DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on 05/03/2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The listing of claims considered in the present detailed action is dated 9/3/25.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-15 remain withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 16-18 are rejected.
Claims 16-18 are objected to.
Response to Arguments - Claim Objections
The objection to claims 16-17 is respectfully maintained because of insufficient grammatical clarity.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112
The applicant argues claim 17 is definite because claim 17 states that the pre-cooling device is for pre-cooling the reagents to be supplied to the microwave transparent reaction vessel. However, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112 is respectfully maintained because it isn’t clear how the thermal controller can control and adjust the temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel by setting a fixed cooling temperature of the pre-cooling device for precooling reagents to be supplied to the microwave transparent reaction vessel. In other words, it isn’t clear how setting a fixed cooling temperature of the pre-cooling device for precooling reagents to be supplied to the microwave transparent reaction vessel results in the thermal controller controlling and adjusting the temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel. As a result a person of ordinary skill wouldn’t be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-15, filed 9/3/25, with respect to rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. §102 were fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Barnhardt doesn’t explicitly teach that the controlling and adjusting of the temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel is by setting a fixed cooling temperature of the cooling device. As a result, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) is hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is set forth under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Barnhart in view of Strauss (US538739A).
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites the following preamble “A synthesizer for microwave-assisted automated multistep synthesis of oligo- and polysaccharides on a solid support comprising: …”. For the sake of grammatical clarity, consider rephrasing this preamble to ‘A synthesizer for performing a microwave-assisted automated multistep synthesis of oligo- and polysaccharides on a solid support, the synthesizer comprising: …’ or something to this effect.
Claims dependent on an objected claim are objected to because any claim in dependent form is construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites “setting a fixed cooling temperature of the pre-cooling device”. However, there isn’t sufficient support for “setting a fixed cooling temperature of the pre-cooling device” in the original disclosure.
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.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “the power output”. There isn’t sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “the thermal controller … is configured to control and adjust the temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel by setting a fixed cooling temperature of the cooling device, by setting a fixed cooling temperature of the pre-cooling device, and by adjusting the power output of the microwave generator component”. However claim 16 recites “the thermal controller … is configured to control and adjust the temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel by setting a fixed cooling temperature of the cooling device and by adjusting the power output of the microwave generator component. It isn’t clear whether the fixed cooling temperature of the cooling device in claim 17 corresponds to the fixed cooling temperature of the cooling device in claim 16. If the cooling temperature of the cooling device in claim is equal to the fixed cooling temperature of claim 17 consider rephrasing claim 17 to ‘… by setting the fixed cooling temperature of the cooling device … ’. If the cooling temperature of the cooling device in claim 17 is distinct to the fixed cooling temperature of claim 16 consider rephrasing to claim 16 to ‘by setting a first fixed cooling temperature of the cooling device …’ and claim 17 to ‘… by setting a second fixed cooling temperature of the cooling device …’. In addition, it isn’t clear how the thermal controller can control and adjust the temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel by setting a fixed cooling temperature of the pre-cooling device for precooling reagents to be supplied to the microwave transparent reaction vessel. How does setting a fixed cooling temperature of the pre-cooling device for precooling reagents to be supplied to the microwave transparent reaction vessel results in the thermal controller controlling and adjusting the temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel?
Claim 18 recites “a syringe pump connected via loop lines”. It isn’t clear what the syringe pump is connected to via loop lines.
Claims dependent on an indefinite claim are indefinite because any claim in dependent form is construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Barnhardt (US 20060039838) in view of Strauss (US5387397A).
