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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) received on 1/2/2024, 4/10/2024, and 1/14/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “a culturing unit” has been interpreted as any device capable of culturing cells, such as a bioreactor.
The limitation “a sampling support unit” has been interpreted as any device capable of receiving at least a portion of a sampling unit, such as a container, a device with fluidic ports, etc.
The limitation “a sampling unit” has been interpreted as any device capable of receiving a culture medium, such as a conduit or vessel.
The limitation “a sampling circuit unit” has been interpreted as any device capable of circulating a sample, such as a flow path.
The limitation “a reactor support unit” has been interpreted as any device capable of receiving a bioreactor, such as a container.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 19, the claim depends on itself (claim 19), which is improper. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of compact prosecution, and to keep proper antecedent basis for the term “the side surface” in claim 19, claim 19 has been examined as dependent from claim 18.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0002815; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a support device for a cell culturing device ([0012], see Fig. 3A). The support device comprises:
a housing configured to receive a culturing unit of the cell culturing device ([0012], see Fig. 3A).
A sampling support unit couplable to the housing and configured to receive a sampling circuit unit of the cell culturing device ([0012], [0066], see Fig. 3A at liquid pumps 450, which receive/send liquid from/to culture chambers, and are mounted within the thickness of the wall of the incubator. Mounting implies that the pumps can be coupled/decoupled).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to receive a culturing unit…”, “couplable to the housing…”, “configured to receive a sampling circuit unit…”, etc.). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the support device of claim 1, wherein the housing includes an accommodation chamber configured to receive the culturing unit (see Fig. 3A, where the interior of the incubator 300 is an accommodation chamber).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bores et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0362910; hereinafter Bores).
Regarding claim 20, Bores discloses a support device for a cell culturing device (Abstract). The support device comprises:
a housing configured to receive a culturing unit of the cell culturing device ([0005], [0049], see Fig. 8 at housing). The housing includes:
a door portion configured to move from an open position to a closed position ([0005], [0049], see Fig. 8 at pod door 42).
A sampling support unit couplable to the housing and configured to receive a sampling circuit unit of the cell culturing device, the sampling support unit couplable to the door portion of the housing ([0005], [0049], see Fig. 8 at cassette 50 seated on pod door 42, where culture vessels 52 are located in the cassette) or to a side surface oriented in a horizontal direction of the housing, the side surface being adjacent to the door portion (optionally not included).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claims 1-2 above, further in view of Jones (US Pub. No. 2019/0119628).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the support device of claim 2, and all limitations recited therein.
Wang fails to explicitly disclose that the housing further includes:
a door portion configured to move from an open position to a closed position, wherein in the open position the accommodation chamber is accessible and in the closed position the accommodation chamber is inaccessible.
Jones is in the analogous field of bioreactors (Jones [0004]). Jones teaches a door portion configured to move from an open position to a closed position, wherein in the open position an accommodation chamber is accessible and in the closed position the accommodation chamber is inaccessible (Jones; [0029], see Fig. 2 at closable door 204). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Wang with the teachings of Jones to include a door portion configured to move from an open position to a closed position, wherein in the open position an accommodation chamber is accessible and in the closed position the accommodation chamber is inaccessible, in order to allow a user to be able to easily access the interior contents of the device as desired, while also allowing the door when closed to protect the interior contents from the external environment as desired.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Jones as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Piggott et al. (WO Pub. No. 01/12774; hereinafter Piggott).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang discloses the support device of claim 3, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Wang fails to explicitly disclose that the door portion has an exterior-facing surface and an opposing interior-facing surface, the interior-facing surface facing the accommodation chamber in the closed position, the sampling support unit being couplable to the exterior-facing surface of the door portion.
Jones further teaches that the door portion has an exterior-facing surface and an opposing interior-facing surface, the interior-facing surface facing the accommodation chamber in the closed position (Jones; [0029], see Fig. 2 at closable door 204). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Wang with the teachings of Jones so that the door portion has an exterior-facing surface and an opposing interior-facing surface, the interior-facing surface facing the accommodation chamber in the closed position, order to allow a user to be able to easily access the interior contents of the accommodation chamber as desired, while also allowing the door when closed to protect the interior contents from the external environment as desired.
Modified Wang fails to explicitly disclose that the sampling support unit is couplable to the exterior-facing surface of the door portion.
Piggott is in the analogous field of culturing devices (Piggott Abstract). Piggott teaches a sampling support unit that is couplable to an exterior-facing surface of a closure portion (Piggott; Pg. 5 Lns. 3-5, Pg. 7 Lns. 3-22, see Fig. 1 at pump 4 on lid 3, which includes piping extending into the enclosure of the apparatus 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Wang with the teachings of Piggott so that the sampling support unit is couplable to the exterior-facing surface of the door portion. The motivation would have been that Piggott teaches that attaching a sampling support unit to a closure portion of an apparatus will allow for the sampling support unit to interact with the interior contents of the apparatus and allow for fluid flow within the apparatus (Piggott; Pg. 5 Lns. 3-5, Pg. 7 Lns. 3-22, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wang discloses the support device of claim 3, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Wang fails to explicitly disclose that the sampling support unit is couplable to a side surface oriented in a horizontal direction of the housing, the side surface being adjacent to the door portion.
Piggott teaches a sampling support unit that is couplable to a surface of a device (Piggott; Pg. 5 Lns. 3-5, Pg. 7 Lns. 3-22, see Fig. 1 at pump 4 on lid 3, which includes piping extending into the enclosure of the apparatus 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Wang with the teachings of Piggott so that the sampling support unit is couplable to a surface of the device. The motivation would have been that Piggott teaches that attaching a sampling support unit to an apparatus will allow for the sampling support unit to interact with the interior contents of the apparatus and allow for fluid flow within the apparatus (Piggott; Pg. 5 Lns. 3-5, Pg. 7 Lns. 3-22, see Fig. 1).
Modified Wang fails to explicitly disclose that the sampling support unit is couplable to a side surface oriented in a horizontal direction of the housing, the side surface being adjacent to the door portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the sampling support unit be couplable to a side surface oriented in a horizontal direction of the housing adjacent to the door portion, since the particular placement of the sampling support unit is an obvious matter of design choice, which would not have modified the operation of the device. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). The motivation would have been that, as previously stated, attaching a sampling support unit to an apparatus will allow for the sampling support unit to interact with the interior contents of the apparatus and allow for fluid flow within the apparatus (Piggott; Pg. 5 Lns. 3-5, Pg. 7 Lns. 3-22, see Fig. 1), while attaching the sampling support unit adjacent to the door rather than on the door will ensure that any tubing attached to the sampling support unit will not undesirably be stretched or strained when the door is opened. Further, Wang teaches a sampling support unit couplable to a side surface, rather than to a door (Wang; [0012], [0066], see Fig. 3A at liquid pumps 450, which receive/send liquid from/to culture chambers, and are mounted within the thickness of the wall of the incubator. Mounting implies that the pumps can be coupled/decoupled).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Jones and Piggott as applied to claims 4 and 8 above, and further in view of Bores.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wang discloses the support device of claim 4, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Wang fails to explicitly disclose that the support device further includes: a reactor support unit configured to receive a bioreactor of the culturing unit, the bioreactor configured to culture cells.
Bores is in the analogous field of apparatuses for carrying cell culture vessels (Bores Abstract). Bores teaches a support device that includes a reactor support unit configured to receive a bioreactor of a culturing unit, the bioreactor configured to culture cells. The reactor support unit is couplable to an interior-facing surface of a door portion (Bores; [0005], [0049], see Fig. 8 at cassette 50 seated on pod door 42, where culture vessels 52 are located in the cassette). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Wang with the teachings of Bores so that the support device further includes a reactor support unit configured to receive a bioreactor of the culturing unit, the bioreactor configured to culture cells, where the reactor support unit is couplable to the interior-facing surface of the door portion, in order to store biological materials within the device for subsequent culturing/reactions and protect the materials within the device when the door is closed.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang discloses the support device of claim 5. Modified Wang further discloses that the reactor support unit is couplable to the interior-facing surface of the door portion (see Claim 5 above at Bores teaching the reactor support unit being couplable to the interior-facing surface of the door portion in [0005], [0049], see Fig. 8).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Jones as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Makino et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0250073; hereinafter Makino).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wang discloses the support device of claim 3, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Wang fails to explicitly disclose that the door portion includes a through hole, the through hole configured to receive a sampling flow path of the cell culturing device, the sampling flow path configured to connect the culturing unit and the sampling circuit unit.
Makino is in the analogous field of sampling flow path kits (Makino Abstract). Makino teaches an outer wall that includes a through hole, the through hole configured to receive a sampling flow path of a cell culturing device, the sampling flow path configured to connect a culturing unit and a sampling circuit unit (Makino; [0043]-[0048], see Fig. 1 at first flow path 204 which enters into interior of housing 101 from external environment). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Wang with the teachings of Makino so that the door portion includes a through hole, the through hole configured to receive a sampling flow path of the cell culturing device, the sampling flow path configured to connect the culturing unit and the sampling circuit unit, in order to allow fluids to enter the interior of the support device from an external source (Makino; [0043]-[0048], see Fig. 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Jones and Piggott as applied to claims 4 and 8 above, and further in view of Makino.
Regarding claim 9, modified Wang discloses the support device of claim 8, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Wang fails to explicitly disclose that the side surface includes a through hole, the through hole configured to receive a sampling flow path of the cell culturing device, the sampling flow path configured to connect the culturing unit and the sampling circuit unit.
Makino is in the analogous field of sampling flow path kits (Makino Abstract). Makino teaches an outer wall that includes a through hole, the through hole configured to receive a sampling flow path of a cell culturing device, the sampling flow path configured to connect a culturing unit and a sampling circuit unit (Makino; [0043]-[0048], see Fig. 1 at first flow path 204 which enters into interior of housing 101 from external environment). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Wang with the teachings of Makino so that the side surface includes a through hole, the through hole configured to receive a sampling flow path of the cell culturing device, the sampling flow path configured to connect the culturing unit and the sampling circuit unit, in order to allow fluids to enter the interior of the support device from an external source (Makino; [0043]-[0048], see Fig. 1).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 10, Jones discloses a cell culturing system ([0004]). The system comprises:
a cell culturing device including:
a culturing unit configured to culture cells using a culture medium ([0004], [0029]-[0030], see Fig. 2 at fluid conveyance assembly 210, which includes bioreactor 100 and pump loops).
A sampling unit configured to receive the culture medium from the culturing unit ([0004], [0029]-[0030], see Fig. 2 at fluid conveyance assembly 210, which includes bioreactor 100 and pump loops).
A support device including:
a housing configured to receive the culturing unit ([0004], [0029]-[0030], see Fig. 2 at cell expansion machine 202).
Jones fails to explicitly disclose a sampling support unit couplable to the housing and configured to receive at least a portion of the sampling unit.
Wang is in the analogous field of bioreactors (Wang Abstract). Wang teaches a sampling support unit couplable to a housing and configured to receive at least a portion of a sampling unit (Wang; [0012], [0066], see Fig. 3A at liquid pumps 450, which receive/send liquid from/to culture chambers, and are mounted within the thickness of the wall of the incubator. Mounting implies that the pumps can be coupled/decoupled). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Jones with the teachings of Wang to include a sampling support unit couplable to the housing and configured to receive at least a portion of the sampling unit, in order to reduce the length or complexity of tubing within the system (Wang [0066]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Jones discloses the cell culturing system of claim 10.
Modified Jones further discloses that the sampling unit includes:
a sampling circuit unit (Jones; [0004], [0029]-[0030], see Fig. 2 at fluid conveyance assembly 210, which includes bioreactor 100 and pump loops, including IC circulation pump, EC circulation pump, IC inlet pump, and EC inlet pump). and
a sampling flow path configured to connect the culturing unit and the sampling circuit unit (Jones; [0004], [0029]-[0030], see Fig. 2 at fluid conveyance assembly 210, which includes bioreactor 100 and pump loops, including IC circulation pump, EC circulation pump, IC inlet pump, and EC inlet pump).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jones discloses the cell culturing system of claim 11. Modified Jones further discloses that the sampling support unit is configured to receive the sampling circuit unit (Jones; [0012], [0066], see Fig. 3A at liquid pumps 450, which receive/send liquid from/to culture chambers. The pumps are capable of receiving fluid from the sampling circuit unit).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jones discloses the cell culturing system of claim 10. Modified Jones further discloses that the housing includes:
an accommodation chamber configured to receive the culturing unit (see Jones at Fig. 2, where the interior of the cell expansion machine 202 is an accommodation chamber).
A door portion configured to move from an open position to a closed position, wherein in the open position the accommodation chamber is accessible and in the closed position the accommodation chamber is inaccessible (Jones; [0029], see Fig. 2 at closable door 204).
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Wang as applied to claims 10-13 above, and further in view of Piggott.
Regarding claim 14, modified Jones discloses the support device of claim 13. Modified Jones further discloses that the door portion has an exterior-facing surface and an opposing interior-facing surface, the interior-facing surface facing the accommodation chamber in the closed position (Jones; [0029], see Fig. 2 at closable door 204).
Modified Jones fails to explicitly disclose that the sampling support unit is couplable to the exterior-facing surface of the door portion.
Piggott is in the analogous field of culturing devices (Piggott Abstract). Piggott teaches a sampling support unit that is couplable to an exterior-facing surface of a closure portion (Piggott; Pg. 5 Lns. 3-5, Pg. 7 Lns. 3-22, see Fig. 1 at pump 4 on lid 3, which includes piping extending into the enclosure of the apparatus 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Jones with the teachings of Piggott so that the sampling support unit is couplable to the exterior-facing surface of the door portion. The motivation would have been that Piggott teaches that attaching a sampling support unit to a closure portion of an apparatus will allow for the sampling support unit to interact with the interior contents of the apparatus and allow for fluid flow within the apparatus (Piggott; Pg. 5 Lns. 3-5, Pg. 7 Lns. 3-22, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Jones discloses the support device of claim 13, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Jones fails to explicitly disclose that the sampling support unit is couplable to a side surface oriented in a horizontal direction of the housing, the side surface being adjacent to the door portion.
Piggott teaches a sampling support unit that is couplable to a surface of a device (Piggott; Pg. 5 Lns. 3-5, Pg. 7 Lns. 3-22, see Fig. 1 at pump 4 on lid 3, which includes piping extending into the enclosure of the apparatus 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Jones with the teachings of Piggott so that the sampling support unit is couplable to a surface of the device. The motivation would have been that Piggott teaches that attaching a sampling support unit to an apparatus will allow for the sampling support unit to interact with the interior contents of the apparatus and allow for fluid flow within the apparatus (Piggott; Pg. 5 Lns. 3-5, Pg. 7 Lns. 3-22, see Fig. 1).
Modified Jones fails to explicitly disclose that the sampling support unit is couplable to a side surface oriented in a horizontal direction of the housing, the side surface being adjacent to the door portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the sampling support unit be couplable to a side surface oriented in a horizontal direction of the housing adjacent to the door portion, since the particular placement of the sampling support unit is an obvious matter of design choice, which would not have modified the operation of the device. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). The motivation would have been that, as previously stated, attaching a sampling support unit to an apparatus will allow for the sampling support unit to interact with the interior contents of the apparatus and allow for fluid flow within the apparatus (Piggott; Pg. 5 Lns. 3-5, Pg. 7 Lns. 3-22, see Fig. 1), while attaching the sampling support unit adjacent to the door rather than on the door will ensure that any tubing attached to the sampling support unit will not undesirably be stretched or strained when the door is opened. Further, Wang teaches a sampling support unit couplable to a side surface, rather than to a door (Wang; [0012], [0066], see Fig. 3A at liquid pumps 450, which receive/send liquid from/to culture chambers, and are mounted within the thickness of the wall of the incubator. Mounting implies that the pumps can be coupled/decoupled).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Wang and Piggott as applied to claims 14 and 18 above, and further in view of Bores.
Regarding claim 15, modified Jones discloses the support device of claim 14, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Jones fails to explicitly disclose that the support device further includes:
a reactor support unit configured to receive a bioreactor of the culturing unit, the bioreactor configured to culture cells.
Bores is in the analogous field of apparatuses for carrying cell culture vessels (Bores Abstract). Bores teaches a support device that includes a reactor support unit configured to receive a bioreactor of a culturing unit, the bioreactor configured to culture cells. The reactor support unit is couplable to an interior-facing surface of a door portion (Bores; [0005], [0049], see Fig. 8 at cassette 50 seated on pod door 42, where culture vessels 52 are located in the cassette). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Jones with the teachings of Bores so that the support device further includes a reactor support unit configured to receive a bioreactor of the culturing unit, the bioreactor configured to culture cells, where the reactor support unit is couplable to the interior-facing surface of the door portion, in order to store biological materials within the device for subsequent culturing/reactions and protect the materials within the device when the door is closed.
Regarding claim 16, modified Jones discloses the support device of claim 15. Modified Jones further discloses that the reactor support unit is couplable to the interior-facing surface of the door portion (see Claim 15 above at Bores teaching the reactor support unit being couplable to the interior-facing surface of the door portion in [0005], [0049], see Fig. 8).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Wang as applied to claims 10-13 above, and further in view of Makino.
Regarding claim 17, modified Jones discloses the support device of claim 13, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Jones fails to explicitly disclose that the door portion includes a through hole, the through hole configured to receive a sampling flow path of the cell culturing device, the sampling flow path configured to connect the culturing unit and the sampling circuit unit.
Makino is in the analogous field of sampling flow path kits (Makino Abstract). Makino teaches an outer wall that includes a through hole, the through hole configured to receive a sampling flow path of a cell culturing device, the sampling flow path configured to connect a culturing unit and a sampling circuit unit (Makino; [0043]-[0048], see Fig. 1 at first flow path 204 which enters into interior of housing 101 from external environment). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Jones with the teachings of Makino so that the door portion includes a through hole, the through hole configured to receive a sampling flow path of the cell culturing device, the sampling flow path configured to connect the culturing unit and the sampling circuit unit, in order to allow fluids to enter the interior of the support device from an external source (Makino; [0043]-[0048], see Fig. 1).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Wang and Piggott as applied to claims 14 and 18 above, and further in view of Makino.
Regarding claim 19, modified Jones discloses the support device of claim 18, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Jones fails to explicitly disclose that the side surface includes a through hole, the through hole configured to receive a sampling flow path of the cell culturing device, the sampling flow path configured to connect the culturing unit and the sampling circuit unit.
Makino is in the analogous field of sampling flow path kits (Makino Abstract). Makino teaches an outer wall that includes a through hole, the through hole configured to receive a sampling flow path of a cell culturing device, the sampling flow path configured to connect a culturing unit and a sampling circuit unit (Makino; [0043]-[0048], see Fig. 1 at first flow path 204 which enters into interior of housing 101 from external environment). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Jones with the teachings of Makino so that the side surface includes a through hole, the through hole configured to receive a sampling flow path of the cell culturing device, the sampling flow path configured to connect the culturing unit and the sampling circuit unit, in order to allow fluids to enter the interior of the support device from an external source (Makino; [0043]-[0048], see Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/ Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights