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 .
Election/Restrictions
Previously withdrawn, non-elected claims 9-15 that have not been previously considered/examined remain withdrawn for reasons previously stated in the prior Office Actions. Furthermore, it is noted that the claims are improper mulitiple dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims have not been amended to overcome all of the prior 112 rejections. The claims remain replete with awkward, vague, ambiguous and confusing language. See further remarks and rejections herein.
As to applicant’s remarks (in the prior filed response) directed to the absence of section headings and formatting of the application, while the guidelines are not mandatory, it is suggested that the applicant employ such US guidelines and formatting.
It appears that applicant’s remarks attempts to indicate where prior amendments are described in the original specification. However, the remarks do not provide for where each of the most recent claim amendments and new claims 16-20 are described in the specification. The examiner fails to locate any description of “a selection of thermal cycler model…” as recited in new claim 18. This appears to be new matter. Therefore, it is hereby requested that applicant provide for where each of the amendments/new claims are described in the specification.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: There is no description of “a selection of thermal cycler model…” as recited in new claim 18.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements/steps, the structural elements/steps listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
It is noted that the clause “for controlling…” recited in line 1 of the preamble of claim 1 is directed to the purpose of the method and does not provide for any steps of the method. The method is considered as being defined by the steps listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, comprising.
It is noted that although the claims mention a broad thermal cycler that has not been structurally defined. Such thermal cycler is not required to be used to perform each of the steps of claim 1.
It is noted that claim 1 initially recites “the method comprising steps for…” and the afterwards recites the phase “comprising the steps of:” It is noted that that it presumed that each step listed (should be listed on separate indented lines) after the phrase, “the method comprising…” is presumed to be steps required to define the method. Therefore, the phrase “the method comprising the steps of:” appears to be redundant and unnecessary.
It is noted that the phrases “is used as” as recited in next-to-last passage of claim 2 do not provide for any definitive further steps of the method.
As to claims 5, it is noted that the term “information” is broad and is not directed to any specific information.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of an evaluation program” and “by means of the control parameter…”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The examiner fails to locate any description of new claim 18. See Response to Arguments above. .
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 1-2, 5, and 15-20 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The claims are replete with awkward, vague, ambiguous, and confusing language such the scope of the claims are unclear. It is noted that the examiner has attempted to indicate issues of the claims. However, it is requested that 1applicant correct any issues inadvertently omitted by the examiner.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the temperature of the thermal block" and “the temperature at the thermal block” in first paragraph beginning with “the thermal cycler comprising”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is presume that the thermal block refers to the sample receiving thermal block. However, there is no prior mention of any temperature of nor at the sample-receiving thermal block. Furthermore, It is unclear if such temperatures are intended be the same or different. If the same, consistent terminology should be employed throughout the claims.
It is noted that the first paragraph of claim 1 does not define the method, provide for any method steps required to be performed. It appears as if the paragraph is intended to be directed to defining the structure of a thermal cycler that is intended to be employed in the method steps, but the paragraph does not recite how the thermal cycler (or components of the thermal cycler) are employed to perform each of the recited steps. The clause “for tempering a sample-receiving thermal block…” does not provide for a step of the method, but is directed to intended use. Furthermore, it applicant intends for a specific thermal cycler comprising specific elements to be employed to perform the method steps, then the claim should clearly recite all of such structural elements and then subsequently recite/list steps providing for how the elements of the thermal cycler are employed in the steps intended to actually define the method. For example,
the thermal cycler comprising:
the tempering device...;
a sample-receiving thermal block…including a temperature measurement device; and
an electronic device comprising a data processing device that….
It is noted that as presently drafted, the first paragraph does not require the thermal cycler to comprise a sample-receiving thermal block.
Furthermore, it is noted that “a tempering schedule” is not a process step(s). Therefore, the “during which…” clause presumed to modify/define the tempering schedule does not provide for any steps of the method. If applicant intends for specific steps to be performed that are considered as defining the tempering schedule, then such steps should be clearly listed in the claim after “the method comprising…” As presently drafted, it is unclear what is “a tempering schedule” (if such is intended to be defined by specific process steps that required to be performed; define the instant method of the claims).
As to claim 1, it is unclear what is the structural nexus of the “tempering device” to the “samples-receiving thermal block” and electronic control device because the claim does not provide for such. The “sample-receiving thermal block” is not recited as being a structural element of the thermal cycler (not required to be connected to the “tempering device” nor “electronic control device”).
Furthermore, it is unclear if “the thermal block”, “the sample-receiving thermal block”, and “the samples-receiving thermal block” are the same or different. If the same, consistent terminology should be employed throughout the claims. See also claim 17.
As to claim 1, although the tempering schedule is not clearly defined nor required to be performed (if intended to be process steps, as stated above), it is unclear what is considered as “tempering steps” and what is meant by “each tempering step being defined by a temperature level” because the claim does not clearly recite such. No such tempering steps are defined in the claim nor claimed as being performed (no indication as to how such is related to any temperature of anything). There is no recitation of what has to be done by what and to what that is considered as a tempering step.
A temperature level (presumptively a temperature of value of something, not specified in the claim) is not a process step. As noted above, no tempering steps are clearly defined in the claim nor recited in the body of the claim (after, the method comprising:) as being required to be performed to define the method. As previously stated above, if applicant intends for the method to be defined by specific steps that are performed/executed by and to specific structures, then the claims should clearly recite such.
As to the 2nd paragraph of claim 1 beginning with the “the method comprising steps for determining…”; it is noted that the term “steps” is directed to a plurality (unspecified number of steps, more than one). However, it is unclear what is required to be done by who/what to define each of the “steps” for determining; what is required to be done by who/what in each of the determining steps to provide for any “determining of at least one temperature change rate” (of what?). Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of the “a tempering device…” and “a thermal cycler” recited in line 2 of the 2nd paragraph to the previously recited “a tempering device” and “a thermal cycler” recited in line 1 of the preamble. It is unclear if such are the same or different because the claim does clearly indicate such. If the same, consistent terminology should be employed to indicate such.
Furthermore, in line 3 of the 2nd paragraph, it is unclear which/what “controlling” is being referenced in the phrase “in which the controlling” because “for controlling” is previously recited multiple times in the claim. However, it is noted that no actual step requiring any controlling of anything is previously defined, recited previously in the claim (after, the method comprising:…) as being required to be performed Furthermore, as to the “for performing polymerase chain reactions in samples…” clause, it is noted that the no samples have been recited as being present in “a sample-receiving thermal block” and there is no step that requires, recites performing polymerase chain reactions on any samples.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant/required by the phrase “…in samples received in the samples-receiving thermal block according to a temperature schedule…” because of reasons stated above.
As noted above, no tempering schedule is clearly defined as being any specific process steps that are actually required to be performed in the instant method. No step requires any samples to be transferred to, received in any sample(s)-receiving thermal block, anything to be done to any such samples “according to” (there is no indication what is required to be done that is considered as; defined as being “according to”) any undefined tempering schedule to define the method.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each temperature step of the tempering schedule" in the 3rd paragraph beginning with “receiving….” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As noted above, no tempering schedule (not defined by any specific steps) is required to be performed nor recited as being defined by any specific steps that required to be perform by anything to anything. Furthermore, there is no prior mention of such schedule being defined by any “temperature steps” that are also not defined in the claim as being required to be performed by anything to anything. Therefore, it is unclear what is/are “each temperature step of the tempering schedule”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the time for which the thermal block is held…" in the 3rd paragraph beginning with “receiving, at the electronic device, tempering schedule data” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
No such time has been previously mentioned and there is no step claimed, required to be performed that requires any thermal block to be held at any temperature for any amount of time. It is noted that any temperature value is a “specific” temperature.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of “a temperature step” to the previously recited “each temperature step” (see also prior rejection directed to such); if the “a temperature step” is amongst or different from the previously recited “each temperature step because the claim does not provide for such.
Furthermore, it is unclear what the phrase “a specific temperature and corresponding hold time” refers to…a specific temperature of what and corresponding hold time of what is not provided for in the phrase.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is required of a hold time to be considered as “corresponding” to anything because the claim does not clearly recite such.
In claim 1, in the paragraph beginning with “determining” it is presumed that “the control device” is intended to refer to “the electronic control device”. Therefore, the claim should clearly recite such.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the determination of control parameters" in the paragraph beginning with “using”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such determination has been previously mentioned, required to be performed by anyone nor anything. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required to perform the “using” because the claim does not provide for such.
It is also unclear what the phrase “and which determine…” is meant to modify because the claim does not clearly recite such. However, it is noted that there is no step that requires anything to determine a tempering control schedule. Furthermore, it is unclear what is a tempering control schedule (and of what) because such is not clearly defined in the claim.
It is further unclear what is required of a tempering control schedule to be considered as “corresponding to” the tempering schedule because the claim does not clearly provide for such. A tempering schedule (as previously recited above) is not clearly defined in the claim nor required to be performed. The same is applicable to “a tempering control schedule”.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what/which parameter is being referenced by “the control parameters” in the paragraph beginning with “controlling” because the claim previously recites “control parameters”. Therefore, it is unclear what is the nexus of “the control parameter” to the “control parameters” because the claim does not provide for such.
Furthermore, it is noted that no prior steps requires anyone nor anything to determine any control parameters.
Furthermore, it is noted that the “in order to execute…” clause is directed to an intended purpose rather that providing for specific steps that are required to actually be executed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the determined effective heating and cooling rates" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “effective” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “effective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no indication in the claim as what is required of a heating rate and cooling rate to be considered as “effective”. Also applicable to claims 17 and
Claims 2, 5, and 15-20 depend upon rejected claim 1. Therefore, claims 2, 5, and 15-20 are also rejected.
As to claim 2, it is unclear what is meant, required by the term “commands” employed throughout the claim because it is unclear what is required to be done the electronic device to command any at least one cooling rate and at least one hearing rate (values). The electronic device can not instruct nor provide any instructions to any rate values. It is unclear what/who the electronic device is required to command/instruct (send commands/instructions to) because the claim does not clearly recite such. Therefore, it is unclear how any “commands” are related to any of the rates recited in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the at least one tempering step of the tempering schedule" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 2, it is unclear what is the nexus of “the at least one tempering step of the tempering schedule” to the prior “tempering steps” (each tempering step) because the claim does not clearly provide for such. However, as noted above, the tempering schedule is not clearly defined as comprising any specific steps and is not required to performed, not listed as definitive steps within the body of the claim. Therefore, it is also unclear what is a first and second temperature step (what is required to be done to define each) and what is meant by a first and second temperature step because such are not clearly defined in the claim. The claims do not provide for what is required to be done by what to what to define any “temperature step”. There is no requirement step(s) to be performed that provides for any temperature of anything to be changed (by anything) and held at any temperature for any time (by anything). It is unclear what is the nexus of a first and second hold time to the previously recited a hold time recited in claim 1 because the claim does not clearly recite such. It is further unclear what the various “in which” clauses are meant to modify because the claim does not clearly provide for such. It is further unclear what/which temperature of what is being referenced in the phrase “the temperature is changed” because the claim does not clearly recite such. It is unclear what temperature of what is being referenced in the claim by “the temperature”. As previously, stated above, there is no step positively claimed that requires any temperature of anything to change (to be heated and/or cooled). Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of “temperature levels” recited in the last line of the first paragraph of claim 2 to the “temperature levels” and “a temperature level” recited in claim 1 because the claim does not provide for such.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the last step of the method claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “a last step” has been previously recited in claim 1. There is no steps clearly defined in claim 1 and no step is defined as being required to be “a last step”. If applicant intends to refer to the controlling the tempering device by means of the control parameter…, then the claim should clearly recite such.
Furthermore, it is unclear what cooling and heating of what is being reference by the respective phrases “commands cooling” and “commands heating” and if any cooling and heating steps of anything by anything are required to be performed as steps of the method because the claim does not provide for such. Furthermore, it is unclear what/who is required to be commanded/instructed by such phrases to perform such heating and cooling because the claim does not provide for such.
As to claim 2, it is unclear what is meant by and required by the phrases “thereby using” phrases reference and unclear what is meany by “thereby using at least first temperature change rate” and “thereby using at least at least one second temperature change rate” because it is unclear what (presumptively the electronic control device) is required to do…use such respective first and second temperature change rates and to do/perform, what using such change rates requires to be done because the claim does not provide for such.
As to claim 2, it is unclear what/which cooling rate and heating rate are being referenced by “the cooling rate” and “the heating rate” recited throughout claim 2 because claim 1 recites “the determined effective heating and cooling rates” and claim 2 previously recites “at least one cooling rate and at least one heating rate”.
As to claim 2, in the last paragraph, it is unclear what the phrase “and in which” (in what?) references because the claim does not clearly recite such.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by the “which is used as…” phrases because there is no step that requires any cooling/heating of anything to be performed by anything nor any such cooling/heating rate to be employed/used by anything
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the adjustment of the second temperature" in line 2 of the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such adjustment has been previously mentioned nor required to be performed.
As to claim 5, it is unclear what the phrase, “during which”, is meant to reference because the claim does not state during what is being referenced.
As to claim 5, it is unclear which/what samples are being referenced by the phrase “the samples” in line 4 of the claim.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is considered a “latency interval” (an interval between what?) because such is not defined in the claim. This does not appear to be an actual step of the method that requires anyone nor anything to actually do anything between anything to constitute any interval. It appears to be directed to data.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the beginning of a tempering schedule" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is the nexus of “a tempering schedule” to the “a tempering schedule” recited in claim 1. Furthermore, it is noted that no tempering schedule has been defined in the claims (see prior rejection/remarks above) and no “a beginning” of any tempering schedule has been clearly defined to determine what is considered as such. It is further unclear which/what thermal block is being reference by the term “the thermal block” and what/which samples are being referenced by “the samples” because the claim does not clearly recite such. There is no requirement for the thermal cycler in claim 1 to contain any samples nor does the claim provide for any step that requires for a polymerase chain reaction to be performed to any samples
Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “a set temperature” because as noted no performance of any polymerase chain reaction of anything is required to be performed in any of the recited steps and no temperature of anything is required to be “set” by anyone nor anything. Any temperature value can be considered as “a set” temperature.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is considered as “information on the latency interval” because such is not clearly defined in the claim.
As to claims 15 and 17-18, it is unclear what are the respective variables recited in the claims because such are not defined in the claims. It is noted that such definitions have been deleted from claim 1.
Claims 15 and 20 recite the limitation "the following formula" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. No such formula has been previously mentioned.
As to claim 17, it is unclear what are the various variables and what is a temperature step interval because such is not defined in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required to be done by the electronic control device that is considered as “enforcing” said effective rate (presumptively meant to be “the effective temperature change rate”). It is noted that no step requires any tempering schedule to be executed.
As to claim 18, it is unclear what are the variables rH and rc because such are note defined in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear, who or what required to perform the “retrieving” and “using” because the claim does not provide for such. Furthermore, it is noted that the “when determining” clause is directed to a condition that is never required occur. No such determining step has been previously recited as being required to be performed by anyone nor anything.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the user" and “the determined effective rate(s) smaller than the first cycler's maximum rate(s).” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior mention of any user nor any determined effective rates being smaller than anything.. Furthermore, there is no mention of any first cycler nor any unspecified “maximum rates” (rates of what?) of the first cycler. Therefore, it is unclear what is/are such respective rates recited in the claim. It is unclear what is the nexus of a second thermal cycler and the first thermal cycler (each not structurally defined by any specific elements) to each other and to the previously recited “a thermal cycler” (of claim 1) because the claim does not provide for such. Furthermore, it is unclear how the second thermal cycler and the first thermal cycler are employed in the method because the claim does not clearly recite such.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "the hold time at a higher temperature level…”; “the hold time at the lower temperature level…”; “the temperature change rate for heating the tempering block…”; “the temperature difference…”; and “the temperature change rate for cooling the tempering block”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear what is nexus of such variables to the tempering scheduling data and run time data previously recited because the claim does not clearly indicate such. There is no requirement, no steps recited in the claim that requires any tempering block to be heated and cooled. It is unclear what is the nexus of the “tempering block” to the thermal cycler and elements of such (sample-receiving thermal block and further recited structures) because the claim does not provided for such.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “and T = (recitation of a equation)” because the equation appears to provide for a calculation of hold time, T, not the at least one temperature rate as recited in the phrase “determining the at least one temperature change rate” as initially recited. It is unclear how the formula, calculation of T is provides for the value of the at least one temperature change rate because the value of T is not the at least one temperature change rate. Therefore, the claim is not consistent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798