) a composition outlet channel connected to the outlet valve of (e), or wherein the apparatus is capable of withstanding an internal pressure of at least 20 psi for at least 48 hours.
Regarding features (d)-(e) and (g)-(h), Yuan in the analogous art of culturing devices discloses a bacterial culture container (abstract) comprising two tubes (i.e., chamber channels) connected to a lid, each connected to a respective valve (Fig. 1 – see annotated figure below) and two pipelines (i.e., composition channels) connected to the valves, extending away from the container.
PNG
media_image2.png
713
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Sanjuan to incorporate valves and composition channels, as taught by Yuan, because the valves would control the flow of medium into or out of the sample container and the composition channels would permit flow to or from the container.
The prior art combination does not disclose or teach the valve being of ballcock form.
However, Clark in the art of fluid sampling teaches that using ballcock valve to control fluid flow is known in the art (Col. 3, line 59 - Col. 4, line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to It has been held that a claim has no patentable significance when substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results (e.g., controlling flow of media) to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 B).
The limitations “outlet” and “inlet” are directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed apparatus and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art apparatus (MPEP §2114 II). The apparatus taught by modified Sanjuan would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because each of the prior art channels and valves would be structurally capable of working for inlet or outlet flow.
The prior art combination does not disclose or teach wherein the apparatus is capable of withstanding an internal pressure of at least 20 psi for at least 48 hours.
However, Wood in the analogous art of plant culturing chambers teaches that designing a system, or apparatus, such that it is capable of withstanding an internal pressure of at least ~1.5 atm for at least 7 days, is well known in the art ([0187], “chamber 102 is relatively airtight”). Although Wood does not expressly disclose the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to because it has been held that when claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination apparatus such that it can withstand an internal pressure of at least 20 psi for at least 48 hours because Wood teaches that such a characteristic is well known in the art, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to design the apparatus to simulate higher pressure environments.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sanjuan teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Sanjuan further teaches that the sample container and lid are synergistically threaded (Col. 6, lines 46-48; Fig. 5, container threading 1a and lid threading 2a).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sanjuan teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Sanjuan further teaches the sample container comprises glass (Col. 6, lines 49-50, “multi-purpose receptacle 1 made of glass or polycarbonate”).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Sanjuan teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Sanjuan further teaches the receptacle (sample container) connected to a source of gas (Col. 4, lines 1-2, “A gas may be injected through this orifice to modify the inner atmosphere of the receptacle, if necessary.”) and a source of liquid (Col. 6, lines 53-56, “The reactor system includes means (not shown) for pumping liquid culture medium from an external reservoir (not shown) to the receiving container 4 at a predetermined frequency.”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sanjuan teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Sanjuan further teaches wherein the sample comprises living things or parts thereof (abstract, “It comprises a receptacle for the culture of plant material”; Col. 5, lines 25-45).
Regarding claims 9-12, modified Sanjuan teaches the apparatus of claim 8.
Sanjuan further teaches:
Claim 9: wherein the sample comprises a plant (abstract, “It comprises a receptacle for the culture of plant material”).
Claim 10: wherein the sample comprises a microbe (Col. 5, lines 42-45, “Optionally, the plant material may comprise biotic agents, for example bacteria and/or fungi”).
Claim 11: wherein the sample comprises a plurality of living organisms or parts thereof (Col. 5, lines 26-31, “for example…plant tissues, plant organs, seeds and/or plant cells”).
Claim 12: wherein the sample comprises at least one plant and at least one microbe (Col. 5, lines 38-45, “In vitro culture comprises plant material…plant material may comprise biotic agents, for example bacteria and/or fungi”).
Regarding claim 18, such claims are directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed apparatus and do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art apparatus (MPEP §2114 II). The apparatus taught by modified Sanjuan would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art apparatus is taught to support plant material (abstract) in a controllable, sealed environment (abstract; Fig. 6 shows sealed environment with sample) and would be structurally capable of testing the sample in the controlled environment.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanjuan and Yuan, Clark, and Wood as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ballew et al. (US 2021/0387176 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Ballew; previously presented).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sanjuan teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
The prior art combination does not disclose or teach wherein the composition outlet channel is connected to a syringe.
PNG
media_image3.png
376
369
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Ballew teaches a syringe connected to a flexible tube (i.e., composition outlet channel) extending from a sampling container connected to (Fig. 3, second flexible tube 36 attached to syringe 76 - see annotated figure below).
Ballew teaches that the syringe is a receiving container for sample collection (para. 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the apparatus of Sanjuan to connect a syringe to the composition outlet channel, as taught by Ballew, to collect samples for testing.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, modified Sanjuan teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
Ballew teaches it is known in the art to connect a plurality of sampling containers in series ([0039]-[0040]) and in parallel ([0040]).
Ballew teaches that connecting a plurality of sampling containers in series permits several stages of growth and/or differentiation to occur ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the apparatus of Sanjuan to connect a plurality of the apparatus arranged in series, as taught by Ballew, to study or harvest from several stages of growth.
Ballew teaches that connecting a plurality of sampling containers in parallel for scale-up purposes ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the apparatus of Sanjuan to connect a plurality of the apparatus arranged in parallel, as taught by Ballew, for scale-up purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sanjuan, Yuan, and Ballew to obtain the inventions as specified in claims 14 and 15.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanjuan, Yuan, Clark, and Wood, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Radcliffe et al. (US 2022/0304455 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Radcliffe; previously presented).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sanjuan teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
The prior art combination does not disclose or teach wherein the seal is produced by a sealant material in or around each of the two orifices into which the chamber inlet channel and chamber outlet channel have been inserted.
PNG
media_image4.png
456
798
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Radcliffe in the analogous art of bioreactor containers teaches a liquid adhesive or bonding material (i.e., sealant material) used inside an orifice used which seals a tube (Fig. 5B – see annotated figure below; [0056], lines 14-16) in a cap for a bottle bioreactor container ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the apparatus of Sanjuan using the teachings of Radcliffe to use a sealant material in each of the two orifices into which the chamber inlet channel and chamber outlet channel have been inserted to prevent contaminants from entering the container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sanjuan, Yuan, and Radcliffe to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanjuan, Yuan, Clark, Wood and Radcliffe as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view Simon et al. (US 2017/0037356 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Simon; previously presented).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sanjuan teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
The prior art combination does not disclose or teach wherein the sealant material comprises silicone or epoxy.
However, Simon teaches wherein a sealant material includes silicone or epoxy ([0105], “…a portion of the encloser is formed from a sealant, such as silicone, epoxy…”).
Simon teaches that silicone-based sealant or epoxy can be used to make the housing of a bioprocess sensor leak-proof or leak-resistant by applying silicone-based sealant/epoxy to connections or points of entry on the housing ([0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a silicone or epoxy as the sealant material, as taught by Simon, to seal the orifices on the device of modified Sanjuan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sanjuan, Yuan, Radcliffe, and Simon to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN J CARREON whose telephone number is (571)272-6818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 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.
/A.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights