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 with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 09/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Invention II includes all elements of the apparatus of Invention I (along with additional structural elements). This is not found persuasive because Invention II, as currently claimed, does not include a “second portion configured for attachment to a device surface” or wherein the levelling mechanism is selectively adjustable “to achieve a substantially level vessel and/or a desired weight on the load cell”, which are required by Invention I, as discussed in the prior Restriction Requirement. Applicant has also argued that the Office has not established a serious search and/or examination burden. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the different Invention Groups cover different structural features, as discussed above, and therefore they would require different fields of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/09/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/25/2025 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 § 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 1-9 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the specification as-filed does not provide any guideline for assessing which vessel orientations would and would not meet the claim limitation of “a substantially level vessel”.
The term “about” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the specification as-filed does not provide any guideline for assessing what range of degrees meets the claim limitation of “about 360 degrees”, and the specification as-filed does not provide any guideline for assessing what range of distance would meet the claim limitation of “about 1mm”.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason(s) as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lind et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0339261).
Regarding claim 1, Lind et al. discloses an apparatus for levelling a bioprocessing device (the apparatus comprises a rocking platform configured to control a level of a bioprocessing device, including levelling such that a bag of the bioprocessing device is parallel with a ground plane, see para. 42-44 and 52, and Fig. 11, sheet 11 of 19; thus, the apparatus reads on being for levelling the bioprocessing device) comprising:
a load cell (448) (para. 82) having a first portion and a second portion (e.g., a bottom face of the load cell 448 forms a first portion and an upper face of the load cell 448 forms a second portion, see Fig. 19a, sheet 19 of 19), the first portion being configured for attachment to a base surface (the skilled artisan would clearly understand from Fig. 19a that the first portion of the load cell 448 is configured to be placed on a base surface, and the first portion would be fully capable of attachment to such a base surface); and
a levelling mechanism operatively connected to the second portion of the load cell (portion of rocking platform 410 above load cell 448, see para. 52 and 82 and Figs. 11 and 19a), the second portion configured for attachment to a device surface (the second portion is configured to be operatively attached to a device surface of bag 405, see para. 52 and 82 and Figs. 11 and 19a), the device surface being in operative contact with a vessel of the bioprocessing device during use (para. 52, 82) (Figs. 11, 19a);
wherein the levelling mechanism is selectively adjustable to move the device surface relative to the base surface (para. 52) (Fig. 11), utilizing data from the load cell (para. 82), to achieve a substantially level vessel (the position shown in Fig. 11a reads on substantially level) and/or a desired weight on the load cell (material is contained in or removed from the bag based on the levelling mechanism, see para. 52, such as to achieve a desired amount on the load cell, see para. 82; the amount necessarily arrives at a desired weight).
Regarding claim 3, the entirety of the claim is directed to a further limitation of the base surface. It is noted that the base surface is not a positively recited structural element of the claimed apparatus (claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites “the first portion being configured for attachment to a base surface”), and therefore claim 3 is directed to an intended use of the apparatus. Lind et al. discloses each and every positively recited structural component of the claimed apparatus, as set forth above, and the first portion disclosed by Lind et al. would be fully capable of being configured for attachment to a rigid structure of the bioprocessing device (see Fig. 19). Therefore, the claim does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, the entirety of the claim is directed to a further limitation of the base surface. It is noted that the base surface is not a positively recited structural element of the claimed apparatus (claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites “the first portion being configured for attachment to a base surface”), and therefore claim 4 is directed to an intended use of the apparatus. Lind et al. discloses each and every positively recited structural component of the claimed apparatus, as set forth above, and the first portion disclosed by Lind et al. would be fully capable of being configured for attachment to a floor beneath the bioprocessing device (see Fig. 19a). Therefore, the claim does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lind et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0339261) in view of Kjar et al. (US Patent Application Publication Application 2015/0300873) (already of record).
Regarding claim 2, Lind et al. discloses the load cell, as set forth above.
Lind et al. is silent as to wherein the load cell is a beam load cell.
Kjar et al. discloses that it was known in the art to use a beam load cell in conjunction with a bioprocessing device (Abstract, para. 36, 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the load cell disclosed by Lind et al. to be a beam load cell, based on the teachings of Kjar et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a load cell type recognized in the art to be suitable for use with a bioprocessing device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Houghton et al. (US Patent 12,116,562) is directed to a levelling mechanism for dynamically levelling a bioprocessing vessel, based on feedback from a sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights