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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 December 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-23 were originally filed.
Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
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 21 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.
Re claim 21, Applicant recites a first instance of the limitation, “the respective sensor installed…”. However, Applicant lacks antecedent basis for this limitation, thereby rendering it indefinite. More specifically, claim 1, from which claim 21 directly depends, does not require a sensor to be installed in the measuring chamber. It only requires an “opening configured to enable” such installation.
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 1-7, 11-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jugert et al, US20200173974 (“JUGERT”) in view of Leuthold et al., WO2019243063A1 (“LEUTHOLD”).
Re claim 1, JUGERT discloses a modular measuring cell for analytical technology in bioprocess analysis comprising two or more successively arranged and interconnected individual modules [0030], wherein the individual modules are each:
configured as a flow-through measuring cell for a fluid including an inflow opening and an outflow opening, which are assigned to a first and a second outer surface of the individual module, respectively [0030];
include a flow channel having a measuring chamber between the inflow and outflow openings [0030];
include first connecting elements with an axisymmetrical arrangement on the first and second outer surfaces [Fig.2 and associated text]; and
include at least one further opening configured to enable installation of a sensor in the measuring chamber, the sensor configured to measure chemical and/or physical properties of the fluid flowing through the measuring cell [0030]
JUGERT fails to explicitly disclose wherein a uniform adapter is arranged between two successive individual modules, which adapter includes a fluid-connecting passage opening and is configured to connect the flow channels of the successive individual modules to form a main line channel, wherein the adapter includes first and second opposing outer surfaces, which include second connecting elements having an axisymmetrical arrangement, wherein the first and second connecting elements are complementary to each other, and wherein each individual module is configured to be connected with respect to an adjacent individual module by a predetermined number of orientations about an axis of symmetry
However, LEUTHOLD, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a modular measuring cell system [Abstract],
wherein a uniform adapter is arranged between two successive individual modules, which adapter includes a fluid-connecting passage opening and is configured to connect flow channels of the successive individual modules to form a main line channel [Fig.2c and associated text],
wherein the adapter includes first and second opposing outer surfaces, which include second connecting elements having an axisymmetrical arrangement, wherein the first and second connecting elements are complementary to each other [Fig.2c and associated text], and
wherein each individual module is configured to be connected with respect to an adjacent individual module by a predetermined number of orientations about an axis of symmetry [Fig.2c and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT to include to include the particular adapter element of LEUTHOLD. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LEUTHOLD merely teaches that it is well-known to use a uniform adapter to connect modular measuring cells for use in bioprocess analysis. Since both JUGERT and LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 2, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 1, as discussed above.
JUGERT fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the first outer surface of an individual module at an inflow-side end of the main line channel is configured to be connected to a first port; the second outer surface of an individual module at an outflow-side end of the main line channel is configured to be connected to a second port, each connection in at least a liquid-tight or gas-tight manner; wherein the first and second ports each include: a first port element or a second port element, which is of the same or different configuration; and a uniform base element including a base surface which faces an outer surface of one of the individual modules and includes third connecting elements with an axially symmetric arrangement; and wherein the first connecting elements of each individual module and the third connecting elements of the base surface are complementary to each other
However, LEUTHOLD, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a modular measuring cell system [Abstract] wherein:
the first outer surface of an individual module at an inflow-side end of the main line channel is configured to be connected to a first port [Fig.2c and associated text];
the second outer surface of an individual module at an outflow-side end of the main line channel is configured to be connected to a second port, each connection in at least a liquid-tight or gas-tight manner [Fig.2c and associated text];
wherein the first and second ports each include:
a first port element or a second port element, which is of the same or different configuration [Fig.2c and associated text]; and
a uniform base element including a base surface which faces an outer surface of one of the individual modules and includes third connecting elements with an axially symmetric arrangement [Fig.2c and associated text]; and
wherein the first connecting elements of each individual module and the third connecting elements of the base surface are complementary to each other [Fig.2c and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT to include to include the particular surface elements of LEUTHOLD. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LEUTHOLD merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular configuration for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT and LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 3, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 2, as discussed above.
JUGERT fails to explicitly disclose wherein the connection between two individual modules connected via the adapter and/or between an individual module and a first or second port element is non-detachable and form-fitting
However, LEUTHOLD, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a modular measuring cell system [Abstract] wherein, the connection between two individual modules connected via the adapter and/or between an individual module and a first or second port element is non-detachable and form-fitting [Fig.2c and associated text];
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT to include to include the particular adapter element of LEUTHOLD. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LEUTHOLD merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular configuration for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT and LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 4, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 2, as discussed above.
JUGERT fails to explicitly disclose wherein each individual module is connected to the adapter and/or the first or second port element via at least one of: a form-fitting axial latching about a longitudinal axis of the measuring cell, which is enabled by one or more latching elements; a fixation enabled by the first connecting elements with the second or third connecting elements; and an adhesive bond or a material connection by laser welding
However, LEUTHOLD, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a modular measuring cell system [Abstract] wherein, each individual module is connected to the adapter and/or the first or second port element via at least one of: a form-fitting axial latching about a longitudinal axis of the measuring cell, which is enabled by one or more latching elements; a fixation enabled by the first connecting elements with the second or third connecting elements; and an adhesive bond or a material connection by laser welding [Fig.2c and associated text];
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT to include to include the particular adapter element of LEUTHOLD. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LEUTHOLD merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular configuration for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT and LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 5, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 4, as discussed above.
JUGERT fails to explicitly disclose wherein the measuring cell is mounted on a base support: indirectly by a latching or clamping of the entire modular measuring cell, or of the individual modules thereof connected to each other via the adapters, to a mounting element, which extends over the longitudinal axis of the measuring cell, wherein the mounting element is mounted on the base support; or directly by direct screw attachment, indirect screw attachment, latching, or material bonding, wherein the mounting is enabled by external surfaces of the individual modules, adapters, and/or first and second ports, which are not assigned to a sensor or a flow-through opening
However, LEUTHOLD, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a modular measuring cell system [Abstract] wherein, the measuring cell is mounted on a base support: indirectly by a latching or clamping of the entire modular measuring cell, or of the individual modules thereof connected to each other via the adapters, to a mounting element, which extends over the longitudinal axis of the measuring cell, wherein the mounting element is mounted on the base support; or directly by direct screw attachment, indirect screw attachment, latching, or material bonding, wherein the mounting is enabled by external surfaces of the individual modules, adapters, and/or first and second ports, which are not assigned to a sensor or a flow-through opening [Fig.2c and associated text];
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT to include to include the particular mounting elements of LEUTHOLD. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LEUTHOLD merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular configuration for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT and LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 6, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 1, as discussed above.
JUGERT fails to explicitly disclose wherein the axis of symmetry is a longitudinal axis of the main line channel, the longitudinal axis of the measuring cell, or a median of an outer surface of the individual module or adapter
However, LEUTHOLD, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a modular measuring cell system [Abstract] wherein, an axis of symmetry is a longitudinal axis of the main line channel, the longitudinal axis of the measuring cell, or a median of an outer surface of the individual module or adapter [Fig.2c and associated text];
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT to include to include the particular structure of LEUTHOLD. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LEUTHOLD merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular configuration for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT and LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 7, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 6, as discussed above.
JUGERT fails to explicitly disclose wherein the median of an outer surface of the individual module, adapter, or port is a mirror axis
However, LEUTHOLD, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a modular measuring cell system [Abstract] wherein, the median of an outer surface of the individual module, adapter, or port is a mirror axis [Fig.2c and associated text];
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT to include to include the particular structure of LEUTHOLD. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LEUTHOLD merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular configuration for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT and LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 11, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 6, as discussed above.
JUGERT further discloses two, three, four, five, or six individual modules connected to each other, each adapted to measure a same or different chemical and/or physical properties [0033]
Re claim 12, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 11, as discussed above.
JUGERT fails to explicitly disclose wherein the modular measuring cell consists essentially of three individual modules adapted to measure different chemical and/or physical properties
However, LEUTHOLD, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a modular measuring cell system [Abstract] wherein the modular measuring cell consists essentially of three individual modules adapted to measure different chemical and/or physical properties [Fig.2c and associated text];
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT to include to include the particular structure of LEUTHOLD. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LEUTHOLD merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular configuration for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT and LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 13, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 1, as discussed above.
JUGERT fails to explicitly disclose wherein the individual modules are configured to be connected to each other in any order
However, LEUTHOLD, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a modular measuring cell system [Abstract] wherein the individual modules are configured to be connected to each other in any order [Fig.2c and associated text];
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT to include to include the particular structure of LEUTHOLD. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LEUTHOLD merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular configuration for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT and LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 14, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 1, as discussed above.
JUGERT further discloses wherein the first and second outer surfaces of each individual module are oppositely arranged, and/or wherein the first and second outer surfaces are configured to be identical [Fig.3 and associated text]
Re claim 15, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 1, as discussed above.
JUGERT further discloses wherein the sensor is selected from one of a pH sensor, conductivity sensor, pressure sensor, temperature sensor, and an optical sensor [0008]
Re claim 16, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 1, as discussed above.
JUGERT further discloses wherein the sensor is selected from one of a pH sensor, a conductivity sensor, and an optical sensor [0008]
Re claim 17, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 1, as discussed above.
JUGERT fails to explicitly disclose wherein each individual module is configured to enable the sensor to be oriented at an angle between 30 and 150 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the flow channel of the individual module, and/or wherein each individual module is configured such that the sensor can be oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the flow channel of the individual module
However, LEUTHOLD, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a modular measuring cell system [Abstract] wherein each individual module is configured to enable the sensor to be oriented at an angle between 30 and 150 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the flow channel of the individual module, and/or wherein each individual module is configured such that the sensor can be oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the flow channel of the individual module [Fig.4 and associated text];
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT to include to include the particular structure of LEUTHOLD. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LEUTHOLD merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular configuration for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT and LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 18, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 1, as discussed above.
JUGERT further discloses wherein each individual module is configured to enable the sensor to be connected to the individual module by direct screwing in, indirect screwing in, latching, or material fixing, and/or wherein the connection between the sensor and the individual module cannot be removed [0030]
Re claim 19, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 1, as discussed above.
JUGERT fails to explicitly disclose wherein the adapter includes a filter
However, LEUTHOLD, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a modular measuring cell system [Abstract] wherein the adapter includes a filter [Fig.13 and associated text];
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT to include to include the filter structure of LEUTHOLD. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LEUTHOLD merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular filter for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT and LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 21, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 1, as discussed above.
JUGERT fails to explicitly disclose wherein the measuring chamber of each individual module is configured to provide optimized fluid flow for the respective sensor installed in the measuring chamber
However, LEUTHOLD, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a modular measuring cell system [Abstract] wherein the measuring chamber of each individual module is configured to provide optimized fluid flow for the respective sensor installed in the measuring chamber [Fig.4 and associated text];
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT to include to include the particular structure of LEUTHOLD. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, LEUTHOLD merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular structure for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT and LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 22, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 1, as discussed above.
JUGERT further discloses at least two sensors configured to analyze a same or different chemical and/or physical properties of the fluid, wherein each sensor is selected from a pH sensor, a conductivity sensor, a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, and an optical sensor [0033]
Re claim 23, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the measuring system of claim 22, as discussed above.
JUGERT further discloses wherein each sensor is selected from a pH sensor, a conductivity sensor, and an optical sensor [0008]
Claims 8-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JUGERT/LEUTHOLD in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Re claim 8, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 6, as discussed above.
JUGERT/LEUTHOLD fails to explicitly disclose wherein the longitudinal axis of the main line channel or the longitudinal axis of the measuring cell defines an axis of rotation, wherein the axis of rotation is a 2-fold, 3-fold, 4-fold, 5-fold, 6-fold, or 8-fold axis of rotation
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that defining an axis of rotation in a main line channel of a measuring cell is old and well-known in the art;
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT/LEUTHOLD to include to include this particular structure. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the Examiner’s assertion merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular structure for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT/LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems and the Examiner’s assertion is well-known to be used in these systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 9, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD/OFFICIAL NOTICE renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 8, as discussed above.
JUGERT/LEUTHOLD fails to explicitly disclose wherein the axis of rotation is a 4-fold axis of rotation, and two individual modules connected via the adapter are capable of being oriented relative to each other by four positions, each position offset by 90 degrees
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that defining an axis of rotation as 4-fold in a main line channel of a modular measuring cell system with adjustable orientations is old and well-known in the art;
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT/LEUTHOLD to include to include this particular structure. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the Examiner’s assertion merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular structure for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT/LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems and the Examiner’s assertion is well-known to be used in these systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 10, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD/OFFICIAL NOTICE renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 9, as discussed above.
JUGERT further discloses wherein an overall form of each individual module, including the first and second outer surfaces, is configured in a cube-like or cuboid-like shape [Fig.2 and associated text]
Re claim 20, JUGERT/LEUTHOLD renders obvious the modular measuring cell of claim 1, as discussed above.
JUGERT/LEUTHOLD fails to explicitly disclose wherein the individual modules, the adapter, and first and second ports connectable to the individual modules are configured for single use and are composed predominantly or substantially entirely of plastic, wherein the plastic is a radiation-resistant and/or hot steam-sterilizable plastic, or wherein the plastic is a biocompatible, radiation-resistant, and/or hot steam-sterilizable plastic
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that configuring a modular measuring cell system for single-use using these particular materials is old and well-known;
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the modular cell system of JUGERT/LEUTHOLD to include to include this particular structure. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a simpler and more compact biopharmaceutical processing system (see LEUTHOLD [Description, Para.3]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the Examiner’s assertion merely teaches that it is well-known to use this particular structure for use in a modular bioprocess analysis system. Since both JUGERT/LEUTHOLD disclose similar modular measuring cell systems and the Examiner’s assertion is well-known to be used in these systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US20190025239, Robl et al. – modular measuring system
CN110650797A, Lin et al. – modular chemical reaction system
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855