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) filed on 1/29/2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
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 gas input mechanism, gas concentration detection mechanism, and controller must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 4, it is believed “the heat-transfer frame closed” is a typographical error and should read “the heat-transfer frame close”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 2, the limitation “a working head” will be interpreted as a pump head or equivalent thereof, as evidenced by [0040] in the specification.
In claim 9, the limitation “an annular cushion layer” will be interpreted as a seal or gasket or any equivalent thereof, as evidenced by [0075] in the specification.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a heat dissipation assembly” in claim 1, line 1.
“a heating element” in claim 4, lines 2-3;
interpreted as one or more of a resistive heater, an induction heater, or an infrared heater capable of converting other energy sources into heat or equivalents thereof, evidenced by [0056] in the specification.
“one or more dividing members…to divide the culture region” in claim 6, lines 2-3;
interpreted as a dividing wall or equivalent thereof, evidenced by Fig. 4 in drawings.
“a ventilation mechanism” in claim 11, line 3;
interpreted as comprising a plurality of ventilation holes, a plurality of ventilation pipes, one or more valves, and a gas pump, or equivalents thereof, evidenced by [0014] in the specification.
“a gas input mechanism configured to introduce a preset gas” in claim 17, line 2;
interpreted as a gas storage tank and a power pump or equivalents thereof, evidenced by [0103] in the specification.
“a gas concentration detection mechanism configured to detect a gas concentration” in claim 18, lines 2-3;
interpreted as an exhaust port, a suction pump, an exhaust pipe, and a concentration detector or equivalents thereof, evidenced in [0105] in the specification.
“a separation member…divides the inner cavity” in claim 19, lines 1-2;
interpreted as a wall or equivalent thereof, evidenced by Fig. 9 in the drawings.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the elements an incubator, a heat dissipation assembly, and a plurality of power assemblies are the same or different features. Claim 1 as written indicates that the features are separate. However, the drawings (Figs. 1 and 2) show that the incubator includes the claimed heat dissipation assembly and a plurality of power assemblies.
Furthermore, it is unclear if the elements a heat dissipation assembly and a box body are the same or different features. The two features can be interpreted as two different features because of the limitation “the heat dissipation assembly is fixed on the box body”. However, the drawings (Figs. 1 and 2) and written disclosure ([0035], “the heat dissipation assembly may be arranged on the box body”) discloses that the box body (Fig. 1, 112) is a part of the heat dissipation assembly (Fig. 2, 130).
Claim limitation “a heat dissipation assembly” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the structure associated with the heat dissipation assembly is unclear (it is unclear what the installation bracket is – see below). The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected as they depend upon rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear if the elements an installation bracket and box body are the same or different features. Because the box body can be interpreted as separate from the heat dissipation assembly (see claim 1 rejection under 112(b) above), it is unclear if the installation bracket and the box body are the same or different features. The drawings (Figs. 1 and 2) shows the installation bracket (132) and (112) are the same (see elements 132 in Fig. 2 and 112 in Fig. 1 pointing to the same piece). Also see [0057] in the written disclosure describing the installation bracket as a separate feature from the box body.
Claims 3-9 are similarly rejected as they depend upon rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear if the elements a heating assembly and a heat dissipation assembly are the same or different features. Because the box body can be interpreted as separate from the heat dissipation assembly (see claim 1 rejection under 112(b) above), it is unclear if the heating assembly and heat dissipation assembly are the same or different features. The drawings (Figs. 1 and 2) shows that the installation bracket of heat dissipation assembly (132) and heating assembly (114) are the same (see elements 132 and 114 pointing to the same piece).
Additionally, the limitation “the installation bracket is arranged outside the heat-transfer frame” renders the claim unclear for the same reason discussed above. The drawings (Figs. 1 and 2) shows that the installation bracket (Fig. 2, 132) and the heat-transfer frame (Fig. 2, 115) are the same piece. Also see in the written disclosure [0057] describing the heat-transfer frame and installation bracket in an integrated structure OR a split structure.
Claims 5-9 are similarly rejected as they depend upon rejected claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear if elements the installation bracket, the heat-transfer frame, and box body are the same or different features. See rejections under 112(b) for claims 2 and 4 for reasoning.
