DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 are pending in the present application.
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 statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Note on Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1 and 19, the claims recites the phrase “wherein engagement of the mounting element with the mount body is configured to draw the flange towards the exterior area of the vessel such that the flange conforms to a profile defined by the vessel” and “wherein securing the mounting element with the mount body forces the flange to conform to an interior surface of the vessel and provide a seal”, respectively.
According to the standard definition of the term “conform”, the term is defined as “to give the same shape, outline, or contour to”. The Examiner notes that while this may include a deformation, the definition applied to the phrase above does not require that the flange be deformable or flexible so as to match the profile of the vessel, rather only requires that it has the same shape as the profile defined by the vessel. Upon reviewing the specification, the Examiner believes that using the term “deforms” in place of “conforms” would directly require the flange to be flexible so as to deform to match the profile of the vessel as is shown in, e.g. Fig. 1A.
Therefore for the purpose of examination, the phrases above have been interpreted as “wherein engagement of the mounting element with the mount body is configured to draw the flange towards the exterior area of the vessel such that the flange has the same shape as a profile defined by the vessel” and “wherein securing the mounting element with the mount body forces the flange to have the same shape as an interior surface of the vessel and provide a seal” according to the standard definition of the term “conform”.
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.
(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, 2, 11, 13, 14, 19-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Erdenberger et al. (US PGPUB 20214/0349385 A1, hereinafter Erdenberger).
Regarding claim 1, Erdenberger teaches an adaptive sensor mount assembly for mounting a sensor to a vessel (see Fig. 32, adaptive sensor mount 2600 for mounting a sensor 64 to a vessel (bag) 32; see also [0239] and [0243], discussion of adaptive sensor mount 2600), the assembly comprising: a mount body (see Fig. 32, mount body 70) being configured to be attached to the vessel (see Fig. 32, mount body 70 configured to be mounted to vessel 32); a flange connected to the mount body (see Fig. 32, portion of the mount body 70 below the interior (lower) surface of the vessel 32 considered the flange of the mount body 70), the flange configured to be arranged within an interior area of the vessel (see Fig. 32, the flange of the mount body 70 as described is arranged on the interior of the vessel 32 as shown); a sensor assembly configured to be retained with the mount body (see Fig. 32 and [0243], sensor assembly 64 retained within the mount body 70); and a mounting element configured to engage with the mount body in an exterior area relative to the vessel (see Fig. 32 and [0243], mounting element 62 engages with the mount body 70 on the exterior area of the vessel 32 as shown and described), wherein engagement of the mounting element with the mount body is configured to draw the flange towards the exterior area of the vessel such that the flange conforms to a profile defined by the vessel (see [0243], engagement of the mounting element 62 draws the flange of the mount body 70 toward the exterior area of the vessel 32, wherein the flange of the mount body 70 is sealed against the vessel 32 and has the same shape as a profile of the vessel as shown (see Examiner Note above regarding the term “conform”)).
Regarding claim 2, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Erdenberger teaches that the mount body (70) includes an interior cavity and the sensor assembly is configured to be retained within the interior cavity of the mount body (see Fig. 32, sensor assembly 64 retained within the interior cavity of the mount body 70 as shown).
Regarding claim 11, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Erdenberger teaches that the sensor assembly comprises at least one of a capacitance sensor element, an optical sensor element, or a magnetic sensor element (see [0012], use of optical sensing described).
Regarding claim 13, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Erdenberger teaches that the mount body is formed via injection molding (see [0237], mount body and nuts formed of plastic and thus considered to include injection molded formation), and the flange is formed integrally with the mount body (see Fig. 32, mount body 70 includes integrated flange as shown).
Regarding claim 14, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Erdenberger teaches that the sensor assembly is positioned entirely outside of the interior area of the vessel (see [0246], sensor assembly may be flush with the wall of the container, thereby considered by the Examiner as being positioned entirely outside of the interior area of the vessel).
Regarding claim 19, Erdenberger teaches a method for securing an adaptive sensor mount assembly to a vessel (see Fig. 32, adaptive sensor mount 2600 for mounting a sensor 64 to a vessel (bag) 32; see also [0239] and [0243], discussion of adaptive sensor mount 2600 for mounting a sensor to a vessel), the method comprising: arranging a portion of a mount body inside of a vessel, the mount body including a flange on an axial end (see Fig. 32, portion of the mount body 70 below the interior (lower) surface of the vessel 32 considered the flange on the axial end of the mount body 70); securing a mounting element to the mount body in an exterior area relative to the vessel, wherein securing the mounting element with the mount body forces the flange to conform to an interior surface of the vessel and provide a seal (see [0243], mounting element 62 secured to the mount body 70 and draws the flange of the mount body 70 toward the exterior area of the vessel 32, wherein the flange of the mount body 70 is sealed against the vessel 32 and has the same shape as a profile of the vessel as shown (see Examiner Note above regarding the term “conform”)); and securing a sensor assembly to the mount body such that the sensor assembly is configured to detect materials within the vessel (see [0012] and [0243], sensor 64 secured to the mount body 70 and senses conditions within the vessel (bag)).
Regarding claim 20, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 19.
Furthermore, Erdenberger teaches that the mount body is formed via injection molding (see [0237], mount body and nuts formed of plastic and thus considered to include injection molded formation), and the flange is formed integrally with the mount body (see Fig. 32, mount body 70 includes integrated flange as shown).
Regarding claim 21, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 19.
Furthermore, Erdenberger teaches that the sensor assembly is positioned entirely outside of the interior area of the vessel (see [0246], sensor assembly may be flush with the wall of the container, thereby considered by the Examiner as being positioned entirely outside of the interior area of the vessel).
Regarding claim 23, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Erdenberger teaches that an axial end of the mount body directed toward the vessel covers the sensor assembly (see Fig. 32, the axial end of the mount body 70 directed towards the vessel (lower end) covers the sensor assembly 64 on the left and right sides).
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.
Claims 3-5, 9, 10, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdenberger.
Regarding claim 3, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Erdenberger above fails to specifically teach that the interior surface of the vessel is curved.
However, Erdenberger does teach that the vessel may be a flexible bag (see [0243]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the flexible bag vessel of Erdenberger would include curved surfaces which are flattened by the flange and mounting element when the sensor mount is assembled. This is because flexible bags are typically made of thin materials which form naturally curved surfaces as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Erdenberger above fails to specifically teach that an average thickness of the flange is 0.5 mm - 3.0 mm.
However, Erdenberger teaches that the vessel may be a bioreactor (see [0236]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the thickness of the flange of Erdenberger to be in the range of 0.5 mm to 3.0 mm. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the thickness of the flange so as to provide a balance between the security of the sensor mount and the overall weight of the sensor mount with the sensor installed so as to not risk tearing the bioreactor bag.
Regarding claim 5, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Erdenberger fails to specifically teach that the mount body includes a protrusion on an axial end that is configured to project within the interior area of the vessel and partially house the sensor assembly.
However, Erdenberger does teach that the sensor assembly may protrude into the vessel up 25 millimeters (see [0246]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the mount body of Erdenberger such that protrusions were provided extending into the vessel. This would allow for improved sensors stability within the vessel as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Erdenberger above fails to specifically teach a gasket arranged on an underside of the flange, the gasket being configured to provide a seal between the interior surface of the vessel and the underside of the flange.
However, Erdenberger does teach that an O-ring is arranged on an underside of the flange, the O-ring being configured to provide a seal between the interior surface of the vessel and the underside of the flange (see Fig. 32, O-ring 56 provides seal between the interior surface of the vessel 32 and the underside of the flange portion of mount body 70 as shown).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Erdenberger such that a gasket was provided rather than an O-ring. This is because it is well known in the art of making fluid tight seals that gaskets and O-rings provide similar fluid tight seals and thus would be considered for use.
Regarding claim 10, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Erdenberger above that the gasket is overmolded with the flange.
However, Erdenberger does teach that the O-ring (or gasket as modified above) is provided for sealing the mount body against the vessel (see [0239], O-ring 56 seals the mount body 70 against the vessel (bag) 32).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize an overmolded gasket in place of the O-ring of Erdenberger. This is because overmolded gaskets provide increased durability and environmental sealing as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Erdenberger above fails to specifically teach that the mount body and the flange are formed as two separate components, and the mount body and the flange are connected to each other via mating elements.
However, Erdenberger does teach an additional embodiment wherein the mount body and the flange are separate components (see Fig. 30, flange 70 and mount body 54 separate components as shown).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the assembly of Erdenberger such that the mount body and flange were formed as two separate components. This would allow for standardized flanges to be mounted to various forms of the mount body via mating elements such as glue or bonds. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04 (V-C).
Regarding claim 22, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 19.
Erdenberger above fails to specifically teach arranging a gasket on an underside of the flange.
However, Erdenberger does teach that an O-ring is arranged on an underside of the flange, the O-ring being configured to provide a seal between the interior surface of the vessel and the underside of the flange (see Fig. 32, O-ring 56 provides seal between the interior surface of the vessel 32 and the underside of the flange portion of mount body 70 as shown).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Erdenberger such that a gasket was provided rather than an O-ring. This is because it is well known in the art of making fluid tight seals that gaskets and O-rings provide similar fluid tight seals and thus would be considered for use.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdenberger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Allgauer et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0145818 A1, hereinafter Allgauer).
Regarding claim 6, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Erdenberger teaches that the mount body (70) includes external threading (52).
Erdenberger fails to specifically teach that the mount body includes internal threading and external threading.
Allgauer teaches a sensor mount assembly (see Fig. 5, all elements), including a mount body (314/315) that includes internal threading (324).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the mount body of Erdenberger such that internal threads were included as suggested by Allgauer. This allows for a sensor assembly to be releasably attached to the mount body as suggested by Allgauer (see [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Erdenberger as modified by Allgauer above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 6.
Furthermore, Erdenberger teaches that the mounting element is a nut that includes internal threading configured to engage with the external threading of the mount body (see Fig. 32 and [0243], nut 62 includes internal threading for engaging the external threads 52 on the mount body 70).
Regarding claim 8, Erdenberger as modified by Allgauer above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 6.
Erdenberger as modified by Allgauer above fails to specifically teach that the sensor assembly includes external threading configured to engage with the internal threading of the mount body.
However, Allgauer further teaches that the sensor assembly includes external threading (325) configured to engage with the internal threading (324) of the mount body (314/315).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the assembly of Erdenberger such that sensor assembly includes external threading to engage with the internal threads of the mount body as further suggested by Allgauer. This allows for a sensor assembly to be releasably attached to the mount body as suggested by Allgauer (see [0046]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdenberger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mahar et al. (WO 92/07344, hereinafter Mahar).
Regarding claim 12, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Erdenberger above fails to teach a sensor nut configured to engage with an external threading of the sensor assembly, the sensor nut being configured to axially abut an end of the mount body.
Mahar teaches a sensor mount assembly (see Fig. 1, sensor 10 mounted to a wall 22) including a mount body (20); wherein a sensor nut (38) configured to engage with an external threading of the sensor assembly (12), the sensor nut (38) being configured to axially abut an end of the mount body (20).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the assembly of Erdenberger with the sensor assembly threading and sensor nut of Mahar. This allow for the sensor assembly to be set to the user required depth and locked in place so that reliable and repeatable measurements may be made.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdenberger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Montie et al. (US Pat. No. 8,291,763 B1, hereinafter Montie).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Erdenberger above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Erdenberger above fails to teach that the mount body includes at least one flexible finger that is configured to retain the mount body within an opening of the vessel; OR wherein the mount body includes a plurality of axially extending grooves on a radially outer surface of the mount body.
Montie teaches a sensor mount assembly (see Fig. 2, sensor 17 and associated mount assembly 10), wherein the mount assembly includes a mount body (see Fig. 2, right base of mount assembly 10 considered the mount body), wherein the mount body includes at least one flexible finger that is configured to retain the mount body within an opening of a surface (see Fig. 2, mount body of 10 includes flexible fingers 11 that retain the mount body of 10 within an opening of a surface 16); and wherein the mount body includes a plurality of axially extending grooves on a radially outer surface of the mount body (see Fig. 2, axially extending grooves formed on the radially outer surface of the mount body 10 which thereby form the fingers 11).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Erdenberger with the flexible fingers or grooves on the mount body as suggested by Montie. This allows for quick mounting of a sensor to a surface without the use of additional hardware as described by Montie (see col. 2, lines 21-24).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, Erdenberger in view of Allgauer, Mahar, and Montie above represents the best art of record. However, Erdenberger in view of Allgauer, Mahar, and Montie above fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claim 18.
Specifically, Erdenberger in view of Allgauer, Mahar, and Montie above fails to teach that the mount body includes at least two prongs, and the flange includes at least two receptacles configured to mate with the at least two prongs.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claim 18 and the examiner can find no teachings for an adaptive sensor mount as claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights