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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claims have been amended to over the 112 rejections. The examiner disagrees. See rejections herein.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the housing and sample holder assembly disposed in the housing and the plurality of cooling fans located below the plurality of heat sinks and simultaneous on sides of the plurality of heat sinks must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that such housing is not referenced in the specification and drawings by any reference numerals. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
A claim is only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus. It is noted that although the claims mention a sample, sample reaction vessel, and airflows, none of the prior are positively claimed as structural elements of the invention. Such are mentioned in terms of intended use and are considered as materials/articles intended to be and/or can be worked upon. The claims are directed to an apparatus not a process of use.
It is noted that the term “plurality” only requires 2; the phrase “one or more” only requires 1; and the phrase “two or more” only requires 2.
It is noted that the term “or” provides for alternative, options not requirements. Only, one alternative is required to be present.
There is no requirement for any sample or sample vessel to ever be “accommodated” by any of the plurality of sample holders. The sample holders are not defined by any specific structure. Any structure capable of “accomodating” anything can be considered as “a sample holder”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 8, and 18-19 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.
As to claims 1, 8, and 18-19, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of each of the positively claimed structural elements to each other because the claims do not provide for such. Each of the positively claimed elements are not required to be structurally connected to one another so as to define a single device. Therefore, it is unclear how the unconnected structural elements are considered as defining a single apparatus because a list of unconnected structures does not define a single apparatus, but is a list of parts that could be possibly used with each other.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the housing and sample holder assembly because the phrase “disposed in” does not require nor provide for any structural connectivity.
It is unclear what is structural required to define each of the top portion, bottom portion, and receiving portion because each portion is not defined by any specific structure nor structural boundaries, dimensions so as to determine where each of such portions begins and ends so as to determine the metes and bounds of each of the respective portions.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the receiving portion to the top and bottom portions because the claim does not provide for such.
It is unclear if it is intended for a plurality of sample holders to be located in and connected to the receiving portion because the claim does not recite such. The “configured to accommodate” phrase does not provide for such. It is noted that “a plurality of sample holders” is recited 2 times in (i). However, a plurality of sample holders are not positively claimed as elements of the invention in either of the phrases. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “a plurality of sample holders to be accommodate…” because the phrase appears to be incomplete and grammatically incorrect. Although not positively claimed as elements of the invention, it is unclear what is the nexus of “a plurality of sample holders” recited in line 3 of (i) and “a plurality of sample holders to be..” recited in lines 4-5 of (i). It is unclear if such are the same or different.
Furthermore, it is unclear how a screen can be claimed as being located between a plurality of sample holders that are not positively claimed as elements of the invention. Furthermore, it is noted that “located between” does not provide for nor require any structural connectivity of the screen to the plurality of sample holders.
As to 1(ii), it is unclear what is the nexus of “a plurality of sample holders” to the prior 2 recitations of “a plurality of sample holders”, if all of such are the same or different because the claim does not clearly recite such. Therefore, it is also unclear what/which sample holders are being referenced by the phrases “each sample holder” and “the plurality of sample holders” recited throughout claims 1, 8, and 18-19.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the “a plurality of sample holders” in (ii) to prior positively claimed elements of the sample accommodation unit because the claim does not provide for such.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the temperature of each sample holder" in (ii). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is noted that the phrase “is independently controlled” does not provide for any further structure. The phrase is directed to a process. There is no requirement for any independent controlling of any temperature of anything to be performed by anything.
It is presumed that the phrase “one or more of the peltiers” is intended to be “one or more of the plurality of peltiers”. If so, consistent terminology should be employed throughout the claims.
As to claim 1, in (iv), it is unclear what is structurally required by the phrase “a plurality of heat sinks locating below the plurality of peltiers” because the phrase is ambiguous, confusing, and unclear. The plurality of heat sinks are not currently performing any locating. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of “one or more of heat sinks” to the prior recited “a plurality of heat sinks”, if such are the same or different because the claim does not clearly indicate such.
As to claim 1, in (v), it is unclear what is the nexus of “a corresponding heat sink” to the prior recited “a plurality of heat sinks” because the claim does not provide for such. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required of a heat sink to be considered as “corresponding” and what such is required to correspond to because the claim does not provide for such. It is presumed that the “and configured…” clause refers to the plurality of fans. If so, it is suggested that the claim clearly recite such.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the thermally coupled sample holder" in (v). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structural nexus of such to the prior 3 recitations of “a plurality of sample holders” to each other because the claim does not provide for such.
It is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the plurality of cooling fans to the plurality of heat sinks because the phrase “disposed below” does not require any structural connectivity.
Furthermore, it is unclear if “sides” are actual structural elements of the plurality of heat sinks or if the term is referring to a general relative location because the plurality of heat sinks are not claimed as comprising any sides. There appears to be no illustration of any heat sinks on, in any structural, physical contact with any sides of any heat sinks as recited in the claim. The term “sides” appears to be directed to general relative location rather than actual, structural sides of any heat sinks. For example, in a statement where something (for example, a tree) is described as being located on a right side of a house. The tree is not actually connected to any side of the house. It is unclear how the plurality cooling fans can be simultaneously located below the plurality of heat sinks and on sides of the plurality of heat sinks. The examiner fails to locate any description and illustration of such. Therefore, the claim appears to be directed to new matter.
As to claim 1, in (vi), it is unclear what “and located therebelow” references. If this meant to refer to the solid barrier, the claim should clearly recite such. For example, “(vi) a solid barrier connected to and located below the screen” would be clear. It is unclear what the “and which is…” phrase references. If intended to refer to the solid barrier, the claim should clearly recite such. For example, “and wherein the solid barrier is a heat insulator….” It is noted that the phrase “located between” does not provide for nor require any structural connectivity.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the heat sinks thermally coupled to different sample holders…" in (vi). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what/which heat sinks is being referenced by “the heat sinks”, what is the nexus of such to prior recited a plurality of heat sinks.
It is unclear what is further structurally required by claim 8 because “airflows” are not structures nor required to be present, exist. While the plurality of cooling fans are structurally capable generating airflows, there is no requirement for such to be generated, exist.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cooling fans dispose on different sample holders" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is the structural nexus of “the cooling fans” to the “a plurality of cooling fans” of claim 1, if such are the same or different because the claim does not provide for such.
As to claim 18, see prior applicable rejection above. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural nexus of “two or more heat sinks” to the prior “a plurality of heat sinks” of claim 1, if such are the same or different because the claim does not provide for such.
As to claim 19, see prior applicable rejection above. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural nexus of “two or more cooling fans” to the prior “a plurality of cooling fans” of claim 1, if such are the same or different because the claim does not provide for such. Furthermore, it is unclear what further structurally required by the claim because the claim does not provide for any further structural element. The claim is directed to a process step. There is no requirement for any cooling of anything to be performed by any fans.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 18-19 are 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 the plurality cooling fans being simultaneously located below the plurality of heat sinks and on sides of the plurality of heat sinks as provided for in claim 1.
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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571-272-1267. 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