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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 5, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 16-22 are pending.
Claims 23-25 have been withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 6, 14, 15 has been canceled.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13, 14, 16-18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christ et. al. (US 20110313148 A1) in view of Fredrick (US 20050042768 A1) and Bernstein et. al. (WO 9920395 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Christ teaches “A device for automated synthesis of oligo- and polysaccharides on a solid support, the device comprising following components:” (Para [0048,] The automated synthesizer of the present invention is intended to be used to form oligo- and polysaccharides on solid support);
“(a) a reaction vessel” (Para [0011], reaction vessel);
“(b) a reagent storing component;” (Para [0011], at least one deblocking vessel for holding a deblocking reagent);
“(c) a reagent delivery system;” (Para [0011], a solution transfer system connecting the activation vessel, deblocking vessel, and donor vessel to the reaction vessel);
“(d) a cooling device for cooling the reaction vessel,” (Para. [0043]The temperature control unit 24 is linked to the pumps and fluidic valves. This allows the addition of a reagent to be metered into the reaction vessel based on temperature inside the reaction vessel to avoid temperature spikes)(Para. [0039], The temperature control unit is capable of temperature between -80 to +60°C.)
“wherein the reagent delivery system connects the reagent storing component with the reaction vessel;” (Para [0011], a solution transfer system connecting the activation vessel, deblocking vessel, and donor vessel to the reaction vessel.
Christ also teaches that the temperature control unit can adjust to reactions in which the communication could be thermal and the importance of temperature control in and upstream of the reaction vessel. (Para. [0039] The temperature control unit can have the temperature adjusted to account for exotherms caused by the reaction.).
However, Christ does not explicitly teach “a pre-cooling device for pre-cooling reagents, interposed between the reaction vessel and the reagent delivery device and in thermal communication with the reagent delivery system.
Fredrick teaches devices, apparatus and methods for carrying out processing steps involved in chemical reactions such as hybridization reactions conducted on the surface of a substrate comprising chemical compounds such as biopolymer features. Fredrick teaches “a pre-cooling device for pre-cooling reagents, interposed between the reaction vessel and the reagent delivery device, in thermal communication with a reagent delivery system” with (Paras [0044], [0081], [0132], [0144], and [0156]. In one embodiment an apparatus in accordance with the present invention comprises one or more of the present flow devices, multiple reagent reservoirs with pre-heating and pre-cooling capability and associated fluid routing valves, liquid waste collection reservoir, solvent vapor generator to assist drying hydrophilic-surfaced substrates, and microprocessor, embedded real-time software and I/O interface electronics to control the sequence of operations of the invention. These digital I/O interfaces may also control fluid reagent pre-heater and pre-cooler units. Fresh reagents are drawn from the appropriate reservoirs at the start of each process step eliminating the inconvenience and variability of manually refreshing pre-heated or pre-cooled reagents. Several of these are independently temperature controlled above room temperature (pre-heated) and one below room temperature (pre-cooled). Furthermore, this invention maintains the intended operating temperature of these reagents as they are re-circulated through the flow device during the wash process steps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christ to incorporate a pre-cooling device for pre-cooling reagents, interposed between the reaction vessel and the reagent delivery device, wherein the pre-cooling device is in thermal communication with the reagent delivery system, as taught by Frederick. Doing so would allow the reagents to be at the optimal temperature prior to the reaction occurring which assists in decreasing the degradation of reagents prior to the reaction.
Christ further teaches “and wherein the reagent delivery system is in fluid communication with the reaction vessel through one or more reagent delivery lines;” Fig 1, 3, Paras [0011], [0012], and abstract, fluid lines delivering activator to the reaction vessel).
Christ also teaches that the temperature control unit can adjust in order to account for different reactions and the temperature control unit is in communication with the valve which connects to the reaction vessel via the fluidic lines. (Para. [0039], the temperature control unit can have the temperature adjusted to account for exotherms caused by the reaction.).
Christ does not explicitly teach “and wherein the pre-cooling device is in thermal communication with the one or more reagent delivery lines.”
Fredrick teaches “and wherein the pre-cooling device is in thermal communication with the one or more reagent delivery lines.” (Paras [0144], [0071], and [0091]). The present apparatus comprises at least one heat exchanger. Such heat exchangers may be driven by a chiller unit or a heater unit depending on the protocol selected and the nature of the fluid reagent. Recirculated fluid reagent passes through heat exchanger 316 where fluid reagent is either heated by means of heater unit 318 or cooled by means of cooling unit 320. The pre-cooling reservoir at a temperature below room temperature (pre-cooled) in addition to maintaining the intended operating temperature of these reagents as they are re-circulated through the flow device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christ to incorporate the teachings of Fredrick wherein the pre-cooling device maintains the intended operating temperature of the reagents, as taught within Fredrick.
Christ does not explicitly teach “wherein the pre-cooling device is configured for pre-cooling of the reagents to be supplied during delivery of the reagents from the reagent storing component to the reaction vessel to a temperature Tpre-reagent in the range of -40°C to -9°C”.
Bernstein teaches a system and method for performing reactions using reagents in addition to the claimed temperature range of -40°C to -9°C”. (Page 26 lines 21-30, In one embodiment, the reaction vessels 50 of the present invention may be operating in a temperature range from about -40°C to 150°C. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Christ to incorporate the teachings of Bernstein wherein the temperature range is -40°C to 150°C. Doing so would allow the reagents to remain cold enough to allow the regents which become unstable at room temperature to remain stable as taught by Bernstein within Page 26 lines 21-30.
Christ does not explicitly teach “wherein the reagents have a temperature T1 when entering the pre-cooling device and have a temperature Tpre-reagent when leaving the pre-cooling device, wherein T1 > Tpre-reagent; and”
.”
Fredrick teaches “wherein the reagents have a temperature T1 when entering the pre-cooling device and have a temperature Tpre-reagent when leaving the pre-cooling device, wherein T1 > Tpre-reagent; and” (Para [0091], Recirculated fluid reagent passes through heat exchanger 316 where fluid reagent is either heated by means of heater unit 318 or cooled by means of cooling unit 320.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Christ to incorporate further teachings of Fredrick wherein the reagents are colder after the pre-cooling device. Doing so would allow the reagents to remain cold and at the optimal temperature for the reaction.
Christ further teaches “wherein the reagents have a temperature T2 when entering the reaction vessel;” Para. [0043]The temperature control unit 24 is linked to the pumps and fluidic valves. This allows the addition of a reagent to be metered into the reaction vessel based on temperature inside the reaction vessel to avoid temperature spikes).
Christ does not teach “wherein the temperature of the pre-cooling device Tpre-device is less or equal to the temperature Tpre- reagent; and wherein the temperature difference ΔT = T2 - Tpre-reagent is between 0°C - 0.5 °C.”.
However, Bernstein teaches wherein the temperature of the pre-cooling device Tpre-device is less or equal to the temperature Tpre- reagent; and wherein the temperature difference ΔT = T2 - Tpre-reagent is between 0°C - 0.5 °C.”(Page 26 lines 21-30, In one embodiment, the reaction vessels 50 of the present invention may be operating in a temperature range from about -40°C to 150°C. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Christ to incorporate the Bernstein which has the temperature difference between 0°C - 0.5 °C. This would allow the reagents remain close in temperature and not have increased fluctuations which can aid in the unstable nature of the reagent as taught within Bernstein.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above and also teaches “a computing device comprising at least one processor configured to control one or more components of the device” (Para [0011]- a computer for controlling the temperature control system and the solution transfer system; wherein the computer system is programmed to regulate the addition of activator into the reaction vessel based on the temperature within the reaction vessel.).
Modified Christ does not explicitly teach the processor however a processor is considered to be synonymous with a computer. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the presence of a processor in the device (paras. [0040], [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above. The recitation “the device being adapted for reactions under anhydrous and inert atmosphere.” is capability of the device. Christ discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the device as claimed, such device is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein. Furthermore, (Para [0027], has inert gas being pumped into the device).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above. The recitation “wherein the pre-cooling device is configured to cool the reagents to be supplied to the reaction vessel to a temperature of at least 3ºC than 3 C below a temperature of the reaction mixture in the reaction vessel.” is capability of the pre-cooling device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the pre-cooling device controlled close to the reaction temperature in order to provide for a smooth transition of reagents into the reaction vessel, thereby avoiding any problems with the reaction.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “wherein the cooling device comprises a cooling jacket.” (Paras [0041], [0042], and Fig 6, the heating/cooling block can be made of any heat transfer material such as aluminum. The block has channels 42 running through to pass coolant through as well as channels 43 for heating elements. The reaction vessel sits in channel 41. Coolant can be circulated around the reaction vessel 22 via a sleeve surrounding the reaction vessel 22 and connected to the temperature control unit 24 via input and output pathways.).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “further comprising an inert gas delivery system.” (Para [0027], connected to an inert gas (Argon shown). One aspect is that only solvent or inert gas is directly connected to a pump (e.g., solvent or inert gas is drawn into the syringe of a syringe pump.).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1. Christ does not explicitly teach “wherein the pre-cooling device is upstream to the cooling device.”. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the pre-cooling device upstream to the cooling device in order to cool the reagents before they enter the reaction vessel which is surrounded by the cooling device. Providing a pre-cooled reagent into the reaction vessel decreases the amount of time the reagent has to be cooled within the reaction vessel which allows the reaction to happen faster. It also reduces the chances of precipitation of the reagent which if not avoided would cause problems with the reaction.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to teaching “wherein the reagent delivery system connects the reagent storing component with the reaction vessel via the pre-cooling device.” (Paras [0015], [0043], [0039], and Claim 5, as stated within claim 9).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1. Christ does not explicitly teach “wherein the pre-cooling device is a part of the cooling device using a cooling circuit together.” However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the pre-cooling device is part of the cooling device using the same cooling circuit together. Christ teaches the reaction vessel (where reaction takes place) and the pumps and valves (which flow the reagent into the vessel) are both linked/ surrounded by the temperature control unit (Paras [0039] and [0043], the reaction vessel is surrounded and the pumps and fluidic valves are linked to the temperature control unit.). If the pre-cooling device and the cooling device are one in the same that they are using the same cooling circuit it would be obvious to denote the features which add the reagent, pumps and valves, as the pre-cooler and the cooler that surrounds the reaction vessel as the cooler because that is where the reaction takes place.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to teaching “wherein the reaction vessel, the pre-cooling device, the reagent delivery system and the reagent storing component are successively connected in the following sequence: reagent storing component - reagent delivery system - pre-cooling device - reaction vessel.” (Paras [0012], [0043], [0039], and Claim 5, The deblocking vessel for holding a basic reagent is connected to the fourth fluidic valve which is ultimately connected to the reaction vessel. The temperature control unit 24 is linked to the pumps and fluidic valves. This allows the addition of a reagent to be metered into the reaction vessel based on temperature inside the reaction vessel to avoid temperature spokes. The fluidic valves are connected to fluid lines). Therefore, the deblocking vessel (reagent storing component) connected to the reagent delivery system (pumps, lines, and valves) connected to the fourth fluidic valve which is connected to the temperature control unit (pre-cooling device), connected to the reaction vessel (reaction vessel) teaches to the successive order as claimed.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to teaching “the reagent delivery system being in fluid communication with the reagent storing component and being further in fluid communication with the reaction vessel.” (Para [0010], at least one activation vessel for holding activator, a pump operably connected to a first fluidic valve; a second fluidic valve connected to the activation vessel, to the first fluidic valve via a first fluid line, and to the reaction vessel via a second fluid line, wherein activator or saccharide donor can be delivered via the second fluidic valve into the first fluid line and then through the second fluid line into the reaction vessel.).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to, “wherein the reagent storing component and the pre-cooling device are connected through the reagent delivery system.” (Paras [0043], [0039], and Claim 5, The deblocking vessel for holding a basic reagent is connected to the fourth fluidic valve which is ultimately connected to the reaction vessel. The temperature control unit 24 is linked to the pumps and fluidic valves. This allows the addition of a reagent to be metered into the reaction vessel based on temperature inside the reaction vessel to avoid temperature spokes.) Therefore, the reagent storing component (deblocking vessel) and the pre-cooling device (temperature control unit) both connected to the reagent delivery system (fourth fluidic value) teaches to the claimed connections.