If the box body and installation bracket are intended to be separate features, it is unclear how the installation bracket and heat-transfer frame together form a side wall of the box body while the installation bracket is connected with a bottom wall of the box body.
Claim 9 is similarly rejected as it depends upon rejected claim 5.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the ventilation mechanism" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination on the merits, claim 12 will be interpreted as dependent on claim 11, which provides antecedent basis for the ventilation mechanism.
Claims 13-15 are similarly rejected as they depend upon rejected claim 12.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. (See rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reasoning).
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, 10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 114149920 A) (hereinafter referred to as Wang; presented in IDS) in view of Murthy (US 2020/0308523 A1) (see PTO-892). English machine translation for non-English references provided.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a perfusion culture device (title; claim 1) comprising an incubator (claim 1), a heat dissipation assembly (claim 10), and a plurality of power assemblies (Fig. 2 shows a plurality of power assemblies 150 – see figure below); wherein the incubator includes a box body and an inner cavity surrounded by the box body (Fig. 1 and 2 show box body with an inner cavity), the plurality of power assemblies are disposed in the inner cavity ([0031], “the power unit may be located inside the incubator”), and the heat dissipation assembly is fixed on the box body (Fig. 2, heat dissipation mechanism shown attached to the box body).
Wang does not disclose wherein the plurality of power assemblies are arranged on the heat dissipation assembly, but does teach that the heat dissipation assembly is capable of drawing heat away ([0043], “the fan will draw away or blow away the hot air”).
Murthy in the art of cell culturing teaches it was known in the art that heat sinks and fans are capable of cooling pumps ([0055], “the pumps…are operably connected to a heat sink and/or a fan to dissipate the heat”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the fan of Wang with a heat sink, as they are both capable of dissipating heat. It has been held that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wang to include a heat sink for each power assembly as such a modification represents mere duplication of the prior art heat sink. It has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04 VI B). Such a modification would predictably result in the heat from the power assemblies being dissipated via the heat sink.
Alternatively, modifying a heat sink such that a single heat sink contacts each power assembly would merely amount to a change in proportion of the heat sink. It has been held that that changes in proportion are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP § 2144.04 IV A). Such a modification would predictably result in the heat from the power assemblies being dissipated via the heat sink.
Note: this claim contains limitations or language that is interpreted according to the examiner’s understanding, see Claim Interpretation section above.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches the perfusion culture device of claim 1.
Wang of the prior art combination teaches wherein the box body includes a first visible heating plate provided on a top wall of the box body and/or a second visible heating plate provided on a bottom wall of the box body ([0049] teaches a resistance heating mechanism, i.e., heating plates, may be provided on the top and/or bottom walls of the housing, i.e., box body).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art combination teaches the perfusion culture device of claim 1.
Wang of the prior art combination discloses the perfusion culture device further includes a gas input mechanism configured to introduce a preset gas to the inner cavity ([0056]).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art combination teaches the perfusion culture device of claim 1.
Wang of the prior art combination discloses the perfusion culture device further includes a gas concentration detection mechanism configured to detect a gas concentration in the inner cavity ([0055]).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Murthy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qian et al. (CN 110511855 A) (hereinafter referred to as Qian; see PTO-892), Chu (CN 116103151 A) (see PTO-892), and Gagne (WO 2018144391 A1) (see PTO-892). English machine translations of non-English references are provided.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches perfusion culture device of claim 1.
Wang of the prior art combination discloses wherein the plurality of power assemblies include a drive portion and a working head ([0032], “The power assembly may include a drive unit and a working head”).
The prior art combination is silent to (i) the heat dissipation assembly including an installation bracket and one or more accommodation holes arranged on the installation bracket, (ii) the working head arranged on the installation bracket, (iii) the drive portion arranged in the accommodation holes, and (iv) at least a portion of inner wall of the accommodation holes adhered to the drive portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
300
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding limitation (i) above, Qian teaches it was known in the art of containers for culturing to form heat dissipation plate, i.e., a heat dissipation assembly, with a heat sink (Fig. 3 – see figure below), i.e., an installation bracket, and one or more heat dissipation holes (Fig. 3, heat dissipation holes 111), i.e., accommodation holes, arranged on the frame.
Qian teaches that the heat dissipation holes are formed to dissipate heat generated by an LED light panel ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the heat dissipation assembly taught by the prior art combination with an installation bracket and accommodation holes because the installation bracket would support the accommodation holes, and the accommodation holes would predictably enhance heat dissipation. Such a modification would have been within purview of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding limitation (ii) above, modifying the device taught by the prior art combination such that the working head is arranged on the installation bracket would amount to merely rearrangement of parts, as such a modification would predictably result in the working head facilitating fluid transfer on the installation bracket. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI).
PNG
media_image3.png
363
355
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding limitation (iii) above, Chu in the art of incubators discloses a carbon dioxide sensor accommodated by a mounting hole, i.e., an accommodation hole, in a radiator, i.e., an installation bracket, for the purpose of controlling the temperature of the sensor ([0038]; Fig. 8 – see figure below).
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 device taught by the prior art combination to incorporate an installation bracket such that the drive portion is arranged in the accommodation holes for the purpose of controlling the temperature of the drive portion, as this method for improving the prior art device was known in the art.
Regarding limitation (iv) above, Gagne in the art of bioprocess vessels discloses a pump and a vessel, the pump head fastened in an aperture of a bioprocess vessel. Gagne teaches that integrating a pump advantageously does not require any intermediate conduit or line between a pump and a vessel ([0049]).
Although Gagne does not expressly teach a drive portion fastened in an aperture, 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 device taught by the prior art combination such that at least a portion of inner wall of the accommodation holes is adhered to the drive portion to avoid using intermediate conduits or lines between the drive portion and inner wall as this method for improving the prior art device was known in the art. The drive portion would predictably power the working head.
Note: this claim contains limitations or language that is interpreted according to the examiner’s understanding, see Claim Interpretation section above.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches the perfusion culture device of claim 2.
The prior art combination fails to teach wherein the heat dissipation assembly further includes one or more fixing members, the one or more fixing members are connected with the installation bracket, each of the one or more fixing members is provided with a wire slot that communicates with the one or more accommodation holes.
However, Wang of the prior art combination teaches that a housing includes fixing members (Fig. 5, mounting through hole 113) for mounting the working head ([0044]) with smaller holes, i.e., a wire slot (Fig. 5, smaller holes shown – see figure below), which accommodates heating wire ([0051]). The wire slot is shown to communicate with the one or
PNG
media_image4.png
476
425
media_image4.png
Greyscale
more accommodation holes.
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 device to incorporate the fixing members of Wang such that the fixing members are connected with the installation bracket for the purpose of mounting the working head.
Note: this claim contains limitations or language that has been interpreted according to Examiner’s understanding, see Claim Interpretation section above.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches the perfusion culture device of claim 2.
Wang of the prior art combination teaches wherein the box body further includes a heating assembly ([0047], “The heating component can heat the inner cavity 114”), the heating assembly includes a heat-transfer frame ([0048], “the heating assembly may include conductive glass”) and a heating element ([0048], “the heating assembly may include…a resistance heating mechanism (e.g., a heating element)”).
Regarding the limitations wherein the heating element is arranged on the heat-transfer frame, the installation bracket is arranged outside the heat-transfer frame, the installation bracket is arranged adjacent to the heat-transfer frame, and the heat-transfer frame is connected with a bottom wall of the box body to form a culture region, modifying the prior art combination perfusion culture device such that these limitations are met would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches the perfusion culture device of claim 4.
The prior art combination is silent to the installation bracket connected with the bottom wall of the box body; the installation bracket and the heat-transfer frame form a side wall of the box body; and the installation bracket and the heat-transfer frame are in an integrated structure.
Nonetheless, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the installation bracket with the bottom wall of the box body and form side wall of the box body with the installation bracket and heat-transfer frame.
Furthermore, it has been held that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would merely be a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 V). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the installation bracket and the heat-transfer frame as an integrated structure.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Murthy, Qian, Chu, and Gagne as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Samadpour (US 2023/0089107 A1) (see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination teaches the perfusion culture device of claim 4.
The prior art combination is silent to the heating assembly further including one or more dividing members.
However, Samadpour in the art of incubators teaches wherein an incubator one or more dividing members (Fig. 17 shows dividers 505b), the one or more dividing members are connected with the heat-transfer frame ([0056]; Fig. 17, dividers 505b connected with a basket 505a), and the one or more dividing members are arranged within the culture region to divide the culture region into a plurality of sub-culture regions ([0059], dividers 505b define
PNG
media_image5.png
454
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
compartments within basket).
Samadpour teaches that the sheet metal dividers improve heat transfer throughout samples inserted in the slots ([0046]).
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 device to incorporate one or more dividing members for the purpose of dividing the culture region and to provide uniform heat transfer to samples, as taught by Samadpour.
Claims 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Murthy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vukasinovic et al. (US 2010/0151571 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Vukasinovic; see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art combination teaches the perfusion culture device of claim 1.
The prior art combination does not teach or disclose wherein the heat dissipation assembly further includes a ventilation mechanism, the ventilation mechanism communicates with the inner cavity, and the ventilation mechanism is configured to exchange gas with the inner cavity for performing heat dissipation on the plurality of power assemblies.
However, Vukasinovic in the art of perfusion incubators teaches a heat dissipation assembly including a ventilation mechanism communicating with an inner cavity (Fig. 1, fan 19, gas inlet 12, gas lines 14, gas outlet 13). Vukasinovic teaches that the fan can be a fan for cooling and that it provides a gas mixture to an incubator ([0032]).
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 heat dissipation assembly to include a ventilation mechanism for the purpose of cooling and providing an ideal gas composition for incubation.
The limitation “configured to exchange gas with the inner cavity for performing heat dissipation on the plurality of power assemblies” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed ventilation mechanism and does not differentiate the claimed ventilation mechanism from the prior art ventilation mechanism because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art ventilation mechanism would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art combination teaches the perfusion culture device of claim 11 – Note: the claim dependency has been interpreted according to Examiner’s understanding, see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
However, Vukasinovic of the prior art combination teaches wherein the ventilation mechanism includes a plurality of ventilation holes, a plurality of ventilation pipes, one or more valves, and a gas pump, each of the plurality of ventilation holes communicates with a corresponding ventilation pipe of the plurality of ventilation pipes, each of the plurality of ventilation holes forms, through the corresponding ventilation pipe, a pathway with the gas pump ([0032] teaches a gas inlet and gas outlet, i.e., a plurality of ventilation holes and a plurality of ventilation pipes, a shut-off valve, i.e., one or more valves, and a fan, i.e., a gas pump). The gas inlets and outlets inherently contain ventilation holes as they facilitate gas therethrough.
Although the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose a gas pump, it has been held that a claim has no patentable significance when substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 B). The prior art fan would predictably perform the same function as the claimed gas pump, e.g., providing a gas flow. It has been held that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06).
The prior art combination does not teach or disclose each of the plurality of power assemblies adjacent to at least one of the plurality of ventilation holes. Nonetheless, modifying the device of the prior art combination such that each of the plurality of power assemblies is adjacent to at least one of the plurality of ventilation holes would amount to merely rearrangement of parts, as such a modification would predictably result in each of the plurality of power assemblies being provided with ventilation. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI).
The limitation “the one or more valves are configured to control a connection or a disconnection of the pathway” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed one or more valves and does not differentiate the claimed one or more valves from the prior art one or more valves because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art one or more valves would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
The limitation “at least one of the plurality of ventilation holes is configured to exchange gas with the inner cavity for performing heat dissipation on the corresponding power assembly” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed ventilation holes and does not differentiate the claimed ventilation holes from the prior art ventilation holes because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art ventilation holes are capable of providing gas (Vukasinovic, [0032]) and would be capable of exchanging gas with the inner cavity.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art combination teaches the perfusion culture device of claim 11.
Wang of the prior art combination discloses the perfusion culture device further comprises one or more temperature sensors and a controller ([0052]), wherein the one or more temperature sensors are arranged inside the inner cavity ([0052]), the controller is connected with the one or more temperature sensors ([0052]).
The prior art combination is silent to a controller connected with the ventilation mechanism through a signal connection.
However, Vukasinovic discloses a that the fan of the ventilation mechanism is a fan used in electronics cooling.
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 to connect the ventilation mechanism with a controller so that it would receive a signal for power and instructions.
The limitation “the controller is configured to control the ventilation mechanism to exchange the gas with the inner cavity to reduce a temperature of the inner cavity in response to determining that a temperature detected by the one or more temperature sensors exceeds a preset threshold” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed controller and does not differentiate the claimed controller from the prior art controller because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art controller would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Murthy, and Vukasinovic, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Qian and Chu.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art combination teaches the perfusion culture device of claim 12.
The prior art combination is silent to (i) the heat dissipation assembly including an installation bracket and one or more accommodation holes arranged on the installation bracket, and (ii) the plurality of power assemblies are installed in the one or more accommodation holes; (iii) the plurality of the ventilation holes are arranged on the installation bracket, (iv) each of the one or more accommodation holes is adjacent to at least one of the plurality of ventilation holes, (v) one end of each of the plurality of ventilation holes is arranged towards the inner cavity, and (vi) the other end of each of the plurality of ventilation holes is arranged towards an outer side of the perfusion culture device.
Regarding limitation (i) above, Qian teaches it was known in the art of containers for culturing to form heat dissipation plate, i.e., a heat dissipation assembly, with a heat sink (Fig. 3 shows – see figure above), i.e., an installation bracket, and one or more heat dissipation holes (Fig. 2, heat dissipation holes 111), i.e., accommodation holes, arranged on the frame.
Qian teaches that the heat dissipation holes are formed to dissipate heat generated by an LED light panel ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the heat dissipation assembly taught by the prior art combination with an installation bracket and accommodation holes because the installation bracket would support the accommodation holes, and the accommodation holes would predictably enhance heat dissipation. Such a modification would have been within purview of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding limitation (ii) above, Chu in the art of incubators discloses a carbon dioxide sensor accommodated by a mounting hole in a radiator for the purpose of controlling the temperature of the sensor ([0038]; Fig. 8 – see figure above).
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 device taught by the prior art combination such that the plurality of power assemblies are installed in the accommodation holes for the purpose of controlling the temperature of the drive portion, as this method for improving the prior art device was known in the art.
Regarding limitations (iii) and (iv) above, modifying the prior art combination device such that the limitations claimed are met would amount to merely rearrangement of parts, as such a modification would predictably result in the ventilation holes facilitating a gas through the installation bracket and adjacent to an accommodation hole. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI).
Regarding limitations (v) and (vi) above, modifying the prior art combination device such that the limitations claimed are met would amount to merely rearrangement of parts, as such a modification would predictably result in the ventilation holes facilitating a gas interface between the exterior of the perfusion culture device and the interior of the perfusion culture device. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art combination teaches the perfusion culture device of claim 12.
Vukasinovic of the prior art combination teaches wherein the one or more valves include a switching valve ([0032], shut-off valve reads on switching valve).
The prior art combination does not expressly teach one end of each of the plurality of ventilation pipes is connected with a corresponding ventilation hole of the plurality of ventilation holes, the other end of each of the plurality of ventilation pipes is connected with the switching valve, the switching valve is connected with the gas pump through a connecting tube, and the switching valve is configured to control a connection or a disconnection between the connecting tube and the plurality of ventilation pipes.
Nonetheless, modifying the prior art combination device such the claimed arrangement is met would amount to merely rearrangement of parts, as such a modification would predictably result in the switching valve controlling the flow through the pipes and the gas pump pumping gas through the ventilation mechanism. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI).
The limitation “the switching valve is configured to control a connection or a disconnection between the connecting tube and the plurality of ventilation pipes” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed switching valve and does not differentiate the claimed switching from the prior art valve because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art valve would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Smith et al. (US 2004/0132174 A1) discloses a multi-compartment perfusion incubator with multiple pumps.
Liang et al. (CN 116536136 A) discloses a multi-compartment perfusion incubator with heaters disposed in slots.
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