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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The claim amendments dated 8/4/2026 have overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented in the prior Office Action.
Claim 9 was cancelled in the amendments filed 8/4/2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 filed 8/4/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 112246205 A) (hereinafter referred to as Liu, already of record) in view of Sigurgusladottir et al. (US 2021/0002595 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Sigurgusladottir, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a culturing device (title, “mixing device”), comprising: a culturing container (title, “fermentation tank”), comprising a body portion (Fig. 1, tank body 1 – see annotated figure below) and an opening portion (Fig 1, tank lid 2), wherein the body portion is connected to the opening portion (Fig. 1 shows that tank body is connected to tank lid), and the opening portion has an opening (Fig. 1, tank lid has opening 7);
a transparent plate, disposed on the opening portion and covering the opening (Fig. 1, light-transmitting plate 8 disposed on lid and covering opening);
a cover, disposed on a side of the transparent plate located farthest away from the culturing container (Fig. 1, top seat 10 disposed on a side of the light-transmitting plate located farthest away from the fermentation tank), wherein the cover and the transparent plate together form an airflow channel therebetween (Fig. 1 shows a gap between top seat and grid plate; [0029] implicitly discloses that air can flow through gap, “four support columns 9 away from the can lid 2 are fixedly connected to a top seat 10”); and a light emitting assembly, disposed on the cover and located in the airflow channel (Fig. 1, Illuminator 11 disposed on top seat and located in the airflow channel).
PNG
media_image1.png
281
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu does not disclose or teach the body portion of the culturing container having a curved surface, the curved surface extends from a side of the body portion located closest to the opening portion toward a side of the body portion located farthest away from the opening portion.
However, Sigurgusladottir in the analogous art of photobioreactors teaches that it is known in the art to form a body portion of a culturing container with a curved surface extending from a side of a body portion located closest to the opening portion toward a side of the body portion located farthest from the opening portion ([0116], photobioreactor can have an open top, i.e., an opening; Fig. 8 – see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
490
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s body portion to have a curved surface as claimed in claim 1 because Sigurgusladottir teaches that such a shape is known in the art and suitable for culturing. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use a shape known in the art and suitable for culturing.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches the culturing device according to claim 1.
Sigurgusladottir of the prior art combination teaches it is known in the art to form a culturing container wherein a cross-section of the culturing container which is perpendicular to an axial direction thereof is circular (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 prior art combination culturing container to have the cross-section claimed because Sigurgusladottir teaches that such a shape is known in the art and suitable for a culturing container. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use a shape known in the art and suitable for a culturing container.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Sigurgusladottir as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaffin et al. (US Patent 6,670,170 B1) (hereinafter referred to as Gaffin, already of record).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches the culturing device according to claim 1.
The prior art combination does not disclose or teach an extension mounting member or sealing member as claimed in claim 2.
However, Gaffin in the art of cell culture devices discloses a device comprising a water bath body, i.e., an extension mounting member, and a gasket, i.e., a sealing member (Fig. 1 – see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
175
297
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
432
449
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The two opposite sides of the water bath body are connected to a transparent window, i.e., the transparent plate, and the gasket, respectively, the opening portion surrounds the water bath body (Fig. 1 shows that opening of cell chamber body 12, i.e., opening portion, surrounds the water bath body 26), the opening portion comprises a top side and a bottom side that are opposite to each other, the transparent window is disposed on the top side, and the gasket is disposed on the bottom side (Fig. 2 shows that transparent window 50 is disposed on the top side and gasket 22 is disposed on the bottom side – see figure below).
Gaffin teaches that the water bath body and gasket hermetically seals the cell chamber (Col. 6, lines 5-12).
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 an extension mounting member and a sealing member to hermetically seal the culture chamber, as taught by Gaffin.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches the culturing device according to claim 2.
The prior art combination does not disclose or teach the extension mounting member and the transparent plate integrally formed as a single piece.
Nonetheless, it has been held that the use of a one-piece construction instead of structures disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 V).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches the culturing device according to claim 2.
The prior art combination does not disclose or teach the diameters of the transparent plate, sealing member, and opening portion.
However, it would have been within purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize a reasonable number of combinations of diameter sizes and pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success of sealing the culturing container.
Therefore, 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 form the device such that diameter of the sealing member is less than a diameter of the transparent plate, and the diameter of the sealing member is larger than a diameter of the opening portion.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Sigurgusladottir as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peschl et al. (US 2022/0204898 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Peschl, already of record).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches the culturing device according to claim 1.
The prior art combination does not disclose or teach the light emitting assembly comprising a circuit board and at least one light emitting component.
However, Peschl discloses a lamp module comprising light-emitting diodes for a photochemical reactor. The lamp module comprises a circuit board and at least one light emitting component ([0048], “a plurality of LEDs on the support circuit board”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the prior art combination light emitting assembly for the lamp module of Peschl with a reasonable expectation that it would provide light to a culturing device.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination teaches the culturing device according to claim 5.
Peschl of the prior art combination discloses wherein a connector is disposed on the circuit board, and the connector is electrically connected to the at least one light emitting component ([0082], “contact elements 15′ which here are arranged together at its end adjacent to the opening 3″ for supply of the LEDs 1 arranged on a circuit board 30”; Fig. 6, contact
PNG
media_image5.png
376
239
media_image5.png
Greyscale
elements 15’ – see figure below).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Sigurgusladottir and Peschl as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Licamele et al. (US 2013/0102076 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Licamele, already of record).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination teaches the culturing device according to claim 5.
Peschl of the prior art combination discloses wherein the light emitting assembly comprises a plurality of light emitting components ([0048], “a plurality of LEDs on the support circuit board”).
The prior art combination does not disclose or teach the plurality of light emitting components comprising at least one white light emitting diode and at least one blue light emitting diode; and further comprising at least one ultraviolet light emitting diode.
However, Licamele teaches it is known in the art of photobioreactors to use white, blue, and ultraviolet LEDs to promote growth of an aquatic photosynthetic organism (abstract, [0063]).
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 form the plurality of light emitting components with at least one white light emitting diode and at least one blue light emitting diode; and at least one ultraviolet light emitting diode to promote growth of an aquatic photosynthetic organism, as taught by Licamele.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches the culturing device according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of light emitting components further comprise at least one ultraviolet light emitting diode, as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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