As to claim 16, Barnhardt teaches a synthesizer (instrument 10 in [0034]) for microwave-assisted automated multistep synthesis of oligo- and polysaccharides on a solid support (vessel wall 21 in [0036]) (the instrument 10 of Barnhardt can be for microwave-assisted automated multistep synthesis of oligo- and polysaccharides on a solid support) (see [0034], which recites “an instrument 10 for performing microwave assisted organic synthesis”) (the synthesizer) comprising:
(a) a microwave transparent reaction vessel (reaction vessel 20 in [0036], which recites “the reaction vessel 20 is illustrated in cross-section in FIG. 2. The reaction vessel 20 is a test tube shaped device having a reaction vessel wall 21 formed of a microwave transparent material and defines an interior reaction chamber 17 for microwave assisted reactions”) equipped with a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 15 in [0042]),
(b) a microwave generator component (microwave source 40 in [0052]),
(c) a reagent storing component (reagent reservoirs in [0057]),
(d) a reagent delivery system (devices for adding reagents in [0058]),
(e) a cooling device (instrument for cooling the reaction vessel in [0019]) for cooling the microwave transparent reaction vessel (reaction vessel 20) (the cooling device of Barnhardt is capable of cooling the transparent reaction vessel),
(f) a thermal controller (computer microprocessor in [0047]) for controlling a temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel (reaction vessel 20) (see [0047]) (the thermal controller of Barnhardt is capable of controlling a temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel), wherein the thermal controller (computer microprocessor) is connected to the cooling device (instrument for cooling the reaction vessel) and the temperature sensor (temperature sensor 15) and the microwave generator component (microwave source 40) (see [0063]-[0064]) and Figs 1 and 4), and is configured to control and adjust the temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel (reaction vessel 20) by setting a fixed cooling temperature (desired moderate or low temperature in [0056], which recites “the cooling jacket 22 surrounds the reaction vessel 20 and cools the vessel 20 to maintain the composition 24 in the vessel 20 at a desired moderate or low temperature even as microwave energy 25 is applied to the composition 24”) of the microwave transparent reaction vessel (reaction vessel 20) and by adjusting the power output of the microwave generator component (microwave source 40) (the thermal controller of Barnhardt is capable of adjusting the power output of the microwave generator component) (see [0047], which recites “with respect to the instrument embodiments of the invention, the method includes monitoring the temperature of the vessel and the temperature of the compositions within while moderating the application of microwave energy based upon the temperature. This is accomplished using a computer microprocessor controlling the application of microwaves. In this regard, a computer microprocessor can be used to control an electric pump to circulate the microwave transparent media used as a fluid coolant around the reaction vessel. A computer microprocessor may also simultaneously control the application of microwave energy and the electric pump. A computer microprocessor may further monitor the temperature of the compositions in the reaction vessel using a fiber optic temperature sensor and moderate the application of microwave energy based on the temperature detected by the temperature sensor”).
Barnhardt doesn’t explicitly teach that the controlling and adjusting of the temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel is by setting a fixed cooling temperature of the cooling device.
In the analogous art of providing synthesizers, Strauss (US5387397A) teaches a thermal controller (microprocessor 112) is configured to set a fixed temperature of a cooling device (Peltier cooling device in column 6, which recites “The apparatus includes a control means, such as microprocessor 112, operably interconnecting … microwave generator 107, temperature sensing means 108 …. The control means 112 may also supply power as shown at 113 to a Peltier cooling device of heat exchanger 109. Microprocessor 112 includes the facility to selectively input predetermined operating parameters for the apparatus. Thus, an operator may preset the temperature for a reaction by the temperature setting means 114, and the microprocessor compares this set signal with a signal 115 from temperature sensor 108 to determine a difference signal which in turn is used to control any one or more of the inputs 116 (to the pump 105), 117 (to the microwave generator 107), or 118 (to the pressure control means 110) so as to vary the feed rate, microwave power level, microwave frequency or pressure to minimise the temperature difference signal and thereby maintain the temperature at the set value”) (see also col. 4, which recites “the heat exchange means of the apparatus preferably comprises electronic means which avoids the need for liquid or gaseous refrigerants. This electronic means may comprise a Peltier cooling device’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the synthesizer disclosed by Barnhardt such that the thermal controller is configured to control and adjust the temperature inside the microwave transparent vessel by setting a fixed cooling temperature of the cooling device as disclosed by Strauss with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of effectively controlling the reaction vessel temperature without the need for liquid or gaseous refrigerants (see col. 4 of Strauss, which recites “the heat exchange means of the apparatus preferably comprises electronic means which avoids the need for liquid or gaseous refrigerants. This electronic means may comprise a Peltier cooling device’) which is desirable due to simplicity and flexibility in the temperature range for selecting the set temperature.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnhardt (US 20060039838) in view of Strauss (US5387397A) in view of Hagberg (US20120108818)
As to claim 17, Barnhardt in view of Strauss teaches the synthesizer according to claim 16.
Barnhardt in view of Strauss doesn’t teach a pre-cooling device for pre-cooling reagents to be supplied to the microwave transparent reaction vessel wherein the thermal controller is connected to the pre-cooling device and is configured to control and adjust the temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel by setting a fixed cooling temperature of the pre-cooling device.
In the analogous art of providing synthesizers, Hagberg teaches a pre-cooling device (cooling system in [0156], which recites “the priming vessel (1), feed vessels (2) and receiving vessels (9 a and 9 b) may contain a combined heating and cooling system”) for pre-cooling reagents to be supplied to the microwave transparent reaction vessel (tube-flow reactor 8 in [0141]) (the cooling system of Hagberg is capable of pre-cooling reagents to be supplied to the microwave transparent reaction vessel) (see claim 1, which recites “tube-type flow reactor contains at least one section that is microwave-transparent”) (see [0161], which recites “the priming procedure is running, raw materials, reagents and solvents are added to one or both of the feed vessels (2), according to the chemical method to be run. The mixtures in the feed vessels are stirred and, according to the chemical method being performed, heating or cooling may be applied”) (see Fig. 2) wherein the thermal controller is connected to the pre-cooling device and is configured to control and adjust the temperature inside the microwave transparent reaction vessel by setting a fixed cooling temperature of the pre-cooling device (see [0146], which recites “In order to operate the apparatus, a programmable logic control (PLC) system (15) is connected to the apparatus, which can control the heating and/or cooling of the apparatus (amongst other things). For ease of operation, the apparatus of FIG. 2 may also incorporate appropriate sensors (e.g. temperature and/or pressure sensors attached to the product transfer line, the tube-type flow reactor or the back-pressure regulator) and interlocking mechanisms (e.g. a mechanism that switches off the magnetron if the preset temperature is exceeded) in electrical communication with the PLC system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the synthesizer disclosed by Barnhardt by incorporating a pre-cooling device as disclosed by Strauss with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of effectively preventing reagent from degrading from thermal exposure prior to reacting in the microwave transparent reaction vessel.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnhardt (US 20060039838) in view of Strauss (US5387397A) in view of Downing (US20090148353).
As to claim 18, Barnhardt in view of Strauss teaches the synthesizer according to claim 16.
Barnhardt in view of Strauss doesn’t teach that the reagent delivery system comprises a top distribution component, the top distribution component optionally comprising: a building block distribution component; an activator distribution component; a washing solvents distribution component; and a syringe pump connected via loop lines, wherein the top distribution component comprises a ventilation exit for gases to prevent overpressure.
In the analogous art of providing synthesizers, Downing (US20090148353) teaches a reagent delivery system (system in [0006]) comprises a top distribution component (vacuum source in [0006]), wherein the top distribution component (vacuum source ) comprises a ventilation exit (outlet end in [0006]) for gases to prevent overpressure (see [0006], which recites “a system in which there is one supply line and one outlet located in the synthesis chamber for the delivery of reagents into the reaction columns. The outlet can be positioned above the inlet end of each of the columns so that nucleotide reagents, capping reagents, deblocking reagents, wash chemicals, etc. can be provided to each of the reaction columns. All of the reagents are located in a supply system which includes reservoirs and valving to connect the reservoirs with the supply line. A flush/prime column is also located within the chamber so that the supply line can be flushed and primed between each different chemical reagent addition. A vacuum source, located outside of the reaction chamber, is connected to the outlet end of the reaction columns to rapidly draw the chemicals from all columns simultaneously, thus leaving the columns dry and ready to receive the next reagent”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the synthesizer disclosed by Barnhardt in view of Strauss by incorporating a ventilation exit as disclosed by Downing with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of effectively and rapidly drawing the chemicals the reaction vessels, thus leaving the reaction vessels dry and ready to receive the next reagent (see [0006] of Downing).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Seeberger (US20020085964) teaches an automated oligosaccharide synthesizer comprising a reaction vessel (reaction vessel 210 in Fig. 5) equipped with a temperature sensor (see [0154], which recites “the temperature control unit 290 can have a temperature sensor placed on the wall of the reaction vessel 210 so as to obtain real-time temperature measurements of the actual reaction vessel 210 cavity, i.e., where the automated synthesis of the oligosaccharides are to take place. Thus, the temperature sensor can provide feedback data to the temperature control unit 290 so that the actual temperature of the reaction vessel 210 can more properly be maintained”); a reagent storing component (activator vessel 230 in Fig. 5), see claim 1, which recites at least one activator vessel containing an activating reagent solution”); a reagent delivery system (solution transfer system in Fig. 5); a cooling device (temperature control unit 290 in Fig. 5) for cooling the reaction vessel (reaction vessel 210) and a thermal controller (computer 280 in Fig. 5) for controlling a temperature inside the reaction vessel (reaction vessel 210) wherein the thermal controller (computer 280) is connected to the cooling device (temperature control unit 290) and the temperature sensor (see claim 5 which recites “e temperature control unit measures the internal temperature of the reaction vessel”) and is configured to control and adjust the temperature inside the reaction vessel (see claim 4, which recites “the temperature control unit is controlled by the computer”).
In addition, Christ (US20110313148) teaches An apparatus for solid phase oligosaccharide synthesis, comprising: a reaction vessel for holding a reaction mixture, wherein the reaction vessel is equipped with a temperature control system, at least one donor vessel for holding a saccharide donor; at least one activation vessel for holding activator, a pump operably connected to a first fluidic valve (see claim 1) wherein the pump is a syringe pump (see claim 7) (see also [0040], which recites “temperature control unit 24 can be as simple as a heating and/or cooling unit equipped with a thermometer, where the unit temperature can be adjusted either manually or by a computer”).
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 3 months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within 2 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 Jonathan Bortoli whose telephone number is (571)270-3179. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM till 6 PM EST Monday through Thursday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571)272-1254. 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.
/JONATHAN BORTOLI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797