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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges applicant remarks filed 07/22/2026. Claims 10-13, 15-16, and 24-32 are pending. Claims 10-13, 15-16, and 24-31 have been amended. Claim 32 is newly added.
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. and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0348768 to Weber 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 are positioned to surround 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.
As to the new limitation in claim 1 that recite that the first seal and the second seal comprise different cross-sectional profiles, Weber et al. teaches a sealing system for an over cavity in which gasket (seal) 18 and gasket (seal) 20 have different cross-sectional profiles as shown in Fig. 6 in which the seals comprises different cross-sectional profiles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. to include first and second seals that have different cross-sectional profiles as taught by Weber et al. as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (See MPEP 2143(I)(B))
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. and Weber et al. renders all the elements of claim 10 obvious.
Therefore, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. and Weber et ai renders claim 10 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. and Weber 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. and Weber 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. and Weber et al. renders claim 11 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. and Weber 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.
Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. and Weber et al. does not teach that the second seal is 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. and Weber 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. and Weber et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. and Weber 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. and Weber 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. and Weber et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. and Weber 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. and Weber et al. renders claim 15 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above, Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. and Weber 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. and Weber et al. renders claim 16 obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-32 are allowed.
The prior art of record does not teach support elements in combination with the laboratory temperature control device recited in claim 24 together with at least one of the spacer elements has a first connecting portion that comprises a sliding fastening mechanism configured to tolerate sliding movement.
Claims 25-32 depend from claim 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 concerning claims 10-13, 15 and 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Atkin et al. does not disclose "wherein the outer door, the chamber front wall, the first seal, and the second seal collectively enclose a space, wherein the space is not in contact with the housing.”
The bottom of Fig. 4 of Atkin et al. is referenced above in the rejection of claim 10.
At the bottom of Fig. 4 of Atkin et al. sealing elements are illustrated that are below flange 46 that is interpreted as being the chamber front wall similar to applicant’s chamber front wall3a in Fig. 2a that is a separate element than the housing 2.
By positioning seals in Atkin et al. in view of Gilkerson et al. and Weber et al. to surround 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. the outer door, the chamber front wall, the first seal, and the second seal collectively would enclose a space, wherein the space is not in contact with the housing.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10-13, 15 and 16 in regard to the first and second seals having different cross-sectional profiles are considered but are moot because the new prior art reference to Weber et al. as been relied upon as teaching this limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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