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 .
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 locking element” in claim 1.
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 2, 4 and 12 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 2 recites the limitation "a plurality of coil layers" in line 3. It is unclear if the layers recited in claim are referring to the coil layers recited earlier in the claims or are additional coil layers.
The term “substantially” in claim 4 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.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation " e.g., from an ultrasonic bath " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the “e.g.” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-7, 14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haddad et al (US 3948732; hereinafter “Haddad”).
Regarding claim 1, Haddad discloses an apparatus comprising: an elongated substrate wound in a coiled configuration to form coil layers of the elongated substrate (FIGS. 1-3: elongated tubular chamber (22)); a removable separator positioned on a surface of the elongated substrate to space apart the coil layers (FIGS. 2-3: elongated spacer member (72) removably coupled to the elongated tubular chamber (22)); and a locking element affixed to a surface edge of the elongated substrate, the locking element configured to maintain a position of the coil layers (FIGS. 2-3: flange members (88) affixed to a surface edge of the elongated tubular chamber (22) to provide support for the elongated substrate; col. 4, lines 48-52). Furthermore, it is noted that the recitation of functional language "for inserting into a bioreactor to grow a comestible cell-based meat product" is drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed apparatus and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 2, Haddad further discloses wherein: the elongated substrate is wound around a rotational axis, the coil layers of the elongated substrate being exposed at the surface edge along the rotational axis (see FIG. 3); and the locking element is affixed to a plurality of coil layers at the surface edge of the elongated substrate (See FIGS. 2-3).
Regarding claim 4, Haddad further discloses a continuous sheet that substantially covers the surface of the elongated substrate (see FIGS. 2-3); or a plurality of strips positioned at predetermined intervals along a length or a width of the surface of the elongated substrate.
Regarding claim 5, the removable separator of Haddad is structurally the same as the instant removable separator and thus considered separable from between the coil layers via at least one of heat treatment, chemical treatment, or physical displacement.
Regarding claim 6, Haddad further discloses a removable spool around which the elongated substrate is wound in the coiled configuration (see FIGS. 2-3: hub portions (90) supporting the elongated substrate), wherein: the removable spool comprises a spool shape that includes a polygonal shape, a cylindrical shape, a conical shape, or a prismatic shape (see FIGS. 2-3: hub portions (90) supporting the elongated substrate); and a shape of the elongated substrate wound in the coiled configuration corresponds to the spool shape (see FIGS. 2-3: hub portions (90) supporting the elongated substrate).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Haddad discloses an apparatus comprising: a first substrate layer and a second substrate layer in a stacked configuration such that the second substrate layer is positioned on top of the first substrate layer (FIGS. 1-3: elongated tubular chamber (22) in a coiled configuration forming a plurality of stacked layers); a removable separator positioned between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer to space apart the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer (FIGS. 2-3: elongated spacer member (72) removably arranged between the plurality of layers of the elongated tubular chamber (22)); and a locking element affixed to surface edges of the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer, the locking element configured to maintain a position of the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer relative to each other (FIGS. 2-3: flange members (88) affixed to an edge of the layers to provide support for the elongated substrate; col. 4, lines 48-52). Furthermore, it is noted that the recitation of functional language "for inserting into a bioreactor to grow a comestible cell-based meat product" is drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed apparatus and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 16, Haddad discloses a bioreactor comprising: a housing defining an internal cavity (FIG. 1: incubator (10)); a first substrate layer and a second substrate layer in a stacked configuration within the internal cavity such that the second substrate layer is positioned on top of the first substrate layer (FIGS. 1-3: elongated tubular chamber (22) in a coiled configuration forming a plurality of stacked layers); and a removable separator positioned between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer to space apart the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer (FIGS. 2-3: elongated spacer member (72) removably arranged between the plurality of layers of the elongated tubular chamber (22)). Furthermore, it is noted that the recitation of functional language "to grow a comestible cell-based meat product" is drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed apparatus and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 18, Haddad further discloses wherein the removable separator is configured for removal from between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer via at least one of heat treatment, chemical treatment, or physical displacement (as shown in FIG. 3, the elongated spacer member (72) is removably coupled to the elongated tubular chamber (22)).
Regarding claim 19, Haddad further discloses wherein the removable separator comprises a strip that extends along a length of the first substrate layer (see FIGS. 3-4: strips (78)).
Therefore, Haddad meets and anticipates the limitations set forth in claims 1-2, 4-7, 14, 16 and 18-19.
Claims 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 5,563,069).
Regarding claim 16, Yang discloses a bioreactor to grow a comestible cell-based meat product, the bioreactor comprising: a housing defining an internal cavity (FIG. 1A: reactor (14)); a first substrate layer and a second substrate layer in a stacked configuration within the internal cavity such that the second substrate layer is positioned on top of the first substrate layer (FIGS. 1A-1C); and a removable separator positioned between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer to space apart the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer (col. 7, lines 10-13; col. 20, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 18, Yang further discloses the removable separator is configured for removal from between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer via at least one of heat treatment, chemical treatment, or physical displacement (the removable separator of Yang is structurally the same as the instant removable separator and thus considered separable from between the coil layers via at least one of heat treatment, chemical treatment, or physical displacement).
Regarding claim 20, Yang further discloses wherein the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer are planar and non-coiled (FIG. 1C).
Therefore, Yang meets and anticipates the limitations set forth in claims 16, 18 and 20.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 5,563,069) in view of Simon (WO 2020/127395-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses an apparatus for inserting into a bioreactor to grow a comestible cell-based meat product (col. 7, lines 14-17), the apparatus comprising: an elongated substrate wound in a coiled configuration to form coil layers of the elongated substrate (FIG. 1A: sheet (12); col. 9, line 38 to col. 10, line 9); and a removable separator positioned on a surface of the elongated substrate to space apart the coil layers (col. 7, lines 10-13; col. 20, lines 53-55). Simon does not explicitly disclose a locking element affixed to a surface edge of the elongated substrate, the locking element configured to maintain a position of the coil layers. Simon discloses an elongated substrate wound in a coiled configuration to form coil layers of the elongated substrate (FIG. 4: coiled substrate (10)); a separator positioned on a surface of the elongated substrate to space apart the coil layers (FIG. 4: separator (13)); and a locking element affixed to a surface edge of the elongated substrate, the locking element configured to maintain a position of the coil layers (FIG. 4: fastener (18); [0055]). In view of Simon, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the locking element of Simon with the coiled substrate of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of securing the layers to one another as disclosed by Simon ([0055]). Furthermore, it is noted that the recitation of functional language "for inserting into a bioreactor to grow a comestible cell-based meat product" is drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed apparatus and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yang further discloses wherein: the elongated substrate is wound around a rotational axis, the coil layers of the elongated substrate being exposed at the surface edge along the rotational axis (see Simon at FIG. 4); and the locking element is affixed to a plurality of coil layers at the surface edge of the elongated substrate (see Simon at FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yang discloses the claimed locking element, the locking element being perpendicular to the surface edge and traversing across the coil layers (Simon at FIG. 4), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the locking element comprises one or more filaments attached via spot welding or brazing to the coil layers exposed at the surface edge, the one or more filaments being perpendicular to the surface edge and traversing across the coil layers. However, Simon does disclose wherein various types of locking elements can be employed with the coiled substrate including screws, pins, welding joint or any other means (Simon at [0055]). In view of Simon, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locking element of modified Yang to comprise one or more filaments attached via spot welding or brazing to the coil layers exposed at the surface edge, the one or more filaments being perpendicular to the surface edge and traversing across the coil layers, because Simon discloses that various types of locking elements can be employed with the coiled substrate including screws, pins, welding joint or any other means (Simon at [0055]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said medication would have been the simple substitution of one known locking means for another for the predictable result of securing layers of coiled substrate, as disclosed by Simon ([0055]).
Regarding claim 5, the removable separator of modified Yang is structurally the same as the instant removable separator and thus considered separable from between the coil layers via at least one of heat treatment, chemical treatment, or physical displacement.
Regarding claim 7, Yang discloses an apparatus for inserting into a bioreactor to grow a comestible cell-based meat product (col. 7, lines 14-17), the apparatus comprising: a first substrate layer and a second substrate layer in a stacked configuration such that the second substrate layer is positioned on top of the first substrate layer (FIGS. 1A-1C: sheets (12,112,212)); and a removable separator positioned between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer to space apart the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer (col. 7, lines 10-13; col. 20, lines 53-55). Simon does not explicitly disclose a locking element affixed to surface edges of the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer, the locking element configured to maintain a position of the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer relative to each other. Simon discloses an elongated substrate wound in a coiled configuration to form coil layers of the elongated substrate (FIG. 4: coiled substrate (10)); a separator positioned on a surface of the elongated substrate to space apart the coil layers (FIG. 4: separator (13)); and a locking element affixed to a surface edge of the elongated substrate, the locking element configured to maintain a position of the coil layers (FIG. 4: fastener (18); [0055]). In view of Simon, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the locking element of Simon with the coiled substrate of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of securing the layers to one another as disclosed by Simon ([0055]). Furthermore, it is noted that the recitation of functional language "for inserting into a bioreactor to grow a comestible cell-based meat product" is drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed apparatus and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yang further discloses a third substrate layer in the stacked configuration such that the third substrate layer is positioned on top of the second substrate layer and the first substrate layer (FIGS. 1B-1C: sheets (112,212)). Modified Yang discloses the claimed removal separator but does not explicitly disclose wherein the removable separator continuously weaves between each of the first substrate layer, the second substrate layer, and the third substrate layer by extending out from between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer and folding back over on top of the second substrate layer to space apart the second substrate layer and the third substrate layer. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the removable separator of modified Yang such that the removable separator continuously weaves between each of the first substrate layer, the second substrate layer, and the third substrate layer by extending out from between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer and folding back over on top of the second substrate layer to space apart the second substrate layer and the third substrate layer, for the purpose of constructing a single removable separator that can be easily placed or removed between the coiled layers (for example, between layers of coiled substrate shown in FIG. 1B of Yang). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been a matter of an engineering design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious since the claimed removable separator would not perform differently than the prior art removable separator of modified Yang.
Regarding claim 9, modified Yang further discloses the removable separator is configured for removal from between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer via at least one of heat treatment, chemical treatment, or physical displacement (the removable separator of modified Yang is structurally the same as the instant removable separator and thus considered separable from between the coil layers via at least one of heat treatment, chemical treatment, or physical displacement); and the locking element is configured to maintain a position of the first substrate layer relative to the second substrate layer independent of the removable separator (see FIG. 4 of Simon).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yang further discloses the claimed removable separator but does not explicitly disclose wherein the removable separator comprises an overhanging portion that extends beyond the first substrate layer that allows the removable separator to be pulled out from between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the removable separator of modified Yang such that the removable separator comprises an overhanging portion that extends beyond the first substrate layer that allows the removable separator to be pulled out from between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been a matter of an engineering design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious since the claimed removable separator would not perform differently than the prior art removable separator of modified Yang.
Regarding claim 11, modified Yang discloses the claimed removable separator but does not explicitly disclose wherein the removable separator comprises a dissolvable material.
However, Simon does disclose wherein various types of locking elements can be employed with the coiled substrate including screws, pins, welding joint, adhesive elements or any other means (Simon at [0055]). In view of Simon, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locking element of modified Yang to comprise dissolvable material because Simon discloses that various types of locking elements can be employed with the coiled substrate including screws, pins, welding joint, adhesive or any other means (Simon at [0055]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said medication would have been the simple substitution of one known locking means for another for the predictable result of securing layers of coiled substrate, as disclosed by Simon ([0055]). Further, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yang discloses wherein the removable separator is configured to melt or fall out from between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer when exposed to a hot gas or liquid, electricity or high voltage, conductive heating, gas pressurization, ultraviolet lighting, or ultrasonic vibrations (e.g., from an ultrasonic bath) (the removable separator of modified Yang is structurally the same as the instant removable separator and thus considered separable from between the coil layers, when exposed to vibration, for example).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yang discloses wherein: the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer comprise sheets (Yang at FIGS. 1A-1C); and the locking element comprises one or more filaments spot welded or brazed to the surface edges of the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer (Simon at FIG. 4). Modified Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the sheets and filaments spot welded are metal. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the materials of the sheets and locking element of modified Yang with metal because doing so would have been the simple substitution of one known material for another.
Regarding claim 14, modified Yang discloses wherein the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer are wound in a coiled configuration (see Yang at FIG. 1A).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yang discloses wherein the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer are planar and non-coiled (see Yang at FIG. 1C).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Simon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Castillo (US 2018/0282678).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Modified Yang discloses the claimed removable separator but does not explicitly disclose wherein the removable separator is a continuous sheet that substantially covers the surface of the elongated substrate; or a plurality of strips positioned at predetermined intervals along a length or a width of the surface of the elongated substrate. Castillo discloses an elongated substrate wound in a coiled configuration to form coil layers of the elongated substrate (FIGS. 3A-3B: layer (10)) and a removable separator positioned on a surface of the elongated substrate to space apart the coil layers (FIGS: 3A-3B: spacer (11)). The removable separator is a continuous sheet that substantially covers the surface of the elongated substrate (see FIGS. 3A-3B). In view of Castillo, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of modified Yang with the apparatus of Castillo such that the removable separator is a continuous sheet that substantially covers the surface of the elongated substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of adequately separating the layers of the coiled substrate from one another.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Simon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hauden et al (already of record, US 2012/0115179; hereinafter “Hauden”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 1. a removable spool around which the elongated substrate is wound in the coiled configuration, wherein: the removable spool comprises a spool shape that includes a polygonal shape, a cylindrical shape, a conical shape, or a prismatic shape; and a shape of the elongated substrate wound in the coiled configuration corresponds to the spool shape. Hauden discloses an elongated substrate wound in a coiled configuration to form coil layers of the elongated substrate (FIG. 1A: substrate (30)), a removable separator positioned on a surface of the elongated substrate to space apart the coil layers (FIG. 1A: separator (140), and a removable spool (FIG. 1A: reel 80). In view of Hauden, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the spool of Hauden with the apparatus of modified Yang in order to provide the means for coiling the elongated substrate.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Castillo (2018/0282678).
Regarding claim 17, Yang discloses the bioreactor of claim 16. Yang further discloses a third substrate layer in the stacked configuration such that the third substrate layer is positioned on top of the second substrate layer and the first substrate layer (FIGS. 1B-1C: sheets (112,212)). Yang discloses the claimed removal separator but does not explicitly disclose wherein the removable separator continuously weaves between each of the first substrate layer, the second substrate layer, and the third substrate layer by extending out from between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer and folding back over on top of the second substrate layer to space apart the second substrate layer and the third substrate layer. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the removable separator of Yang such that the removable separator continuously weaves between each of the first substrate layer, the second substrate layer, and the third substrate layer by extending out from between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer and folding back over on top of the second substrate layer to space apart the second substrate layer and the third substrate layer, for the purpose of constructing a single removable separator that can be easily placed or removed between the coiled layers (for example, between layers of coiled substrate shown in FIG. 1B of Yang). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been a matter of an engineering design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious since the claimed removable separator would not perform differently than the prior art removable separator of Yang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIBAN M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7636. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 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 on 5712721374. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/LIBAN M HASSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights