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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parent et al. (US 2003/0022364 A1 – hereafter ‘364).
‘364 discloses a bioreactor (Abstract) that includes the following limitations to claim 1:
“A culture system”: ‘364 discloses a bioreactor (bioreactor 1; Fig. 5; [0032]) that is being interpreted as the culture system of the instant application.
“a culture device that includes a culture tank for culturing microalgae, and a collection device that collects the microalgae from the culture tank”: ‘364 discloses that the system includes a reaction chamber (chamber 2, i.e. the tank; Fig. 5) that is fully capable of culturing microalgae (see also MPEP §2115) and a collection device that includes a collection outlet (outlet 6; Fig. 5, i.e. a tube; [0033]).
“the culture tank contains a culture solution and includes a bottom portion located at a lowest position in a depth direction and an opening located at a position higher than the bottom portion”: The reaction chamber of ‘364) includes a culture solution (solution 3; Fig. 5; [0032]) and a bottom that is at a depth opposite of an opening, i.e. the top of the reaction chamber. This opening is above the bottom of the chamber.
“the culture device includes a gas supply source and a gas supply portion inserted into the culture tank through the opening”: ‘364 discloses a gas inlet (inlet 23) that is connected to a gas source for supplying gas to the reactor ([0045]). This includes a pipe that is inserted into the reaction chamber and includes a bubbler (bubbler 24; Fig. 2; Fig. 5) that is used to diffuse gas into the chamber ([0045]).
“the gas supply portion includes a gas discharge port that opens in the culture solution at a lower position in the depth direction and is configured to discharge gas supplied from the gas supply source”: The bubbler of ‘364 (Fig. 2; Fig. 5; bubbler 24; [0045]) is being interpreted as the gas discharge port which is at al lower position depth in the bioreactor and discharges gas into the liquid.
“the collection device includes a collection tube hosed in the culture tank and a suction device”: The outlet of ‘364 is b3eing interpreted as a tube ([0044]).
“the collection tube is a tubular body having an internal space”: The collection tube of ‘364 would have a tubular body with an internal space ([0044]).
“the collection tube includes a bottom side collection portion that extends along the bottom portion of the culture tank when immersed in the culture solution in the culture tank and is positioned below the gas supply portion in the depth direction”: The collection tube of ‘364 is located below the bubbler (Fig. 5) and is positioned along a length of the bottom.
“the bottom side collection portion includes an open port formed at a site facing the opening.”: ‘364 discloses a filter cartridge (cartridge 20; Fig. 5; [0042]) would include ports facing the top of the reactor.
With regards to the suction element on the collection device, the embodiment of Fig. 5 does not include a pump on the collection line. It should be noted that ‘364 discloses using pumps on the collection line (pump 22; Fig. 6; [0053]). This give the capability of conveying fluid from the reactor to be sent back to the reactor as a closed loop or to be collected ([0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the pump of ‘364 within the embodiment of Figure 5 in order to obtain the predictable result of removing liquid from the bioreactor.
For claim 8, the system of ‘364 is fully capable of supplying culture solution to the tank through the collection tube.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parent et al. (US 2003/0022364 A1 – hereafter ‘364) in view of Che (US 3,660,244 A – hereafter ‘244).
‘364 differs from claim 2 regarding a guide that is inserted within the bioreactor.
‘244 discloses a fermentation apparatus that includes a reactor vessel (Abstract) that for claim 2 includes using a draft tube (tube 18; Fig. 1; col. 2 lines 25-28) that guides gas bubbles from a sparger to the top of the reactor in order to mix the liquid (col. 3 lines 30-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the draft tube of ‘244 within ‘364 in order to guide air bubbles in the reactor. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to mix the liquid (col. 3 lines 30-36).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For claim 3, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole where the culture device includes a water storage tank that contains temperature-regulating water for regulating a temperature of the culture solution and is adjacent to the culture tank, and the culture tank is made of a material that exhibits flexibility.
Claims 4-7 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 3.
The closest prior art is Parent et al. (US 2003/0022364 A1) which discloses a triphasic bioreactor that includes a sparger that is at the bottom of the reactor and an outlet that is below the sparger, however, Parent does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations of claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Raviv et al. (US 2023/0374433 A1) discloses a system of cell expansion which includes a water jacket around the bioreactor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-3724. The examiner can normally be reached Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM M-F.
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.
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799