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 Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 9/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 9/18/2026.
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites “a vessel” in line 3. It is unclear whether “a vessel” of line 3 is the same or different as “a vessel” as recited in line 1 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-18 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a pump” in line 6. It is unclear whether “a pump” of line 6 is the same or different as “a pump” as recited in line 1 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-18 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “one or more conduits or tubing comprising return lines that are connected at one end to the plurality of outlets” in lines 10-11. It is unclear how a single conduit end can be connected to multiple outlets. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-18 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheimann et al. (U.S. Patent. No. 5,253,937).
Regarding claim 1, Scheimann et al. discloses a vessel having an integrated or connected pump (figures 5-11, container 12 and pump 76) comprising:
a vessel comprising a flexible bag or a substantially rigid container (container 12) defining an interior volume (chambers 26 and 28) and having a bottom surface (base 16), the bottom surface containing an aperture therein for the passage of fluid (outlet 44);
a pump (#76, 7 and 78 together make up the pump) secured to the bottom surface of the vessel (pump 76 is secured to the bottom of the surface through hose 48; column 4, lines 6-13 (it is noted that the preamble and limitations give the alternative that the pump may be integrated (i.e. directly connected) or connected indirectly by an intermediate pipe (as evidenced by dependent claims 13 and 14 which recited a port/pipe 22 between the container and pump)), the pump having an inlet in fluid communication with the interior volume via the aperture (hose 48; column 4, lines 6-13) and a plurality of outlets (see figure 7, plurality outlets comping out of 78), wherein the pump pumps fluid from the interior volume of the vessel into the inlet of the pump and out the plurality of outlets (pump 76; column 4, lines 6-19; column 4, lines 30-45); and
one or more conduits or tubing comprising return lines that are connected at one end to the plurality of outlets (supply hoses 34) and having flexible free ends extending into the interior volume of the vessel (injection ports 30; as seen in figures 5-11, injection ports have a free end within chambers 26/28 that is flexible in that it can be adjusted and positioned at different angles (column 4, lines 30-52).
Regarding claim 2, Scheimann et al. discloses wherein the one or more conduits or tubing return lines comprise flexible tubing or a flexible conduit (hose 34 (hoses are known to be flexible tubing/conduit).
Regarding claim 4, Scheimann et al. discloses wherein the flexible free ends of the return lines terminate at different depths or heights within the interior volume of the vessel (column 5, lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 5, Scheimann et al. discloses wherein the flexible free ends of the return lines comprise end features (nozzles 31).
Regarding claim 6, Scheimann et al. discloses wherein the number of outlets comprises 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or more outlets (figure 7, 4 outlets out of 78).
Regarding claim 7, Scheimann et al. discloses wherein the one or more return lines comprise branched lines (column 4, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Scheimann et al. discloses wherein the plurality of outlets have different flow rates (valves 40 adjusts the flow rates for each outlet/hose 34 to have different rates; column 4, lines 66-68).
Regarding claim 10, Scheimann et al. discloses wherein the plurality of outlets have substantially the same flow rates (valves 40 adjusts the flow rates for each outlet/hose 34 and is capable to be controlled to have the same rates; column 3, lines 66-68; column 4, lines 66-68).
Regarding claim 11, Scheimann et al. discloses wherein the return lines enter the vessel at ports contained therein (see figures 5-10, hose 34 enters wall 18 through holes) and wherein respective flexible free ends of the return lines are unsecured to the vessel (see figures 5-10, injection ports 30 are spaced apart and freed adjustable/positionable from the side 18; column 4, lines 30-52).
Regarding claim 13, Scheimann et al. discloses further comprising a port disposed in the aperture of the vessel, wherein the bottom surface of the vessel is secured to the port (distribution hose 48).
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitney et al. (U.S. Patent. No. 8,328,409).
Regarding claim 1, Whitney et al. discloses a vessel having an integrated or connected pump (figures 1-4, tank 102 and pump 114) comprising:
a vessel comprising a flexible bag or a substantially rigid container (tank 102) defining an interior volume (inside of tank 102) and having a bottom surface (sides 104 and 106), the bottom surface containing an aperture therein for the passage of fluid (outlet 108);
a pump pump 114) secured to the bottom surface of the vessel (pump 114 is secured to the bottom of the surface through hose 120; column 4, lines 35-53 (it is noted that the preamble and limitations give the alternative that the pump may be integrated (i.e. directly connected) or connected indirectly by an intermediate pipe (as evidenced by dependent claims 13 and 14 which recited a port/pipe 22 between the container and pump)), the pump having an inlet in fluid communication with the interior volume via the aperture (hose 120; column 4, lines 35-53) and a plurality of outlets (pipres 130 and 132), wherein the pump pumps fluid from the interior volume of the vessel into the inlet of the pump and out the plurality of outlets (pump 114; columns 4-5, lines 35-19); and
one or more conduits or tubing comprising return lines that are connected at one end to the plurality of outlets (pipes 140 and 152) and having flexible free ends extending into the interior volume of the vessel (figure 3, hose 302 and similar hose from hose 156 on other side; columns 4-5, lines 54-12).
Regarding claim 2, Whitney et al. discloses wherein the one or more conduits or tubing return lines comprise flexible tubing or a flexible conduit (hoses 144, 156 and 302).
Regarding claim 3, Whitney et al. discloses wherein the one or more conduits or tubing return lines comprise rigid conduit or tubing located external to the vessel (exit pipe 140 and 152).
Regarding claim 4, Whitney et al. discloses the flexible free ends of the return lines terminate at different depths or heights within the interior volume of the vessel (figure 4, outlets 110 and 310).
Regarding claim 5, Whitney et al. discloses wherein the flexible free ends of the return lines comprise end features (eductor 602).
Regarding claim 6, Whitney et al. discloses wherein the number of outlets comprises 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or more outlets (2 outlets 130 and 132).
Regarding claim 7, Whitney et al. discloses wherein the one or more return lines comprise branched lines (figure 5, connector 158 branches hose 156 into two outlets 110 and 310).
Regarding claim 9, Whitney et al. discloses wherein the plurality of outlets have different flow rates (valves 138 and 150 control flow rate and are capable to control outlets to have different flow rate).
Regarding claim 10, Whitney et al. discloses wherein the plurality of outlets have substantially the same flow rates (valves 138 and 150 control flow rate and are capable to control outlets to have the same flow rate).
Regarding claim 11, Whitney et al. discloses wherein the return lines enter the vessel at ports contained therein (figure 3, connection 146 and 158; columns 4-5, lines 66-12) and wherein respective flexible free ends of the return lines are unsecured to the vessel (figure 3, inlet 110 and 112; columns 4-5, lines 61-12).
Regarding claim 12, Whitney et al. discloses wherein at least one of the return lines is coupled to a processing units that performs one or more of: filtration, buffer addition, buffer dilution, media addition, nutrient addition, sparging of gases, gas removal, ozone gas addition, waste removal, dilution, precipitation of molecule(s) or compound(s) of interest, sensor reading, and pH adjustment, mixing or maintaining material in suspension continuously, product sampling, harvesting or products, or ultrafiltration/diafiltration (UFDF) washing (plant 200).
Regarding claim 13, Whitney et al. discloses further comprising a port disposed in the aperture of the vessel, wherein the bottom surface of the vessel is secured to the port (connector 116).
Regarding claim 18, Whitney et al. discloses wherein the vessel comprises a top surface, wherein the return lines pass through the top surface and extend into the interior volume (figure 3, connection 146 and 158 at top surface of tank 102 with hose 302 passing through; columns 4-5, lines 66-12).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheimann et al.
Regarding claim 3, to the extent the conduit or tubing of Scheimann et al. is not rigid, it is well known in the art that conduits or tubing can be made of multiple types of material which would result in rigid tubing; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been selected a rigid material for the tubing in order to provide a more supportive and stronger conduit/tubing for pressurized liquid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheimann et al. in view of Stearman (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0096800).
Regarding claim 8, Scheimann et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more return lines have one or more holes formed in sides thereof.
Stearman teaches another tank with pump and recirculation conduit (abstract) wherein the one or more return lines have one or more holes formed in sides thereof (discharge holes 252/352/652; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the holes of Stearman in the return lines of Scheimann et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach containers with pump and recirculation conduits. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide holes in the return line because the holes are configured to eject liquid throughout the return line and container for effective circulation of liquid in the container (Stearman [0042]-[0043]; [0046]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney et al. in view of Stearman.
Regarding claim 8, Whitney et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more return lines have one or more holes formed in sides thereof.
Stearman teaches another tank with pump and recirculation conduit (abstract) wherein the one or more return lines have one or more holes formed in sides thereof (discharge holes 252/352/652; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the holes of Stearman in the return lines of Whitney et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach containers with pump and recirculation conduits. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide holes in the return line because the holes are configured to eject liquid throughout the return line and container for effective circulation of liquid in the container (Stearman [0042]-[0043]; [0046]).
Claim(s) 12, 14-16, and alternatively claim 1, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheimann et al. in view of Gagne (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0367859).
Alternatively, regarding claim 1, to the extent claim 1 requires the pump be directly secured to the bottom surface of the vessel, Gagne teaches another recirculation tank (figure 9, container 80, recirculation conduit 126/132) with outlet pump secured to the bottom surface of the vessel (pump 14; [0009]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to secure the pump of Scheimann et al. directly to the bottom surface of the vessel, instead of having a pipe connection, because using tubing may result in the tubing collapsing and lead to cavitation and other deleterious pulsatile flow conditions (Gagne [0008]), and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 12, Scheimann et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the return lines is coupled to a processing unit.
Gagne teaches another recirculation tank (figure 9, container 80, recirculation conduit 126/132) comprising a processing unit that performs one or more of: filtration, buffer addition, buffer dilution, media addition, nutrient addition, sparging of gases, gas removal, ozone gas addition, waste removal, dilution, precipitation of molecule(s) or compound(s) of interest, sensor reading, and pH adjustment, mixing or maintaining material in suspension continuously, product sampling, harvesting or products, or ultrafiltration/diafiltration (UFDF) washing (filtration or separation unit 128; [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the processing unit of Gagne in the return lines of Scheimann et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach recirculation tanks. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a processing unit coupled to the return line because it can filter out desired end products or wase products via an outlet port while the non-filtered cells can be returned back to the tank via the conduit (Gagne [0069]).
Regarding claims 14-16, Scheimann et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose the flanged end; pump head secured to the bottom surface of the vessel by one of a bonded interface, welded interface or an adhesive or glue; and wherein the pump is integrally molded or formed with the vessel.
Gagne teaches another recirculation tank (figure 9, container 80, recirculation conduit 126/132) comprising a port disposed in the aperture of the vessel, wherein the bottom surface of the vessel is secured to the port, wherein the port comprises a flanged end and wherein the pump is secured to the flanged end of the port; and wherein the pump comprises a pump head secured to the bottom surface of the vessel by one of a bonded interface, welded interface or an adhesive or glue; and wherein the pump is integrally molded or formed with the vessel ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the container outlet and pump connection of Scheimann et al. as taught above by Gagne in order to provide a secure and direct connection between the outlet and pump without an intermediate pipe because using tubing may result in the tubing collapsing and lead to cavitation and other deleterious pulsatile flow conditions (Gagne [0008]).
Claim(s) 14-16, and alternatively claim 1, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney et al. in view of Gagne.
Alternatively, regarding claim 1, to the extent claim 1 requires the pump be directly secured to the bottom surface of the vessel, Gagne teaches another recirculation tank (figure 9, container 80, recirculation conduit 126/132) with outlet pump secured to the bottom surface of the vessel (pump 14; [0009]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to secure the pump of Whitney et al. directly to the bottom surface of the vessel, instead of having a pipe connection, because using tubing may result in the tubing collapsing and lead to cavitation and other deleterious pulsatile flow conditions (Gagne [0008]), and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claims 14-16, Whitney et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose the flanged end; pump head secured to the bottom surface of the vessel by one of a bonded interface, welded interface or an adhesive or glue; and wherein the pump is integrally molded or formed with the vessel.
Gagne teaches another recirculation tank (figure 9, container 80, recirculation conduit 126/132) comprising a port disposed in the aperture of the vessel, wherein the bottom surface of the vessel is secured to the port, wherein the port comprises a flanged end and wherein the pump is secured to the flanged end of the port; and wherein the pump comprises a pump head secured to the bottom surface of the vessel by one of a bonded interface, welded interface or an adhesive or glue; and wherein the pump is integrally molded or formed with the vessel ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the container outlet and pump connection of Whitney et al. as taught above by Gagne in order to provide a secure and direct connection between the outlet and pump without an intermediate pipe because using tubing may result in the tubing collapsing and lead to cavitation and other deleterious pulsatile flow conditions (Gagne [0008]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheimann et al. in view of Gagne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,760,694) (hereinafter Gagne ‘694).
Regarding claim 17, Scheimann et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose wherein the return lines are contained in a two-piece jacket.
Gagne ‘694 teaches a fluid management system for handling pressurized fluid through a conduit that includes a container with pump and recirculation conduit (figure 18c; column 2, lines 44-47) having a two-piece jacket for containing return line conduits (two-part jacket 60; column 8, lines 4-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the two part jacket of Gagne ‘694 containing the return lines of Scheimann et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach fluid management systems for handling pressurized fluid through a conduit that includes containers with pump and recirculation conduits. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to contain the return lines in a two-piece jacket because it defines an exoskeleton-type structure that snugly surrounds the unreinforced conduit and prevent the unreinforced conduit from failing under high pressures (Gagne ‘694 column 8, lines 20-24).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney et al. in view of Gagne ‘694.
Regarding claim 17, Whitney et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose wherein the return lines are contained in a two-piece jacket.
Gagne ‘694 teaches a fluid management system for handling pressurized fluid through a conduit that includes a container with pump and recirculation conduit (figure 18c; column 2, lines 44-47) having a two-piece jacket for containing return line conduits (two-part jacket 60; column 8, lines 4-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the two part jacket of Gagne ‘694 containing the return lines of Whitney et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach fluid management systems for handling pressurized fluid through a conduit that includes containers with pump and recirculation conduits. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to contain the return lines in a two-piece jacket because it defines an exoskeleton-type structure that snugly surrounds the unreinforced conduit and prevent the unreinforced conduit from failing under high pressures (Gagne ‘694 column 8, lines 20-24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
