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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2001/0020611, hereinafter Ally in view of United States Application Publication No. 2012/0051390, hereinafter Coursey.
Regarding claim 1, Ally teaches a biological sample analyzer (figure 2), comprising: a housing (figure 2) having at least one outer wall that defines an internal cavity therein (figure 2); a receptacle disposed within the internal cavity (item 616), the receptacle configured to support a consumable holder containing a biological sample (figure 6); at least one heater (item 120) having a variable power output and disposed within the housing (paragraph [0061]), the at least one heater configured to apply heat to the consumable holder (figure 2); a fan (item 116) configured to force air along a path in the housing so as to cool the at least one heater (figure 2), the fan producing an amount of air flow that can be controlled with a density parameter (paragraph [0061]); at least one heater sensor configured to detect temperature of air within the housing (paragraph [0061]); and, a controller (item 130) configured to receive a measurement of the density parameter of the fan (paragraph [0061]).
Ally fails to teach the controller is configured to receive measurements of power output of the at least one heater and measurement of temperature of air being drawn into the housing and configured to alter the density parameter of the fan based on power output of the at least one heater at the temperature of air in the housing.
Coursey teaches a heater system with a calibration device which utilizes the ambient temperature, internal temperatures and the thermal control element’s output so as to calibrate the system based upon the heater output and ambient temperatures (Coursey, paragraph [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the controller receive measurements of the power output of the heater and temperature of the air being drawn in because it would be utilized to calibrate the system based upon the heaters output and ambient environment of the system (Coursey, paragraph [0066]). Further, as the system is being calibrated based upon the teachings of Coursey, the density parameter of the fan would also be calibrated (as this is directly related to the heating steps) based upon the output of the heater and the ambient environment.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ally teaches wherein the controller alters the density parameter of the fan based on power output of the at least one heater at start-up of the biological sample analyzer (as discussed above, the density parameter of the fan is calibrated and based upon the output of the heater and ambient temperature, as this is done for the whole process, it would also be done at start-up).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ally teaches wherein the at least one heater includes a first heater (item 120) and a second heater (item 218), and wherein the controller is configured to alter the density parameter of the fan based on power output of the first heater (see supra).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ally teaches wherein the density parameter of the fan is a speed parameter of the fan (paragraph [0061]), and wherein the controller has a non-transitory memory connected to a processor (item 130), the non-transitory memory having computer-executable instructions thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to alter the speed parameter of the fan based on power output of the at least one heater at the temperature detected by the at least one heater sensor as compared to expected power output of the at least one heater at the temperature detected by the at least one heater sensor (as discussed above, the density parameter of the fan is calibrated and based upon the output of the heater and internal temperatures).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ally teaches wherein the temperature detected by the at least one heater sensor is ambient temperature (see supra).
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ally and Coursey as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2018/0008979, hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 6, Ally and Coursey teach all limitations of claim 4; however, they fail to teach determining the measured power output of the at least one heater as a mean of a plurality of measurements of power output of the heater.
Yu teaches a heating device which has multiple temperature sensors which are aggregated and statistically analyzed to determine the average of the temperature of the fluid so that a temperature profile of the entire fluid can be determined (Yu, paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added multiple temperature sensors and determine a plurality of measurements of power output to the heater so that a temperature profile of the entire fluid can be determined (Yu, paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ally teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to compare the power output of the at least one heater at a first speed of the fan to expected power output of the at least one heater at the temperature of air in the housing and alter the first speed of the fan to a second speed (see supra during the calibration).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ally teaches wherein the first speed of the fan is an idle speed (the slowest speed is considered to be the idle speed).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ally teaches wherein the first speed of the fan is less than the second speed (any of the other speeds selected would be faster than the slowest (idle) speed).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ally teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to alter the second speed of the fan based on power output of the at least one heater such that power output of the at least one heater is within a pre-determined range of the expected power output at the temperature within the housing (see supra).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ally does not teach or suggest the heater 120 has a variable power output, however, this is not persuasive. Ally teaches that the heater is a fine-strand resistance wires (paragraph [0074]), the amount of power that is supplied to the resistance wires would change the power output of the heater. Therefore, the heater 120 of Ally would have a variable power output. Additionally, turning the heater off versus on would also be considered to be variable power output as there would be some amount of power supplied when the heater is on and no power supplied when the heater is off.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Coursey fails to teach that “the controller is … configured to alter the density parameter of the fan based on power output of the at least one heater at the temperature of air in the housing is not found persuasive. Coursey teaches a device which utilizes the ambient temperature, the internal temperature and thermal control element’s output to calibrate a system based on the heater output and ambient temperatures. Based upon this teaching one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized to calibrate the heating system of Ally based upon the ambient temperature, internal temperature and heater output. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the fan of Ally is directly related to the heating process which is disclosed in Ally. Therefore, when one of ordinary skill would calibrate the heating system of Ally, one would have to also calibrate the density parameter of the fan as well.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ally and Coursey does not teach altering a density parameter of the fan based on power output of the at least one heater would occur at start-up of a biological sample analyzer is not found persuasive. As discussed above, the system of Ally has been modified to calibrate the heating system and in doing so would alter the density parameter of the fan. As the calibration is considered to be occurring during the process of using the device, the calibration would occur during the startup of the device. As the calibration is being utilized during the startup of the device, it is considered the Ally modified by Coursey reads on the specified limitations.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the Office does not address how or where Ally or Coursey disclose altering the speed parameter of the fan based on power output of the at least one heater at the temperature detected by the at least one heater sensor as compared to expected power output of the at least one heater at the temperature detected by the at least one heater sensor is not found persuasive. During the calibration procedure, disclosed by Coursey, the output of the at least one heater (the temperature from the heater) is compared with the expected power output (the thermal control element’s output) and these values are utilized to calibrate the heating system.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding that the office action states “modified Keller,” this was a typo and should have been modified Ally as Ally is the current primary reference which is utilized as applicant has assumed.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Coursey makes not suggestion of measuring power output at all is not found persuasive. Paragraph [0066] of Coursey disclose determining the thermal control element’s output which is considered to be measuring power output of the heater. As described above, the fan speed would be calibrated along with the rest of the heating system and in doing so. Based upon this calibration, the device of Ally would modify the fan speed as described in the claim.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ally modified by Coursey does not teach an “idle speed” is not found persuasive. The applicant has not stated what is meant by an idle speed other than it is a speed of the fan. Therefore, it is interpreted that the slowest speed of the fan is considered to be the “idle speed” and therefore read on the instant claims.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ally modified by Coursey fail to teach to alter the second speed of the fan based on the power output of the at least one heater…” is not found persuasive. As disclosed above, during the calibration of the heating system of Ally, the fan speed would also be calibrated. During this calibration, the speed of the fan would be controlled depending upon the calibration numbers and would therefore alter the “second speed” of the fan as described in the claim.
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 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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights