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 I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 8/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not separate and distinct because they container overlapping subject matter so there would be no significant search burden. This is not found persuasive because some overlapping subject matter is not indicative of significant search burden. Establishing that the inventions are classified in different classes and/or subclasses establishes that a serious burden exists on the examiner if restriction is not required. Further, it is noted that the search required for Group II (method) is not required for Groups I (apparatus) as neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/10/2026.
Drawings
Figures 2 and 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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 “brake” as set forth in claims 7 and 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show #526 as described in the specification in paragraph [0076]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). It is believed that figure 7 mislabeled the brake as “516” when it should be #526.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “An assembly” should read --an assembly--. 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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claims 6 recites the limitation, “a drive motor” in line 1. It is unclear whether a drive motor of claim 6 is the same or different as “a drive motor” as recited in claim 1, lines 2-3, upon which claim 6 depends. AS such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR200488254Y1 (with paragraph numbers referring to machine translation) in view of Makino et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0001499).
Regarding claim 1, KR200488254Y1 discloses an apparatus for aligning a bioprocessing drive head (figures 1-3) comprising:
an assembly to operatively connect a drive motor to a rotatable shaft (#110, 110a and 111);
a drive head operatively connected to the rotatable shaft (#130, connected to #110a), the drive head configured to rotate an impeller within a bioprocessing vessel (#130 drives impeller 150 through magnets); and
a linear movement mechanism operatively connected to the assembly of rotating and sliding bearings and/or the rotatable shaft (height adjusting member 200 and lifting rod R, connected to output shaft 110a; [0067]);
wherein the linear movement mechanism is configured to move the drive head linearly via the rotatable shaft into operative contact with the impeller, without linearly moving the drive motor (compare figures 3 and 6; [0066]-[0070]).
However, KR200488254Y1 does not explicitly disclose the assembly to be rotating and sliding bearings.
It is well known in the art to have an assembly of rotating and sliding bearings to support a rotating and linearly moving shaft, as evidenced by Makino et al. (figure 1, 1106a and 1106b [0054]). Providing both rotating and linear bearings to connect the drive motor to the rotatable shaft permits smooth support of the rotatable drive and linear movement and rotation with high precision ([0032]-[0033]; [0103]).
Regarding claim 2, KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; and the combination further discloses wherein the assembly of rotating and sliding bearings is a rotary ball spline mechanism (Makino et al. [0103], [0203]).
Regarding claim 3, KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. further discloses wherein the linear movement mechanism is a linear actuator (height adjusting member 200 and lifting rod R, connected to output shaft 110a; [0066]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 4, KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. further discloses wherein the rotary ball spline mechanism is located within a housing (KR200488254Y1 housing 120; Makino et al 1101), the housing having a slot (bottom opening in housing 120, see figure 6 where “R” with dotted line passes through bottom hole of 120) where and an aperture in an upper housing surface from which the rotatable shaft extends (upper opening of 120 wherein 110a/130 passes out of 120); wherein the linear actuator is secured to the rotary ball spline mechanism through the slot (200 and “R” connect to 110a through bottom of housing 120, which as modified by Makino et al. includes the bearings connected to the housing and rotatable shaft).
Regarding claim 5, KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. further discloses wherein the impeller includes one or more magnets configured for magnetic coupling to one or more magnets of the drive head when the drive head and the impeller are in operative contact (magnets M1 and M2).
Regarding claim 6, KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. further discloses further comprising a drive motor operatively connected to the rotary ball spline mechanism (KR200488254Y1 drive motor 110; Makino et al. 1100a, [0029]).
Regarding claim 9, KR200488254Y1 discloses a system for aligning and rotating a bioprocessing drive head (figures 1-3) comprising:
a rigid support structure configured for receiving a flexible bioprocessing vessel having an interior cavity that includes an impeller (figure 1, vessel 5 and apparatus 100; figures 2-4 and 6, #140; [0001]-[0002]; [0035]-[0038]);
a drive motor attached to an external surface of the rigid support structure (driving motor 110, attached to 140 by 120; [0032]);
a mechanism operatively connecting the drive motor to a rotatable shaft (#110, 110a and 111);
a drive head operatively connected to an end of the rotatable shaft opposite from the drive motor (#130, connected to #110a), the drive head configured to rotate an impeller within a bioprocessing vessel (#130 drives impeller 150 through magnets);
a linear movement mechanism operatively connected to the rotary ball spline mechanism and/or the rotatable shaft (height adjusting member 200 and lifting rod R, connected to output shaft 110a; [0067]); and
wherein the linear movement mechanism is configured to move the drive head linearly via the rotatable shaft into operative contact with the impeller, without linearly moving the drive motor (compare figures 3 and 6; [0066]-[0070]));
wherein the drive motor is configured to rotate the rotatable shaft and drive head, via the mechanism, to rotate the impeller (drive motor 110, speed reducer 11, output shaft 110a; [0031]-[0034]).
However, KR200488254Y1 does not explicitly disclose the mechanism to be a rotary ball spline mechanism.
It is well known in the art to have a rotary ball spline mechanism to support a rotating and linearly moving shaft, as evidenced by Makino et al. (figure 1, 1106a and 1106b [0054]; [0103]; [0203]). Providing a rotary ball spline mechanism to connect the drive motor to the rotatable shaft permits smooth support of the rotatable drive and linear movement and rotation with high precision ([0032]-[0033]; [0103]).
Regarding claim 10, KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. further discloses wherein the linear movement mechanism is a linear actuator (height adjusting member 200 and lifting rod R, connected to output shaft 110a; [0066]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 11, KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. further discloses wherein the rotary ball spline mechanism is located within a housing (KR200488254Y1 housing 120; Makino et al 1101), the housing having a slot (bottom opening in housing 120, see figure 6 where “R” with dotted line passes through bottom hole of 120) where and an aperture in an upper housing surface from which the rotatable shaft extends (upper opening of 120 wherein 110a/130 passes out of 120); wherein the linear actuator is secured to the rotary ball spline mechanism through the slot (200 and “R” connect to 110a through bottom of housing 120, which as modified by Makino et al. includes the bearings connected to the housing and rotatable shaft).
Regarding claim 12, KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. KR200488254Y1 in view of Makino et al. further discloses wherein the impeller includes one or more magnets configured for magnetic coupling to one or more magnets of the drive head when the drive head and the impeller are in operative contact (magnets M1 and M2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 13 and 14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
