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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (KR10-2023-0082362 – filed on 06/05/2023) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 06/04/2024 and 05/29/2026 have been reviewed and made of record.
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. Specifically, the claim limitation “a spectrometer detachable to a spectrometer” (claim 1 and claim 8) is unclear regarding how the spectrometer can be detachable to a spectrometer or whether this limitation imparts structure different from a spectrometer. Claims 2-7 and 9 are dependent on independent claims 1 and 8 and fail to cure the deficiencies, and therefore, are included in the rejection.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “longer than the detection region in an irradiation direction of the light” of claim 1 and 8 is unclear regarding the size or structure of the detection region. Specifically, the term “detection region in an irradiation direction of the light” fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the structural limitations present that determines the size of the flange. For examination purposes, if a flange contains one end that is significantly longer compared to the other end, this will be seen as meeting this claim limitation.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “heights of the both ends are the same as or higher than the center of the irradiation hole” is unclear regarding where the height of each end begins or ends. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as possessing a portion where each end is at the same height or higher than the irradiation hole.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “provided at a center in an axial direction of the bioreactor” of claim 8 is unclear regarding where the center in an axial direction starts in the bioreactor. For examination purposes, the claim limitation “center in an axial direction of the bioreactor” will be interpreted as along the radial side of the cylindrical tank.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “wherein the detection region is formed at a center in a diameter direction of the bioreactor” of claim 9 is unclear regarding where the diameter direction extends in the bioreactor. For examination purposes, if a detection region is formed within the cylindrical bioreactor tank, this will be seen as meeting the claim limitation.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster et al. (US 20230204421 A1) (referenced in IDS) in view of Kodama et al. (US 20210190677 A1) (referenced in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Webster et al. teaches cylindrical bioreactor (See annotated FIG. 1, element 10) for a spectrometer (FIG. 1, RAMAN Spectrometer – element 54) which iridates light through an irradiation unit (FIG. 1, light conveying device – element 50), and analyzes an analysis object based on characteristics of the light transmitting the analysis object in a detection region formed at a front side of the irradiation unit (“light source 52 is for exposing a cell culture within the bioreactor 10 to a beam of light. The light conveying device 50 is then configured to convey scattered light reflected off of the cell culture to the Raman spectrometer 54 for determining the concentration of one or more parameters within the bioreactor 10” – para. [0043]), the apparatus comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
640
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Webster et al. fails to teach the following limitations:
A housing (bioreactor – element 10) including an irradiation hole provided so that the light passes at the other end, including an opening, provided so that at least a part of the spectrometer is inserted at one end
A flange formed at the other end of the housing to be longer than the detection region in an irradiation direction of the light.
Regarding limitation I, Webster et al. fails to teach a housing (Annotated with an opening provided so that at least a part of the spectrometer is inserted at one end. Kodama et al. teaches sensor apparatus (element 1) comprising a sensor cover, wherein the cover is disposed on side wall surface (element 2a) (para. [0040]). Sensor is disposed of the interior of sensor apparatus (element 1), and a signal acquired by this sensor is transmitted to a measurement instrument main unit 4 (para. [0040]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Kodama et al.’s teaching of a sensor apparatus in Webster et al.’s bubble separating apparatus because the sensor apparatus (including a cover) enables a sensor to be disposed on the interior, allowing signals to be acquired and transmitted to a measurement instrument. This method of improving Webster et al.’s apparatus was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kodama et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kodama et al. and Webster et al. to obtain the invention specified in claim 1.
Regarding limitation II, Kodama et al. teaches a flange formed at the other end of the housing through flange portion (element 16). Specifically, Kodama et al. teaches that the flange portion is affixed to the outside of side wall surface 2a, which is formed at a slope relative to vertical (para. [0045]). Kodama et al. specifically teaches “Thus when sensor apparatus 1 is attached to the side wall surface 2a of fermenter 2, cover main body 14 projects diagonally downward on the inside of the container side wall. The angle at which cover main body 14 is attached is preferably set to both suppress the inflow of gas bubbles into cover main body 14 and to suppress the accumulation of solution near the cover main body 14 which leads to growth of miscellaneous bacteria” (para. [0045]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Kodama et al.’s teaching of a flange in Webster et al.’s bubble separating apparatus because the flange forms a slope relative to the vertical wall, suppressing the inflow of gas bubbles into cover main body and the accumulation of solution near the cover main body 14 (which leads to growth of miscellaneous bacteria). This method of improving Webster et al.’s apparatus was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kodama et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kodama et al. and Webster et al. to obtain the invention specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Webster et al. teaches the bubble separating apparatus of claim 1. Kodama et al. further teaches sensor apparatus (element 1) comprising sensor cover, wherein the housing is provided in a hollow cylindrical shape (See annotated FIG. 2 below) in which one end at which the irradiation hole is provided is closed, and the opening is opened (FIG. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
439
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Webster et al. teaches the bubble separating apparatus of claim 2. Kodama et al. further teaches that the housing further includes a cover opening and closing the opening (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 4, modified Webster et al. teaches the bubble separating apparatus of claim 2. Kodama et al. further teaches that flange present in the housing “suppress the inflow of gas bubbles into cover main body 14 and to suppress the accumulation of solution near the cover main body 14 which leads to growth of miscellaneous bacteria” (para. [0044 - 0045]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Webster et al. teaches the bubble separating apparatus of claim 1. Kodama et al. further teaches a flange has an arc shape (element 16 – arc shaped flange (circular)) in which both ends are formed to be symmetric to be positioned at both sides of the irradiation hole based on a central position provided on a virtual vertical line passing through a center of the irradiation hole in a radial direction (FIG. 3). Furthermore, the combination of references (Webster et al. and Kodama et al.) would encompass a structure where each end is at the same height or higher than the center of the irradiation hole. Therefore, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 6, modified Webster et al. teaches the bubble separating apparatus of claim 1. Kodama et al. further teaches a flange, both ends are formed to be symmetric to be positioned at both sides of the irradiation hole based on a bending portion provided on a virtual vertical line passing through a center of the irradiation hole in a radial direction (FIG. 2 and FIG. 3). Furthermore, the combination of references (Webster et al. and Kodama et al.) would encompass a structure where each end is at the same height or higher than the center of the irradiation hole. Therefore, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 7, modified Webster et al. teaches the bubble separating apparatus of claim 6. Kodama et al. further teaches a flange further including a curved portion present (See element 16 of FIG. 2, wherein the flange curves to the irradiation hole between the bending portion and the both ends.
Regarding claim 8, Webster et al. teaches a cylindrical bioreactor (See annotated FIG. 1 in claim 1 rejection, element 10) for a spectrometer (FIG. 1, RAMAN Spectrometer – element 54) which iridates light through an irradiation unit (FIG. 1, light conveying device – element 50), and analyzes an analysis object based on characteristics of the light transmitting the analysis object in a detection region formed at a front side of the irradiation unit (“light source 52 is for exposing a cell culture within the bioreactor 10 to a beam of light. The light conveying device 50 is then configured to convey scattered light reflected off of the cell culture to the Raman spectrometer 54 for determining the concentration of one or more parameters within the bioreactor 10” – para. [0043]), the apparatus comprising:
the bioreactor further includes a gas inlet with a cylindrical shape (element 20 – sparger), having an internal space for accommodating the analysis object and a fluid medium therein (bioreactor – element 10), and provided on a bottom surface of the internal space and supplying gas to the internal space (element 20 – sparger)
Webster et al. fails to teach the following limitations:
A housing (bioreactor – element 10) including an irradiation hole provided so that the light passes at the other end, including an opening, provided so that at least a part of the spectrometer is inserted at one end
A flange formed at the other end of the housing to be longer than the detection region in an irradiation direction of the light.
A spectrometer insertion port provided at a center in an axial direction of the bioreactor, to which the spectrometer to which the bubble separating apparatus for a spectrometer is coupled is attached and detached.
Regarding limitation I, Webster et al. fails to teach a housing (Annotated with an opening provided so that at least a part of the spectrometer is inserted at one end. Kodama et al. teaches sensor apparatus (element 1) comprising a sensor cover, wherein the cover is disposed on side wall surface (element 2a) (para. [0040]). Sensor is disposed of the interior of sensor apparatus (element 1), and a signal acquired by this sensor is transmitted to a measurement instrument main unit 4 (para. [0040]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Kodama et al.’s teaching of a sensor apparatus in Webster et al.’s bubble separating apparatus because the sensor apparatus (including a cover) enables a sensor to be disposed on the interior, allowing signals to be acquired and transmitted to a measurement instrument. This method of improving Webster et al.’s apparatus was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kodama et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kodama et al. and Webster et al. to obtain the invention specified in claim 8.
Regarding limitation II, Kodama et al. teaches a flange formed at the other end of the housing through flange portion (element 16). Specifically, Kodama et al. teaches that the flange portion is affixed to the outside of side wall surface 2a, which is formed at a slope relative to vertical (para. [0045]). Kodama et al. specifically teaches “Thus when sensor apparatus 1 is attached to the side wall surface 2a of fermenter 2, cover main body 14 projects diagonally downward on the inside of the container side wall. The angle at which cover main body 14 is attached is preferably set to both suppress the inflow of gas bubbles into cover main body 14 and to suppress the accumulation of solution near the cover main body 14 which leads to growth of miscellaneous bacteria” (para. [0045]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Kodama et al.’s teaching of a flange in Webster et al.’s bubble separating apparatus because the flange forms a slope relative to the vertical wall, suppressing the inflow of gas bubbles into cover main body and the accumulation of solution near the cover main body 14 (which leads to growth of miscellaneous bacteria). This method of improving Webster et al.’s apparatus was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kodama et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kodama et al. and Webster et al. to obtain the invention specified in claim 8.
Regarding limitation III, Kodama et al. teaches sensor apparatus (element 1) comprising a sensor cover, wherein the cover is disposed on side wall surface (element 2a) (para. [0040]). Sensor is disposed of the interior of sensor apparatus (element 1) (structurally acting as a spectrometer insertion port provided at a center in an axial direction of the bioreactor), and a signal acquired by this sensor is transmitted to a measurement instrument main unit 4 (para. [0040]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Kodama et al.’s teaching of a sensor apparatus in Webster et al.’s bubble separating apparatus because the sensor apparatus (including a cover) enables a sensor to be disposed on the interior, allowing signals to be acquired and transmitted to a measurement instrument. This method of improving Webster et al.’s apparatus was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kodama et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kodama et al. and Webster et al. to obtain the invention specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, modified Webster et al. teaches the bioreactor of claim 8. Furthermore, Webster et al. teaches “light source 52 in accordance with the present disclosure can emit a coherent light beam having a controlled wavelength or wavelength range. The light source 52, for instance, may comprise a laser, a light emitting diode, or possibly a filament bulb in conjunction with various filters” (para. [0044]), as the light source 52 can optionally be coupled with one or more lenses, beam splitters, diffraction gratings, polarization filters, band pass filters, or other optical elements selected for illuminating the sample within the bioreactor in a desired manner (para. [0045]). Webster et al. specifically teaches emitting a beam of light onto the cell culture contained within the bioreactor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIUS FRANCIS YOH whose telephone number is (571)272-3489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-5 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.
/JULIUS FRANCIS YOH/Examiner, Art Unit 1799 /William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights