DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/30/24, 5/28/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, it is unclear whether or not a culture chamber as recited in line 2 is required in order to define the culture apparatus of the preamble. Because the preamble recites a culture apparatus, but there is no actual culture device that is positively recited in the claim body, then a potential infringer would find it unclear as to whether or not a culture apparatus, such as a culture chamber, was actually required. Since the function of the vaporizer is with respect to the culture chamber, then the examiner believes applicants are intending to define the culture chamber.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what a water-droplet passage prevention mechanism is attempting to describe. First, the “mechanism” is not tied to a function (ex: “for…”) and therefore is not interpreted under 112(f). However, because the terminology is not defining a structure that would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art, then it is unclear what would or would not be required by this mechanism.
Claims 2-12 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, it is unclear if applicants are attempting to claim the culture chamber or not because the culture chamber appears to be a function of the culture apparatus and is not positively recited. Applicants do not positively recite the culture chamber, and the culture apparatus is configured and structured with respect to the culture chamber. Therefore, references to the culture chamber are directed to intended use of the culture apparatus. However, claims 7 and 8 then attempt to limit the culture chamber by relating it to the heater/culture apparatus. The problem is that the relationship of the culture chamber and the culture apparatus is defined in terms of the relationship between the culture apparatus and the unclaimed culture chamber when in use. This is indefinite as it is unclear how this is meant to further define the culture apparatus and it is unclear how this is met given a culture apparatus alone (without including the culture chamber). The fact is, with such a recitation, a given culture apparatus that meets the other limitations could meet the limitations of the claim when used with a culture chamber and fail to meet the limitations of the claim when used without a culture chamber. As such, given any culture apparatus alone, it is unclear whether the limitations of the claim would be met and it is unclear how to determine whether or not the limitation is met. In summary, because the culture chamber is not positively recited, then it is unclear what limitations the relationship of the culture chamber is attempting to define with respect to the culture apparatus. Please clarify which structures are required in the claim. Claim 12 is also rejected similarly as it relates features of the door to the unclaimed culture chamber.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Nishimura et al (US 20160215252; hereinafter “Nishimura”).
As to claim 1, Nishimura teaches a culture apparatus (Nishimura; Title, abstract), comprising: a vaporizer that vaporizes water to supply vapor to a culture chamber, the water being dropped into the vaporizer (Nishimura teaches a vaporizer 5 that generates steam from water, where water is placed into the device via pipe 44; Fig. 1, [41-42]); and a heater that heats the vaporizer (Nishimura teaches a heater 43 that heats the water to generate steam, where steam cannot be generated from water without heat; [41-45, 53]), wherein the vaporizer includes a water-droplet passage prevention mechanism between an upstream region and a downstream region, the upstream region being a region in which an inlet for the water and a bottom surface are present, the downstream region being a region in which an outlet for the vapor is present, the bottom surface being a surface with which the water comes into contact (Nishimura teaches the bottom surface 42 of the upstream region holding water, and also teaches downstream region where steam is generated from outlet hole 5B or outlet along 47/48; Fig. 1, [41-50]. Nishimura teaches a prevention mechanism as the vertical wall upwards above the water 42, or of the wall forming 5B, or of the bottom wall forming 4E along 47/48; Fig. 1).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the water-droplet passage prevention mechanism includes a wall surface that rises from the bottom surface at a boundary between the upstream region and the downstream region (Nishimura teaches a prevention mechanism as the vertical wall upwards above the water 42, or of the wall forming 5B, or of the bottom wall forming 4E along 47/48; Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the vaporizer includes, in the downstream region, a second bottom surface that continues from an upper end of the wall surface (Nishimura teaches a prevention mechanism as the vertical wall upwards above the water 42, or of the wall forming 5B, or of the bottom wall forming 4E along 47/48; Fig. 1. Nishimura teaches that the bottom surface as the bottom of 4E continues from an upper end of the vertical wall above 42; Fig. 1).
As to claim 4, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the water-droplet passage prevention mechanism includes a screen that includes the wall surface (Nishimura teaches a prevention mechanism as the vertical wall upwards above the water 42, or of the wall forming 5B, or of the bottom wall forming 4E along 47/48; Fig. 1. Nishimura teaches a screen 45 or 48 along the wall; Fig. 1).
As to claim 5, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the water-droplet passage prevention mechanism includes a mesh member disposed at a boundary between the upstream region and the downstream region (Nishimura teaches a prevention mechanism as the vertical wall upwards above the water 42, or of the wall forming 5B, or of the bottom wall forming 4E along 47/48; Fig. 1. Nishimura teaches a screen 45 or 48 along the wall; Fig. 1).
As to claim 6, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the heater is disposed in a position, the position being at a height substantially identical to a height of the bottom surface and on a lateral side of the bottom surface (Nishimura teaches the heater 43 disposed at a height that is substantially identical to the bottom surface; Fig. 1).
As to claim 8, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an inner box that surrounds the culture chamber; and a nozzle member that is fixed to the inner box and includes a vapor discharging port which is a downstream end of a vapor passage connected from the outlet (Nishimura teaches that the culture chamber is surrounded by an inner box, and a nozzle/vapor discharging port 37A on the inner box; Fig. 1).
As to claim 9, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the vapor discharging port has a diameter larger than a diameter of the outlet (Nishimura teaches that the culture chamber is surrounded by an inner box, and a nozzle/vapor discharging port 37A on the inner box; Fig. 1. The outlet is the region of space of 5B or somewhere along line 4E, and the vapor discharge port 37A is larger than all of these structures; Fig. 1)
As to claim 10, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the heater is disposed away from the inner box (Nishimura teaches the heater 43 is outside/away of the inner box; Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al (US 20160215252; hereinafter “Nishimura”) in view of Busujima et al (US 20120083030; hereinafter “Busujima”).
As to claim 6, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the heater is disposed in a position, the position being at a height substantially identical to a height of the bottom surface and on a lateral side of the bottom surface (Nishimura teaches the heater 43 disposed at a height that is substantially identical to the bottom surface; Fig. 1, [53]).
If it is deemed that Nishimura does not specifically teach the heater near in height to the bottom surface, then Busujima teaches the analogous art of a water chamber for generating steam for a culture device with a heater on the bottom surface (Busujima teaches heater 192 on lateral side of bottom; Fig. 1, 3, 4, [41]). However, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the heater of Nishimura to be on lateral of the bottom surface as in Busujima because Busujima teaches that it is known for heaters to be positioned in this manner (Busujima; Fig. 1, 3, 4, [41]), and also since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.'
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al (US 20160215252; hereinafter “Nishimura”) in view of Kawasaki et al (US 20230132065; hereinafter “Kawasaki”).
As to claim 7, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 1 (see above).
Nishimura does not specifically teach the heater has a rod-like shape, and a leading end of the heater is located closer to the culture chamber than the outlet. However, Kawasaki teaches the analogous art of an incubator (Kawasaki; Fig. 1) with a heater with a rod-like shape and a leading end of the heater is located closer to the culture chamber than the outlet (Kawasaki teaches a rod where the rod end 63b/a is closer on the right to the chamber than the outlet; Fig. 1, 4, 5, [36, 39]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the heater of Nishimura to be a rod as in Kawasaki because Kawasaki teaches that it is known to generate heat in an incubator with a rod-like heater (Kawasaki; Fig. 4, 5, [36, 39]). Additionally, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the heater of Nishimura to be anywhere in the vaporizer, including closer to the culture chamber since this would accomplish the same function as heating and to capture heat from the vaporizer and use it for heating the incubation chamber since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.'
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al (US 20160215252; hereinafter “Nishimura”) in view of Okusa et al (US 20120220026; hereinafter “Okusa”).
As to claim 11, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 1 (see above).
Nishimura does not specifically teach a temperature sensor disposed immediately below the bottom surface, wherein the heater is configured such that a heat value of the heater changes based on a detection result of the temperature sensor. However, Okusa teaches the analogous art of humidity regulation device (Okusa; abstract, [2]) with a temperature sensor disposed immediately below the bottom surface, wherein the heater is configured such that a heat value of the heater changes based on a detection result of the temperature sensor (Okusa teaches a temperature sensor 24 on the bottom surface such that the temperature sensor is used to control the heater; Fig. 1, [27, 49-51]. Okusa also teaches temperature sensor 23 which controls the heater; [49]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the heater and the bottom surface of Nishimura to have included a temperature sensor that controls the heater as in Okusa because Okusa teaches that the temperature sensor helps to ensure that the heater remains at the proper temperature (Okusa; [49, 51]). Additionally, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the temperature sensor of modified Nishimura to be anywhere in the vaporizer chamber, including on the bottom surface, since this would help to control the heater and would ensure that the air in the entire portion of the vaporizer was at least the temperature at the sensor since hot air rises, and also since rearranging the sensor anywhere in the vaporizer would accomplish the same function as sensing temperature in order to control it since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.'
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al (US 20160215252; hereinafter “Nishimura”) in view of Takahashi et al (Translation of JP 2021078437; hereinafter “Takahashi”).
As to claim 12, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 1 (see above).
Nishimura does not specifically teach a door for opening and closing the culture chamber; a pump that supplies the water to the inlet; and a control apparatus that operates the pump provided that the door is closed.
However, Takahashi teaches the analogous art of an incubator with a door for opening and closing the culture chamber; a pump that supplies the water to the inlet; and a control apparatus that operates the pump provided that the door is closed (Takahashi teaches a door 3a with a switch Sd that detects when door is closed, and a pump 36a for water, and a control 100; [45, 47], Fig. 1-3. See also Takahashi; [14, 25-34, 40-52]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the culture device of Nishimura to have included a water pump and door because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that water needed to be input somehow and also because samples would need to be accessed somehow, and also because Takahashi teaches that using a door switch is common (Takahashi; [45]) and that controlling the pump helps to keep the humidity at the set level (Takahashi; [47]).
Claim 12 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al (US 20160215252; hereinafter “Nishimura”) in view of Yuan et al (Translation of CN 111334423; hereinafter “Yuan”).
As to claim 12, Nishimura teaches the culture apparatus according to claim 1 (see above).
Nishimura does not specifically teach a door for opening and closing the culture chamber; a pump that supplies the water to the inlet; and a control apparatus that operates the pump provided that the door is closed.
However, Yuan teaches the analogous art of an incubator with a door for opening and closing the culture chamber; a pump that supplies the water to the inlet; and a control apparatus that operates the pump provided that the door is closed (Yuan teaches a door 4 where the steam generator 12 is operated with the door shut; [40]. Yuan teaches a controller; [39]. Yuan teaches that the pump 14 is operated to generate steam; [9, 34]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the culture device of Nishimura to have included a water pump and door because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that water needed to be input somehow and also because samples would need to be accessed somehow, and also because Yuan teaches that operating the steam once the door is closed is common (Yuan; [40]).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Tabata et al (US 20240240134; hereinafter “Tabata”) teaches a culture chamber through which water at 147 is heated and sent through filters into chamber; Fig. 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
