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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/08/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1, 8, 10, and 12 has/have been amended; claim(s) 3-4 and 9 has/have been cancelled and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 5-8, and 10-17 are presently pending in this application.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki et al (US 11,571,699) in view of Hanneken et al (US 10,750,902) and Burkert et al (DE 10149377).
Regarding claim 1, Nozaki discloses an apparatus for temperature-controlling and thawing a temperature-controlled material, which is arranged in at least one rigid container, comprising
an openable housing (Fig. 1 #28 holding mechanism) containing a storage chamber (Fig. 2 #22 heat transfer section) for receiving the at least one container, comprising a heating device (Fig. 1 #20 two heating bags) containing a flat heating element (Fig. 1 #s20a and 20b first and second bags; Col. 4 lines 14-17 ---"Each of the first bag 20a and the second bag 20b is substantially flat, or has a flat shape as a whole and is substantially rectangular or may be formed in a quadrangular shape in a plan view.”) which is operatively connected to the at least one container (Fig. 1 #12 container), wherein the at least one container is cylindrical ("[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)).
However, Nozaki does not disclose wherein a storage mat for receiving the at least one container is arranged between the flat heating element and the at least one container; wherein the storage mat has a plurality of elongate receptacles for respectively receiving a plurality of the at least one cylindrical container, wherein the elongate receptacles are each formed as elongate recesses adapted to receiving the at least one cylindrical container, and wherein the elongate recesses in the storage mat have at least one opening.
Nonetheless, Hanneken in the same field of endeavor being fluid warming using electric heating, teaches wherein a storage mat (Fig. 1 #153 barrier wall) for receiving the at least one container is arranged between the flat heating element and the at least one container (Examiner notes that the phrase “for receiving the at least one container…” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Hanneken can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.)
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 apparatus of Nozaki by incorporating the storage mat as taught by Hanneken for the benefit of providing a snug fit for containers.
Nonetheless, Burkert in the same field of endeavor being fluid warming using electric heating, teaches wherein the storage mat has a plurality of elongate receptacles (Fig. 1 #9-12 heating pockets) for respectively receiving a plurality of the at least one cylindrical container, wherein the elongate receptacles (Fig. 1 #9-12 heating pockets) are each formed as elongate recesses adapted to receiving the at least one cylindrical container, and wherein the elongate recesses (Fig. 1 #9-12 heating pockets) in the storage mat have at least one opening Shown in the figure below).
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 apparatus of Nozaki in view of Hanneken by incorporating the flexible storage mat having elongate receptacles as taught by Burkert for the benefit of having pockets which adapt particularly well to containers. (Burkert page 3 last para.)
PNG
media_image1.png
546
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the storage mat consists of a flexible material.
Nonetheless, Burkert teaches wherein the storage mat (Fig. 1 #8 flexible, folded heating mat) consists of a flexible material.
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 apparatus of Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert by incorporating the flexible storage mat as taught by Burkert for the benefit of creating pockets which adapt particularly well to containers. (Burkert page 3 last para.)
Regarding claim 5, Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nozaki teaches wherein the flat heating element (Fig. 1 #s20a and 20b first and second bags) is as a plastic bag containing a temperature-controlled medium (Col.4 lines 11-14 ---"The first bag 20a and the second bag 20b are filled with a heating liquid L (e.g., water, etc.). The first bag 20a and the second bag 20b are soft bags that are made of, for example, a resin film and are easily deformed.”).
Regarding claim 6, Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Nozaki teaches wherein the plastic bag is operatively connected to a pump arranged outside the storage chamber and to a heat source (Col. 5 lines 27-35 ---" The main body 16 is provided with a heating circulation unit 40 (e.g., a fluid heater, thermal fluid heater, heat pump, etc.) that heats the liquid L to a predetermined temperature or temperature range (e.g., 30° C. to 40° C.) and supplies the heated liquid L to the first bag 20a and the second bag 20b, and moves, conveys, or circulates, the liquid L from the first bag 20a and the second bag 20b (e.g., to the heating circulation unit 40, etc.) to reheat the liquid L (e.g., once the liquid L has discharged heat).“) in order to temperature-control the temperature-controlled medium to a predetermined temperature.
Regarding claim 7, Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Nozaki teaches wherein the temperature-controlled medium is in a liquid physical state (Col.4 lines 11-12 ---"The first bag 20a and the second bag 20b are filled with a heating liquid L (e.g., water, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 8, Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert teaches wherein the storage mat (Hanneken Fig. 1 #153 barrier wall)and the plurality of containers stored thereon are arranged between two flat heating elements (Nozaki Fig. 1 #s20a and 20b first and second bags) (The combination of Nozaki and Hanneken realizes this configuration.).
Regarding claim 10, Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), but does not teach wherein the recesses in the storage mat have a width in the range of 10 mm to 50 mm.
However, Burkert teaches that the width of the recesses can be varied to accommodate containers of various sizes or shapes. (Fig. 1 #9-12 heating pockets)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the recesses in the storage mat have a width in the range of 10 mm to 50 mm, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Regarding claim 11, Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Burkert teaches wherein the storage mat (Fig. 1 #8 flexible, folded heating mat) has a number of retaining tabs (Fig. 2 #3 – 7 struts) which can be pivoted out of a plane (E) of extension of said storage mat (Fig. 1 #8 flexible, folded heating mat) and which are for partially covering the container and/or an accessory.
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 apparatus of Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert by incorporating the tabs as taught by Burkert for the benefit of adjusting the size of the recesses.
Regarding claim 12, Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Burkert teaches wherein the storage mat (Fig. 1 #8 flexible, folded heating mat) has a number of retaining tabs (Fig. 2 #3 – 7 struts) which can be pivoted out of a plane (E) of extension of said storage mat (Fig. 1 #8 flexible, folded heating mat) and which are for partially covering the container and/or an accessory, wherein the storage mat (Fig. 1 #8 flexible, folded heating mat) has a peripheral flat frame (Shown in the figure below) which surrounds the plurality of recesses (10") and on the outside of which the plurality of retaining tabs (Fig. 2 #3 – 7 struts) are arranged.
PNG
media_image2.png
370
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 apparatus of Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert by incorporating the tabs as taught by Burkert for the benefit of adjusting the size of the recesses and incorporating the frame as taught by Burkert for the benefit of supporting the tabs.
Regarding claim 13, Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 12), and Burkert teaches wherein a free end (Fig. 2 #s 21-25 free ends) of the retaining tab (Fig. 2 #3 – 7 struts) adjoins perpendicularly from the flat frame (Shown in the figure above) of the storage mat (Fig. 1 #8 flexible, folded heating mat).
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 apparatus of Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert by incorporating the free ends as taught by Burkert for the benefit of displaceability of the storage mat.
Regarding claim 14, Nozaki in view of Hanneken teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nozaki teaches wherein the storage mat and/or the heating element (Fig. 1 #s20a and 20b first and second bags) is associated with a mechanically movable actuating element (Fig. 1 #19 hinge portion) in such a way that, by periodic and/or aperiodic movement of the actuating element (Fig. 1 #19 hinge portion), the storage mat can be made to move back and forth transversely to a plane (E) of extension of said storage mat (Examiner notes that the phrase “by periodic and/or aperiodic movement…” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Nozaki can perform the intended function).
Regarding claim 15, Nozaki in view of Hanneken teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 14), and Nozaki teaches wherein the mechanically movable actuating element (Fig. 1 #19 hinge portion) is rigid and comprises a plurality of interconnected straight and/or curved struts (Shown in the figure below) to form a rigid frame having smaller dimensions than the flat frame of the storage mat (Examiner notes that the phrase “to form a rigid frame…” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Nozaki can perform the intended function. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
PNG
media_image3.png
524
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding 16, Nozaki in view of Hanneken teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 14), and Nozaki teaches wherein the actuating element (Fig. 1 #19 hinge portion) is arranged between an upper heating element and an upper side of the storage mat or on a side of the upper heating element (Fig. 1 #20a first bag) facing away from the storage mat and/or between a lower heating element and a lower side of the storage mat or on a side of the lower heating element (15') facing away from the storage mat (9"), the actuating element (Fig. 1 #19 hinge portion) being controllable about a pivot axis (A) which extends in parallel with the plane (E) of extension of the storage mat (Examiner notes that the phrase “being controllable about a pivot axis…” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Nozaki can perform the intended function. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 17, Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Hanneken teaches wherein the storage mat (Fig. 1 #153 barrier wall) consists of a one-piece silicone material (Col. 5 lines 61-63 ---" For example, in one suitable embodiment the barrier member 151 and in particular the barrier wall 153 is constructed of silicone.”).
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 apparatus of Nozaki in view of Hanneken and Burkert by incorporating the silicone storage mat as taught by Hanneken for the benefit of providing a snug fit for containers using resiliently flexible material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 02/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Burkert et al (DE 10149377).
Applicant argues that Nozaki in view of Hanneken does not teach the newly amended limitations of claim 1. Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, previously cited reference Burkert does teach the new limitations of claim 1. Burkert teaches a storage mat having elongate recesses, each with an opening for receiving a cylindrical container. Furthermore, the container regardless of shape is not an element of the claimed invention. The container is consider the workpiece upon which the claimed invention is used to process. See the rejection of 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 JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761