Regarding claim 21, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above. The recitation “wherein the pre-cooling device is positioned between the reaction vessel and the reagent delivery system so that the reagents along their way from the pre-cooling device to the reaction vessel do not increase their temperature for more than 0.5 0C.” is capability of the positioning.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to ensure the reagents do not increase their temperature of more than 0.5 degrees C when traveling from a pre-cooling device to a reaction vessel this provides a reagent having a close temperature of the reaction vessel. This allows for an easy transition of reagents into the reaction vessel, which avoids any problems with the reaction taking place. Further Christ within (Para [0039) it’s important to maintain and regulate the temperature of the reaction vessel and the same would be true for a reagent prior to entering the reaction vessel.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1. Christ does not explicitly teach “wherein the pre-cooling device is positioned downstream to the reagent delivery system and upstream to reaction vessel.”. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the pre-cooling device downstream the reagent delivery system and upstream to the reaction vessel this order would allow the reagents to leave the delivery system and to be cooled prior to entering the reaction vessel. Providing a pre-cooled reagent into the reaction vessel decreases the amount of time the reagent has to be cooled within the reaction vessel which allows the reaction to happen faster. It also reduces the chances of precipitation of the reagent which if not avoided would cause problems with the reaction.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christ, Fredrick, and Bernstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grange e. al. (FR 2928848 A1), machine translation with justification found with Maza et. al. (“Microwave-assisted sulfonation of heparin oligosaccharide”, Tetrahedron Letters, 52, 441-443 (2011)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above however does not teach “comprising a microwave generator component having a chamber in which the reaction vessel is located, and wherein the reaction vessel is microwave transparent.”.
Grange teaches a device for applying energy to a reactive medium and “comprising a microwave generator component” (Page 2, microwave generator); “having a chamber in which the reaction vessel is located, and wherein the reaction vessel is microwave transparent.” (Page 2 and 4, a reactor consisting at least in part of a material that is transparent to the waves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christ to incorporate the teachings of Grange having a microwave generator and a chamber which the reaction vessel is that is microwave transparent. Doing so would reduce the reaction time which would increase the productivity of the device. This is taught by Maza et. al. on page 1 of “Microwave-assisted sulfonation of heparin oligosaccharide” who also teaches the use of microwaves for the efficient and fast O-sulfonation of heparin oligosaccharides.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above however does not teach “wherein the reaction vessel is made of a perfluoroalkoxy alkane (PFA) or glass.”
Grange further teaches “wherein the reaction vessel is made of a fluoropolymer such as perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFA) or glass” (Page 4, when the reactor is of the transparent wave type, such as for example glass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christ to incorporate the teachings of Grange wherein the reaction vessel is glass. Doing so would allow microwaves to be passed through the reaction vessel and assist in the reaction.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christ in view of Fredrick and Bernstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruediger e. al. (US 20030143120 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above however Christ does not teach “wherein the reaction vessel is interchangeable with a reaction vessel of different size”.
Ruediger teaches a base of a modular reactor in addition to “wherein the reaction vessel is interchangeable.” (Abstract, interchangeable reaction vessels carrying inserts can be removably received. Each insert has an array of recesses adapted to receive a different number of reaction vessels of different sizes.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Christ to incorporate the teachings of Ruediger wherein the reaction vessel is interchangeable with a reaction vessel of different size. Doing so would allow more than one reaction vessel to be attached making the device more versatile.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christ in view of Fredrick and Bernstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stoeckl (DE 19919607 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not teach “wherein the reaction vessel comprises one or more inlets at the top of the reaction vessel and one or more inlets at the bottom of the reaction vessel.”
Stoeckl teaches Parallel Synthesis Of Multiple Oligonucleotides and “wherein the reaction vessel comprises one or more inlets at the top of the reaction vessel and one or more inlets at the bottom of the reaction vessel.” (Page 4 and 6, The reaction vessel inlets 24 of all the reaction vessels. The inlet of each reaction vessel is not necessarily at the top but can also be located below the reaction vessel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Christ to incorporate the teachings of Stoeckl the reaction vessel has one or more inlets at the top and bottom of the reaction vessel. Doing so would allow the reagent to enter on both ends of the reaction vessel which speeds up the reaction making the device more efficient.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christ in view of Fredrick and Bernstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (WO 2017045434 A1), machine translation.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not teach “wherein at least one liquid line between the reagent delivery system and the reaction vessel is pre-cooled by the pre-cooling device located between the reagent delivery system and the reaction vessel.”.
Xu teaches a circular magneto-electric induction reaction system and “wherein at least one liquid line between the reagent delivery system and the reaction vessel is pre-cooled by the pre-cooling device located between the reagent delivery system and the reaction vessel.” (Page 3, the constant temperature jacket layer enclosing the liquid circulation line, and also through a constant temperature circulation bath distributed on the magnetic field cavity The inlet and the constant temperature circulating bath outlet are connected to the constant temperature circulating bath.) Therefore, the fluid lines between reaction vessel and the reagent delivery system could be modified with the pre-cooling device also cooling the liquid lines as within Xu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Christ to incorporate the teachings of Xu wherein at least one liquid line between the reagent delivery system and the reaction vessel is pre-cooled by the pre-cooling device. Doing so would allow the reagent to be cooled along the length of the liquid line and enter the reaction vessel at a set temperature which would assist in the reaction step which makes for a more effective device and reaction.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christ in view of Fredrick and Bernstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buermann (US 20100087325 A1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Christ teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not teach the pre-cooling device is a thermoelectric cooler.”.
Buermann teaches controlling temperature of a biological sample on a support structure which a reagent fluid is allowed to flow and interact with a biological sample in addition to teaching “the pre-cooling device is a thermoelectric cooler.” (Abstract and Para [0038], A thermoelectric heat exchange device , may be used to heat or cool the biological samples on the support structure. The biological sample can include saccharides and they can be attached to a surface or can also be binding to another molecule.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Christ to incorporate the teachings of Buermann wherein the pre-cooling device is a thermoelectric cooler. Doing so would allow for a cooler which has no moving parts is smaller in size and can be controlled to exact temperatures all of these features would make the pre-cooling device more effective in cooling the reagent prior to the reaction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees that it would be an obvious choice to have a pre-cooling device in thermal communication with the one or more reagent delivery lines in order to maintain the intended operating temperature of the reagents as taught within Frederick.
Examiner maintains the rejection and notes that although Frederick discloses the “pre-cooling device for pre-cooling reagents, interposed between the reaction vessel and the reagent delivery device, wherein the pre-cooling device is in thermal communication with the reagent delivery system”, Christ also teaches a pre-cooling device within claim 1 in that the temperature control unit cools the fourth fluidic valve which has the reagent flow through prior to having the reagent enter the reaction vessel which teaches to the pre-cooling device for pre-cooling the reagents to be supplied.
Applicant notes that the claimed reagent storing component could be cooled by a cooling device means as disclosed by Frederick, but it’s not economical and the reagent may increase in temperature again before reaching the reaction vessel thereby requiring cooling a larger amount of reagent at one time.
In response, Frederick teaches “Fresh reagents are drawn from the appropriate reservoirs at the start of each process step eliminating the inconvenience and variability of manually refreshing pre-heated or pre-cooled reagents” (para [0132]), which the ordinary artisan would recognize as an advantage of supplying fresh reagents. This advantage decreases the time it would take to cool the reagent before reaching its next destination since previously cooling the reagents eliminates additional process steps. Examiner maintains that the present rejection regarding the reagent storing component discloses all the positively claimed structural features of the claim.
Applicant points out that Frederick teaches reservoir/recirculation cooling and the present invention uses Peltier heat exchange. Applicant also points out that the pre-cooling device of the present application allows a temperature setting to a desired pre-cooling temperature. Applicant further notes that the pre-cooling in the present invention can be controlled independently.
Examiner has applied a new grounds of rejection to address the claimed temperature range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VELVET E HERON whose telephone number is 571-272-1557. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am – 4:30 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (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.
/V.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights