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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/27/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/27/2026. Claims 10-13, 15, 16 and 24-31 are pending. Claims 17-23 are canceled. Claims 24-31 are newly added.
The previous indication that the subject matter of claim 17 was directed to allowable subject matter has been withdrawn upon further review and consideration of Fig. 1 of Atkin et al. as noted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
1. Claims 10-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkin et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0032573 to Gilkerson et al.
Atkin et al. teaches a controlled atmosphere incubator that includes an outer housing made up of outer walls 11 defining an interior space and a temperature controlled chamber 13 in the housing and surrounded by inner walls 12. (See Fig. 2).
Further, Atkin et al. teaches that “when the door is closed, it is suitable sealed about its periphery to the housing walls,” and teaches a gasket 53 that seals the outer door when closed and in at the bottom of Fig. 4 shows that gasket 53 is positioned where it separates the housing front wall from the chamber from wall.
Atkin et al. does not teach a second seal that in the closed state of the outer door abuts the first seal and surrounds the chamber opening with the second seal in the closed state of the outer door ensuring uninterrupted circumferential contact with the first seal to enclose a space that is not in contact with the housing.
Gilkerson et al. teaches that it is known to use first and second seals 107a and 107b that, as shown in Fig. 2 are aligned so that they have uninterrupted circumferential contact with one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Atkin et al. to use first and second seals that are aligned to have uninterrupted circumferential contact with one another as taught by Gilkerson et al. as a known alternative to a sealing arrangement.
It would further have been obvious to modify Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. to position the seals so that they surround the and seal chamber opening and separate the housing front wall from the chamber from wall as shown in the position of the seal at the bottom of Fig. 4 of Atkin et al. as a matter of design choice.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. renders all the elements of claim 10 obvious.
Therefore, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. renders claim 10 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that the first seal comprises a minimum material thickness which, measured perpendicular to the front wall of the housing, is less than the gap width of the gap between the housing front wall and the chamber front wall.
Atkin et al. teaches that “when the door is closed, it is suitable sealed about its periphery to the housing walls,” [003] and teaches a gasket 53 that seals the outer door when closed and a gasket 47 which seals the inner door when closed. Sealing both doors in Atkin et al. provides for both temperature and atmosphere control in the inner chamber.
Providing Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. with a seal of any suitable size including a seal having a minimum material thickness which, measured perpendicular to the front wall of the housing, is less than the gap width of the gap between the housing front wall and the chamber front wall would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date.
Therefore, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. renders claim 11 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. renders claim 10 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that the second seal in the closed position of the outer door also abuts the front wall of the housing.
In Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before applicant’s effective filing date to provide either of the seals with a width that would ensure sealing between either seal and the opposing structure, including the front wall of the housing, for purposes of ensuring sealing if the opposing seal becomes misaligned or damaged.
Therefore, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. renders claim 10 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the second seal separates a heated inner side of the outer door from the outer wall of the outer door.
When the inner chamber of Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. is at a temperature above the ambient temperature the second seal as provided above would separate a heated inner side of the outer door from the outer wall of the outer door.
Therefore, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. renders claim 10 obvious from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that the laboratory temperature control device is an incubator, in particular a CO2 incubator for cell cultures.
Atkin et al. teaches an incubator that is provided with a controlled CO2 atmosphere in the inner chamber.
Therefore Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. renders claim 15 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. renders claim 15 obvious from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the laboratory temperature control device is a CO2 incubator.
Claim 16 does not add any structural elements to claims 10 or 15 and is not afforded patentable weight.
Therefore Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. render claim 16 obvious.
2. Claims 24-26, 28, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkin et al. in view of French Patent Application Publication No. FR705807 to Hoch and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0255879 to Paprocki et al.
Atkin et al. teaches a controlled atmosphere incubator that includes an outer housing made up of outer walls 11 defining an interior space and a temperature controlled chamber 13 in the housing and surrounded by inner walls 12. (See Fig. 2). As shown in Fig. 1 Atkin et al. includes a chamber opening in the chamber front wall.
Atkin et al. does not teach spacer elements between the housing and the chamber, the spacer elements having a thermal conductivity of less than 15W/make
Horch teaches the use of spacer elements 14 between an inner chamber 1 that is temperature controlled and is surrounded by an outer housing 2 (See Figs. 1 and 2). The spacer elements are shown as having one end/side (connector portion) that is connected to the inner chamber and one end/side that is connected to the outer housing. Horch further teaches insulating supports (“spacer elements”) which can be used at the at the base and sidewalls. Horch further teaches that support pieces (“spacer elements”) 14 are made of Zores iron or supports (wide-winged iron) are provided to support the walls of the containers and the bottoms inside the chamber 13. The support pieces of Horch have connecting portions where they are in contact with the sides of the inner chamber and outer housing based upon being in fixed positions between the inner chamber and the outer housing. Providing one or more of the spacer elements of Horch at the back of the inner chamber to maintain the position of the inner chamber would provide a spacer element with a main plane that is arranged parallel to the chamber front wall.
With regard to the limitation in claim 1 that the spacer elements are “plate-shaped,” it is noted that applicant discloses that: the spacer element is “formed by a plate-shaped component with approximately the contour of an isosceles triangle” (and a blunt peak as shown in Fig. 5i).
Support pieces 14 of Horch include a base and angled sides that are similar to the shape of an isosceles triangle:
PNG
media_image1.png
172
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and are readable on applicant’s disclosed “plate-shaped” spacer elements.
The spacer elements of Horch include at least one recess and/or at least on cavity as shown in Figs. 1 and 2
Paprocki et al. teaches a heater apparatus that uses a support sleeve 10 and annular supports 50 that can be made from PEEK [0054], [0068] to minimize heat transfer and minimize heat conduction [0059], [0020]. Paprocki et al. teaches that PEEK exhibits excellent mechanical and chemical resistance properties which are retained at high temperatures. [0059]
Regarding applicant’s claim 1, claim 1 recites a laboratory temperature control device, that includes a housing with a housing interior surrounded by at least one housing wall, a temperature-controlled chamber arranged in the housing with a chamber interior surrounded by at least one chamber wall for receiving the laboratory samples, and a plurality of spacer elements, wherein a spacer element comprises at least one first connecting portion by means of which the spacer element and the housing are connected and comprises at least one second connecting portion spaced from the first connecting portion by means of which the spacer element and the chamber are connected so that the chamber is held spaced from the housing by means of the spacer elements, wherein the spacer elements are each formed using a material having a thermal conductivity of less than 15 W/mK.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify the control device of Atkin et al. to provide spacer elements between the outer housing and inner chamber 13 of Atkin et al. as taught by Horch to support and secure the position of the inner chamber relative to the outer housing. Fastening first and second connecting portions on opposite sides of the spacer elements to the housing and chamber for purposes of keeping the spacer elements and chamber in position would have been obvious.
In Fig. 1 Atkin et al. shows that the front wall of the chamber is flush with the front wall of the housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide Atkin et al. with one or more flat spacer elements connected the front wall of the housing and the chamber front wall for purposes of securing the position of the inner chamber relative to the outer housing.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify the modified apparatus of Atkin to use spacer elements made from a known support material that minimizes heat conduction and transfer such as PEEK as taught by Paprocki et al. to prevent or limit heat transfer through the spacer elements. Note PEEK is disclosed by applicant has having being proven to be particularly suitable for a thermal conductivity of less than 2 W/mk on page 3, lines 19-32 of applicant’s specification.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 24, as noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 24.
Therefore, Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders claim 24 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 25, as noted above Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders claim 24 obvious from which claim 25 depends.
Claim 25 recites that at least one of the spacer elements comprises a high-performance plastic which tolerates operating temperatures of 180 °C.
As noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. includes spacer elements that are made from PEEK.
Therefore, Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders claim 25 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 26, as noted above Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders claim 25 obvious from which claim 26 depends.
Claim 26 recites that the high-performance plastic is polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) or polyethertherketone (PEEK).
As noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. includes spacer elements that are made from PEEK.
Therefore, Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders claim 26 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 28, as noted above Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders claim 24 obvious from which claim 28 depends.
Claim 28 recites that at least one spacer element comprises a plurality of web-shaped sections.
As shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of Horch, the spacer elements appear to have at least two legs that are connected by a web-shaped structure.
Therefore, Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders claim 28 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 30, as noted above Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders claim 24 obvious from which claim 30 depends.
Claim 30 recites that the temperature control device is an incubator for cell cultures.
As noted above, Atkin et al. teaches an incubator that is provided with a controlled CO2 atmosphere in the inner chamber.
Therefore, Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders claim 30 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 31, as noted above Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders claim 30 obvious from which claim 31 depends.
Claim 31 recites that the temperature control device is a C02 incubator.
As noted above, Atkin et al. teaches an incubator that is provided with a controlled CO2 atmosphere in the inner chamber.
Therefore, Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders claim 31 obvious.
3. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of “Fibre-Reinforced Plastic” (Wikipedia 12/02/2016)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 27, as noted above Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders claim 24 obvious from which claim 27 depends.
Claim 27 recites that the high-performance plastic comprises fiber additives for mechanical reinforcement.
“Fibre-Reinforced Plastic” teaches that the use of fiber reinforcement for plastic materials is well known.
It would have been obvious to add fibers to the PEEK thermoplastic polymer from which to make the spacer elements in Atkin et al. as modified in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. would have been obvious to reinforce and strengthen the spacer elements by adding reinforcing fibers as taught by Fibre-Reinforced Plastics to improve the strength of the spacer elements.
Therefore, Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. and Fibre-Reinforced Plastics renders claim 27 obvious.
4. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Gilkerson et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 29, as noted above, over Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. renders obvious claim 24 from which claim 29 depends.
Claim 29 recites that the housing comprises a housing front wall and the chamber comprises a chamber front wall, wherein the housing front wall and the chamber front wall are separated from each other by a first seal which surrounds the chamber opening, and wherein an outer door of the housing comprises an inner side with a second seal which, when the outer door is closed, abuts the first seal and surrounds the chamber opening.
Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. does not teach that the housing comprises a housing front wall and the chamber comprises a chamber front wall, wherein the housing front wall and the chamber front wall are separated from each other by a first seal which surrounds the chamber opening, and wherein an outer door of the housing comprises an inner side with a second seal which, when the outer door is closed, abuts the first seal and surrounds the chamber opening.
As noted above, Atkin et al. teaches that “when the door is closed, it is suitable sealed about its periphery to the housing walls,” and teaches a gasket 53 that seals the outer door when closed and in at the bottom of Fig. 4 shows that gasket 53 is positioned where it separates the housing front wall from the chamber from wall.
Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. does not teach a second seal that in the closed state of the outer door abuts the first seal and surrounds the chamber opening with the second seal in the closed state of the outer door ensuring uninterrupted circumferential contact with the first seal to enclose a space that is not in contact with the housing.
Gilkerson et al. teaches that it is known to use first and second seals 107a and 107b that, as shown in Fig. 2 are aligned so that they have uninterrupted circumferential contact with one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Atkin et al. in view of Horch and Paprocki et al. to use first and second seals that are aligned to have uninterrupted circumferential contact with one another as taught by Gilkerson et al. as a known alternative to a sealing arrangement.
It would further have been obvious to modify Atkin et al. in view of Horch, Paprocki et al. and Gilkerson et al. to position the seals so that they surround the and seal chamber opening and separate the housing front wall from the chamber from wall as shown in the position of the seal at the bottom of Fig. 4 of Atkin et al. as a matter of design choice.
Therefore, modify Atkin et al. in view of Horch, Paprocki et al. and Gilkerson et al. renders claim 29 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10-16 and 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection that relies upon Gilkerson et al. as necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
As for claims 24-28, 30 and 31, a review of Fig. 1 of Arkin et al. indicates that the front wall of the chamber is flush with the front wall of the housing, rendering it obvious provide Atkin et al. with one or more flat spacer elements connected the front wall of the housing and the chamber front wall for purposes of securing the position of the inner chamber relative to the outer housing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights