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. Status of Application /Claims Claims 50-59 submitted on 12/13/2023 are pending and are examined in the present Office Action. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application PRO 62/141/196, 371 of PCT/US2016/025362, CON of 15/563,360 and CON of 17/490,992 filed on 3/31/2015, 3/31/2016, 9/29/2017 and 9/30/2021, respectively, under 35 U.S.C 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C 120, 121 or 365(c) is acknowledged. Accordingly, the effective priority date of the instant application is granted as 3/31/2015. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2024 were received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner. 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 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 50-54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koike et al. US 2018/0066218, published 3/8/2018 (hereinafter Koike). Claim 50: Koike describes a method for culturing mammalian cells in an apparatus comprising a series of cell culture vessels which are capable of maintaining aseptic conditions (Koike, para 30). Koike describes introducing mammalian cells into a plurality of incubators comprising a storage location for storing a plurality of cell culture vessels (Koike, para 30). Koike describes expanding the cell sample under aseptic conditions, moving the culturing vessel into an imaging location, manipulating the cells with a robotic arm in the same location as the imaging system (Koike, para 30-33). Claim 51: Koike describes moving the cell culture vessel using a robotic arm automated transfer device (Koike, para 33). Claim 52: Koike describes an observation section which can monitor the location and degree of growth in each culture vessel which can then me moved into different sections of the production apparatus using robotic arms which are controlled by a processor or computer (Koike, para 30-33). Claim 53: Koike describes a plurality of incubators configured to house cell culturing vessels and a horizontally elongated isolator which maintains aseptic conditions and a series of robotic arms which transfer each cell culturing vessel from storage throughout the production apparatus (Koike, para 30-33). Claim 54: Koike describes a series of robotic arms which moves a cell culturing vessel 3 dimensionally from a storage area to an imaging area in the production apparatus (Koike, para 30-33). 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 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. Claims 50-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike ( supra ) in view of Robinson et al. US 2010/0291619, published 11/18/2010 (hereinafter Robinson) and Muller et al. US 2008/0176209, published 7/24/2008 (hereinafter Muller). A description of Koike can be found above. Koike does not describe the use of fiducial marks for aligning the cell culture vessel for imaging, the use of radiofrequency sensors or bar codes for facilitating a user to select a cell culture vessel. Claims 55 and 57-58: Robinson describes a method for handling a plurality of cell culture vessels in an automated system using a series of barcodes and readers to track, handle and store based on a predefined protocol (Robinson, para 14, 164, 169). Robinson describes the use of alignment arms which ensure that the carrier is properly aligned at the specimen loading station and imaging, which reads on the use of fiducial marks for alignment (Robinson, para 176). Similarly, Robinson describes the use of an optical sensor to correct position using machine vision (Robinson, para 537). Neither Robinson nor Koike describe the use of radiofrequency beacons to track and monitor the cell culture vessels. Claims 56 and 59: Muller describes the use of barcodes and radio frequency tags (RFIDs) to help track and monitor biological samples (Muller, 261 and 268) . Muller states that RFID tags have several advantages over barcodes like improved information capacity and minimized interference through line-of-sight and other optical distortions (Muller, para 261 and 263). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use barcodes and radio frequency tags like those described in Robinson and Muller to help facilitate and track the cell culture vessels in the automated mammalian cell culture apparatus described by Koike. It would have been a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results since labeling the various cell culture vessels with barcodes and RFID tags would help with sample identification and inventory management. O ne of ordinary skill would have motivation to use RFID tags in particular given their improved information capacity and minimized interference through line-of-sight and other optical distortions when compared to other systems described by Muller. One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that RFID barcode systems provide a non-contact, non-line of sight capability to manage and track individual cell culture vessels. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the claimed invention to have been prima facie obvious to at the time the invention was made. Nonstatutory Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717 .02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 50-59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of US Patent No. 11,168,297 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims would anticipate the instant claims if they were available as prior art. Claim 50-54: The patented claims are drawn to a cell culture incubator comprising a first and second incubation chamber comprising a storage location in which an automated transfer device moves a plurality of cell culture vessels to an imager (Claims 1-3). Claim 55 and 57-58: The patented claims describe the use of fiducial markers which align the cell culture vessel for imaging (Claim 4). The patented claims describe barcode system which is used to track and determine the operation to be performed (Claim 7). Claim 56 and 59: The patented claims describe the use of a radiofrequency sensor and beacons in the incubator (Claims 5-6). The patented claims would anticipate the instantly claimed invention, which is drawn to a method using the patented cell culture incubator for producing a mammalian cell culture. The claim sets are patentable indistinct therefore. Claims 50-59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of US Patent No. 11,879,120 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims would anticipate the instant claims if they were available as prior art. Claim 50-54: The patented claims are drawn to a cell culture incubator comprising a first and second incubation chamber comprising a storage location in which an automated transfer device moves a plurality of cell culture vessels to an imager (Claims 1-2). Claim 55 and 57-58: The patented claims describe the use of fiducial markers which align the cell culture vessel for imaging (Claim 4). The patented claims describe barcode system which is used to track and determine the operation to be performed (Claim 4). Claim 56 and 59: The patented claims describe the use of a radiofrequency sensor and beacons in the incubator (Claims 1 and 5-7). The patented claims would anticipate the instantly claimed invention, which is drawn to a method using the patented cell culture incubator for producing a mammalian cell culture. The claim sets are patentable indistinct therefore. Conclusion Claims 50-59 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Dr. ALEXANDER NICOL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6383 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5 EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Chris Babic can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8507 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. Alexander Nicol Patent Examiner Art Unit 1633 /ALEXANDER W NICOL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1634