DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed 6/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/18/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 obtaining unit and inspecting unit 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Include antecedent basis for “obtaining unit” as claimed in claim 5. The closest element described in the specification appears to be the obtaining function 444.
Include antecedent basis for “inspecting unit” as claimed in claim 8. The closest elements described in the specification appear to be either the inspection container or inspecting step.
Include antecedent basis for “test-purpose specimen” as claimed in claim 8. The closest element described in the specification appears to be the cell specimen S’ as it is described as an example of an inspection-purpose specimen.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears all instances of “the processing circuitry is configured” in claims 2-7 intend to further limit functionality of the processing circuitry. Examiner suggests amending each instance of the phrase of note to read the processing circuitry is further configured to clarify that each limitation further limits the processing circuitry function.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 holding unit…configured to hold the biological specimen in such a manner that a position thereof in the culture chamber is movable” in claim 1, lines 4-6;
interpreted to be a Petri dish, evidenced by p. 5, lines 18-20 in the written disclosure and Fig. 2 in the drawings.
“a gas supply unit configured to supply gas from an outside to an inside of the culture chamber” in claim 4, lines 26-27;
interpreted to be a rotating fan, evidenced by p. 9, lines 9-10.
“an exhaust unit configured to exhaust gas from the inside to the outside of the culture chamber” in claim 5, lines 28-29;
interpreted to be a rotating fan, evidenced by p. 9, lines 14-15 in the written disclosure.
“an obtaining unit configured to obtain a sensing result from the sensor” in claim 5, lines 6-7.
“an inspecting unit configured to inspect the test-purpose specimen” in claim 8, lines 27-28.
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 5-8 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 5, it is unclear if the obtaining unit is a physical element as this appears inconsistent with the specification disclosure (MPEP § 2173.03). One of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to what the obtaining unit is because the specification dated 12/08/2023 does not provide antecedent basis for the claimed obtaining unit and the closest element in the specification appears to be the obtaining function (pg. 14, lines 25-26 in the specification). The obtaining function is described as a function of the processing circuitry (pg. 11, lines 5-13; Fig. 1 in the drawings filed 12/08/2023). For examination on the merits, the limitation obtaining unit will be interpreted as the obtaining function as described in the specification.
Claims 6 and 7 are similarly rejected as they depend upon rejected claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the sensor is provided for the holding unit” renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “is provided for” leaves an ordinary skilled artisan unapprised to what the claimed relationship between the sensor and the holding unit is, and the specification filed 12/08/2023 provides no further information. The closest reference to the sensor as claimed in specification is a placement sensor configured to detect placement of any of the culture containers (pg. 4, lines 5-13). For examination on the merits, the phrase “is provided for” will be interpreted as an intended use of the sensor.
Claim limitations “an obtaining unit” and “an inspecting unit” in claims 5 and 8, respectively, each invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written disclosure fails to describe any structure in particular capable of obtaining a sensing result from the sensor or inspecting the test-purpose specimen. 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. For examination on the merits, the obtaining unit will be interpreted as any structure(s) capable of obtaining a sensing result from the sensor and the inspecting unit will be interpreted as any structure(s) capable of inspecting the test-purpose specimen.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 5 and 8 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 disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of obtaining a sensing result from the sensor or inspecting the test-purpose specimen. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takagi et al. (JP 2008054690 A) (hereinafter referred to as Takagi, English machine translation provided, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Takagi discloses a cell culture apparatus ([Overview], automatic cell-culturing device) comprising:
a culture chamber in which a biological specimen is cultured ([0027], “incubator unit 14 is a space for culturing cells”; Fig. 1, incubator unit 14);
a holding unit provided in the culture chamber ([0027] discloses Petri dishes inside incubator units; Fig. 3, Petri dishes 34 inside incubator unit 14); and
processing circuitry ([0037], controller 23; Fig. 1) configured to control the holding unit so as to move the position of the biological specimen within the culture chamber, in a culture period for culturing the biological specimen ([0037], controller controls an operation to move Petri dishes).
The limitation “configured to hold the biological specimen in such a manner that a position thereof in the culture chamber is movable” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed holding unit and does not differentiate the claimed holding unit from the prior art holding unit because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). Nonetheless, Takagi teaches that the prior art holding unit is capable of holding a biological specimen in such a manner that a position thereof in the culture chamber is movable ([0037]).
The limitation “configured to control the holding unit so as to move the position of the biological specimen within the culture chamber, in a culture period for culturing the biological specimen” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed processing circuitry and does not differentiate the claimed processing circuitry from the prior art processing circuitry because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). Nonetheless, Takagi teaches that the prior art processing circuitry can control the holding unit so as to move the position of the biological specimen within the culture chamber, in a culture period for culturing the biological specimen ([0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Takagi discloses the cell culture apparatus according to claim 1.
The limitation “configured to adjust an environment in the culture chamber” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed processing circuitry and does not differentiate the claimed processing circuitry from the prior art processing circuitry because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). Nonetheless, Takagi teaches that the prior art processing circuitry is capable of adjusting an environment in the culture chamber ([0034]-[0035], controller 23 controls sealing doors and shutters). I.e., the controller of Takagi can adjust an environment in the culture chamber by opening or closing the sealing door.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Takagi or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takagi in view of Yong et al. (CN 111321072 A) (hereinafter referred to as Yong, English machine translation provided, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 3, Takagi discloses the cell culture apparatus according to claim 2, wherein, as the environment, the processing circuitry is configured to adjust at least one selected from among temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide concentration in the culture chamber, as set forth above. I.e., the controller of Takagi can adjust temperature, humidity, or carbon dioxide concentration by opening or closing the sealing door.
Alternatively, Yong teaches it is known in the art of incubators to use a PLC, i.e., processing circuitry, to control temperature and carbon dioxide concentration in an incubator, i.e., a culture chamber ([0019] and [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure Takagi’s processing circuitry to control temperature and carbon dioxide as Yong teaches such a configuration is well known in the art. The prior art processing circuitry would predictably be capable of controlling temperature and carbon dioxide concentration within the culture chamber absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Yong.
Regarding claim 4, Takagi discloses the cell culture apparatus according to claim 2.
Takagi discloses further wherein the cell culture apparatus comprises a gas supply unit ([0027], pipe 14a connected to incubators 14).
Takagi is silent to an exhaust unit configured to exhaust gas from the inside to the outside of the culture chamber and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust the environment by adjusting at least one selected from between a supply amount of the gas from the gas supply unit and an exhaust amount from the gas from the exhaust unit.
However, Yong discloses a cell culture chamber, i.e., a cell culture apparatus, comprising an exhaust fan, i.e., an exhaust unit ([0037] discloses the fans are part of the cell culture chamber; Fig. 9, exhaust fans 213. The exhaust fans are used to circulate carbon dioxide and ensure uniform carbon dioxide concentration and humidity ([0044]).
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 cell culture apparatus of Takagi to further comprise an exhaust unit, as Yong teaches that such a modification would circulate carbon dioxide and ensure uniform carbon dioxide concentration and humidity.
The limitation “configured to supply gas from an outside to an inside of the culture chamber” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed gas supply unit and does not differentiate the claimed gas supply unit from the prior art gas supply unit because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). Nonetheless, Takagi of the prior art combination teaches that the pipe, i.e., the gas supply unit, is capable of supplying a gas from an outside to an inside of the culture chamber (Takagi, [0027], “a pipe 14a for supplying carbon dioxide gas…is connected to each of the incubators 14”).
The limitation “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust the environment by adjusting at least one selected from between a supply amount of the gas from the gas supply unit and an exhaust amount from the gas from the exhaust unit” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed processing circuitry and does not differentiate the claimed processing circuitry from the prior art processing circuitry because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). Nonetheless, Yong of the prior art combination teaches that a PLC, i.e., processing circuitry is capable of adjusting at least a supply amount and an exhaust amount (Yong, [0019], “the carbon dioxide injection pipe…and the exhaust fan are controlled by a PLC”). That is, if the processing circuitry can control the carbon dioxide injection pipe, carbon dioxide sensor, and the exhaust fan, it would be capable of adjusting a supply or an exhaust amount.
The claimed gas supply unit is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see Claim Interpretation section above). The corresponding prior art element performs the function specified in the claim, is not precluded by any explicit definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, and is an equivalent of the means- (or step-) plus-function limitations. Examiner finds that the prior art elements are equivalent to the limitations of note because of at least one of the following reasons:
The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
In particular, the prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Therefore, the prior art combination pipe is prima facie equivalent to the claimed gas supply unit (MPEP § 2183).
Regarding claim 5, Takagi discloses the cell culture apparatus according to claim 2.
Takagi is silent to a sensor and an obtaining unit.
However, Yong discloses a cell culture chamber, i.e., a cell culture apparatus, comprising a sensor ([0013] discloses a carbon dioxide sensor and temperature sensor). The sensors are used to monitor temperature and carbon dioxide concentration within the incubator ([0020]).
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 cell culture apparatus of Takagi to further comprise a sensor for the purpose of monitoring one of an internal temperature or carbon dioxide concentration within the cell culture apparatus, as taught by Yong.
The limitation “configured to detect an index related to the environment in the culture chamber” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed sensor and does not differentiate the claimed sensor from the prior art sensor because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). Nonetheless, the prior art sensor is taught to achieve the claimed intended use, as described above.
The limitation “an obtaining unit configured to obtain a sensing result from the sensor” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed processing circuitry and does not differentiate the claimed processing circuitry from the prior art processing circuitry because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art processing circuitry as described above would be fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use because Yong teaches that controllers, i.e., the processing circuitry, can be configured to communicate and receive signals from sensors ([0020]).
The limitation “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust the environment on a basis of the obtained sensing result” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed processing circuitry and does not differentiate the claimed processing circuitry from the prior art processing circuitry because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art processing circuitry as described above would be fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use because Yong teaches that controllers, i.e., the processing circuitry, can be configured to adjust temperature or carbon dioxide concentration using signals received from sensors ([0020]).
Note: claim 5 contains limitations or language that has been interpreted according to Examiner’s understanding, see Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section above.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination teaches the cell culture apparatus according to claim 5.
The limitation “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust a moving speed of the holding unit on the basis of the obtained sensing result” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed processing circuitry and does not differentiate the claimed processing circuitry from the prior art processing circuitry because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art processing circuitry 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 7, the prior art combination teaches the cell culture apparatus according to claim 5.
The limitation “wherein the sensor is provided for the holding unit” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed sensor and does not differentiate the claimed sensor from the prior art sensor because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art sensor 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 “configured to move a position of the sensor within the culture chamber, together with the biological specimen” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed processing circuitry and does not differentiate the claimed processing circuitry from the prior art processing circuitry because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Zhou et al. (CN 113174322 A) (hereinafter referred to as Zhou, English machine translation provided, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 8, Takagi discloses the cell culture apparatus according to claim 1.
Takagi is silent to a test-purpose specimen or an inspecting unit.
However, Zhou in the art of sterility testing teaches it is known in the art to use bacterial solutions, i.e., test-purpose specimen ([0050] discloses bacterial strains) in an incubator, i.e., a cell culture apparatus ([0054]). The bacterial solution used to test sterility (p. 11-12). Zhou also discloses it is known in the art to detect, i.e., inspect, growth of the bacterial solution using a color-changing gel, i.e., an inspecting unit ([n0004]).
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 cell culture apparatus of Takagi to place a test-purpose specimen in the culture chamber and for the cell culture apparatus to further comprise an inspecting unit as such a modification would allow users to test sterility.
The limitation “configured to inspect the test-purpose specimen” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed inspecting unit and does not differentiate the claimed inspecting unit from the prior art inspecting unit because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). Nonetheless, Zhou teaches that the prior art inspecting unit is capable of completing the claimed intended use, as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Golway et al. (US 2020/0010792 A1) discloses a modular storage unit for incubation of specimens.
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