DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(a)
The remarks take the position that the cooling unit should be understood to be a cover and a heat sink attachment. This has not been found persuasive as a cover and heat sink attachment cannot be viewed as structure sufficient to perform the claimed function of cooling. Specifically, the cover nor the claimed heat sink attachment are disclosed to perform cooling. Instead, the only disclosure is that the cover is “for the cooling medium or the forced cooling”. That is, it is the cooling medium/forced cooling that performs the cooling function and not the cover or heat sink attachment. The cover appears to have an inlet and outlet (53 and 52 respectively) for the cooling medium ([0050] of the originally filed specification). However, the in/out are not disclosed to be associated with the heat sink attachment 50, therefore where the coolant goes after it goes between the coolant in 53 and the coolant out 52 is not taught be the instant specification. Presumably heat sink attachment 50 is not merely an empty space, however as there is no disclosure of any structure for actually attaching the heat sink it would appear the suggestion is that empty space indicated by 50 is actually some undisclosed component to attach the heat sink. MPEP 2181 (II) (A) recites “the proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function”. See also MPEP 2163.01(VI) noting when a definiteness issue is raised a lack of written description under 112(a) is also raised.
Here, the structure of a cover and heat attachment is not sufficient to perform the cooling as the cooling fluid itself or the forced cooling performs the claimed function. Moreover, the in and out 52/53 items in figure 3 are not described as to where the coolant flows or exists between the in/out.
Moreover, the claimed heat sink attachment structure is not disclosed. Figure 3 shows element 50 pointing to a space. However, it is not clear what structure of this space allows for attachment of the heat sink. The specification is devoid of any disclosure as to what structure is required for the heat sink attachment element. Indeed element 50 appears to be merely an empty space between cover 51 and heat sink 4, therefore does not demonstrate how the heat sink is attached nor how such an attachment provides cooling with the cover (i.e. cooling unit).
Therefore, the remarks are not persuasive.
Claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(b)
As discussed above, the cooling unit still invokes 112(f) and there is insufficient structure disclosed to perform the claimed function
103 rejections: Kim in view of Rue
The remarks take the position that Kim fails to disclose “heat from the thermoelectric element is transferred to the specimen holder shaft unit”. This has been found unpersuasive. Kim expressly teaches on page 4, lines 166-168 “a heat transfer portion 24 which is in contact with both exposed outer surfaces of the pair of Peltier elements 21 and has one end in contact with one end of the heat conducting rod 30”. Therefore, there is contact between the thermoelectric element and the holder shaft unit (i.e. heat conducting rod). Moreover, page 6, lines 220-222 teaches heat absorption phenomenon occurs on the surface of the Peltier element 21 in contact with the heat transfer portion 24. Ultimately cooling heat conduction rod 30 and the sample mounting tip 11. In other words, heat from the rod to the thermoelectric component. Kim further notes that in the heating method a “change in polarity of the power supply and circulate the heating medium through the heat medium circulation section. This ultimately heats the conducting rod (page 6, lines 224-227). That is, by a change in polarity heat from the thermoelectric element (i.e. Peltier) is transferred to the specimen holder shaft unit.
The remarks then contend that the heat is transferred via a clamping mechanism, therefore Kim fails to make obvious the claim. Initially, it is noted that 24 of Kim is a C-shaped that surrounds the Peltier element (see page 5, lines 172-174). As discussed above the portion is disclosed to transfer heat to the rod.
The only claimed element that Kim fails to disclose is that the heat transfer section is a clamping mechanism. As discussed previously, the heat transfer section would necessarily require some means of attachment, otherwise there would be no way to keep it in place. Since there are shown screw holes in figure 6, it would have been obvious to fasten the upper and lower heat transfer portions 24 to the Peltier in order to ensure the heat transfer regions 24 remain in place to operate as intended.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Here, Kim does teach transferring heat through the heat transfer portion 24 (see discussion above) and as admitted by the remarks Kim teaches the heat transfer portions are on both sides of the Peltier elements (see last few lines of page 9). While Kim does not disclose the claimed clamping mechanism, given that it is in a C-shaped and must inherently be attached in some manner so as to transfer heat as desired (see page 6, lines 220-226), it would have been obvious to fasten the upper and lower heat transfer portions so as to form a clamp (i.e. due to c-shaped heat transfer portions) because it would ensure the heat transfer portions remain in position so as to work as desired (i.e. transfer heat).
The remarks continue by reciting “the presently claimed clamping mechanism is not merely a generic fastening arrangement. As described in Applicant's specification, the clamping mechanism forms part of the thermal transfer path between the thermoelectric element and the specimen holder shaft unit. Transferring heat via a clamping mechanism has an advantageous effect that the biaxial tilting mechanism of the specimen holder is not disturbed and higher performance cooling is possible. See, e.g., Applicant's specification, paras. [0038]-[0040]. Thus, the clamping mechanism performs a specific heat-transfer function within the overall thermal architecture of the specimen holder. The Office Action does not identify any disclosure in Kim suggesting such an arrangement. Accordingly, Kim fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a specimen holder in which "heat from the thermoelectric element is transferred to the specimen holder shaft unit; and the heat is transferred via a clamping mechanism," as recited in amended independent claim 1 (emphasis added).”
This has not been found persuasive because Kim also teaches the heat transfer portion performs a specific heat transfer function within the overall thermal architecture of the specimen holder (see discussion above with respect to page 6, lines 220-226, particularly lines 223-226).
Therefore, the remarks are unpersuasive and the rejection stands as discussed herein below.
Additionally, solely to advance prosecution an alternative interpretation is provided herein below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Tubular unit capable of housing the specimen holder shaft unit in claim 1 (cylinder or tube 10).
“Cooling unit having a cover…the cooling unit has a heat sink attachment” in claim 1.
“heat sink attachment” in claim 1
A thermoelectric element placed close to the cooling unit (Peltier element)
Attachment connecting unit for switching cooling medium that connects the specimen holder main body to the cooling unit in claim 1
A clamping mechanism in claim 1 (elastic or spring member [0058])
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4 and 7-8 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.
Claim 1 invokes 35 USC 112(f) for Cooling unit having a cover…the cooling unit has a heat sink. MPEP 2163.03(VI) recites:
“A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.”
Here, the specification depicts the cooling unit as “5” in figure 1 (an unclaimed embodiment) or a space between a cover 51 and coolant heat sink attachment (50) see paragraph [0060]. However, the specification is devoid of any structure of the actual cooling unit. Therefore, the claimed “cooling unit” covers ways of cooling and the inventor as not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the claimed invention.
Additionally, while the claim now requires the cooling unit to have a cover and heat sink attachment, there is no disclosure of how these elements are used to achieve the function of cooling. At best it appears the cover is for the cooling medium or forced cooling ([0060] of the published application), however there is no disclosure of how the heat sink attachment and cover interface to form the claimed cooling unit for cooling. See discussion in response to arguments section above. MPEP 2181 (IV) recites “means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description ” (emphasis added). That is, while there is a disclosed fluid in and out, apparently attached to the cover, the specification fails to provide the actual structure to the heat sink attachment and cover to demonstrate sufficient structure to perform the function of cooling. Indeed, paragraph [0060] provides no description as to how the in and out of the cooling medium interface with the heat sink attachment unit to allow for cooling. Paragraph [0061] even suggests the cooling medium would be a solid, therefore there is no suggestion of how a solid material could be positioned between the cover and heat sink attachment, when it is not even clear whether the heat sink attachment 50 in figure 3 is a solid component or an empty space. Therefore, as discussed in detail above, there is insufficient disclosure to demonstrate the entire structure to perform the claimed function of cooling.
Similarly, the “heat sink attachment” has no disclosed structure. The specification merely reiterates this term in [0050] of the originally filed specification. This demonstrates that the claim scope is intended to cover any connecting means when no means of attachment connecting unit for switching cooling medium is disclosed.
Claims 2-4 and 7-8 lack written description by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 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.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite for reciting “components of the specimen holder are configured to operate as a forced convection chiller” because it is not clear whether the claimed “components” are referring to all the claimed components (i.e. the specimen holder shaft unit, the outer tubular unit, the cooling unit, the thermoelectric element, etc..) or some combination or a combination of claimed and unclaimed components. No unambiguous determination can be made.
Additionally, Claim limitations “cooling unit” and “heat sink attachment ” recited in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Specifically, the specification merely uses the functional terms without any disclosure as to what structure to accomplish the claimed function. Additionally as discussed above, the connecting unit is disclosed to cover any means of connecting see rejection under 112(a) above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-4 and 7-8 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO2017073816) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the office action of 10 April 2025) in view of Rue et al. (US pgPub 2006/0065853) alone or alternatively further in view of Siemens-Electrogerate aktien-Gelsellshaft (GB 978,441) (herein Siemens).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teach a specimen holder (fig. 3) comprises:
a specimen holder shaft unit (30) having a specimen (sample mounting tip 11 in contact and connected to the heat conducting rod 30, see page 4, lines 140-143 );
an outer tubular unit (10) capable of housing the specimen holder shaft unit (as seen in figure 3);
a cooling unit (page 5, lines 197-205 external heat exchange device being a cooling water supply device connected to the heat exchange unit 22 via medium circulation path 22a) having a cover (see annotated figures below);
PNG
media_image1.png
396
1146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
356
1156
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a thermoelectric element (21) placed on the cooling unit with a heat sink in between, (as seen in figure 8 shows 22a (cooling unit) in contact with 21 with a heat exchanger 22 (heat sink) between, wherein 22 connects with external cooling water supply (i.e. cooling unit))
wherein the cooling unit and the heat sink are detachable (figures 3-8 show the completed assembly and partially assembled device. Page 4, lines 148-152 teach the Peltier element 21 is in contact with the heat exchange unit 22 (i.e. heat sink) which has a heat medium circulation path 22a passing through the inside thereof. Since the structure may be assembled as seen in figure 6 such that the cooling unit/heat sink are in contact with the Peltier element, the system is inherently detachable from the assembled configuration by a reverse process);
the cooling unit has a heat sink attachment connecting unit (as the disclosed heat sink attachment appears to be the interior volume of a container with a heat sink enclosed (see figure 3), the heat sink attachment connecting unit is interpreted to be container 23. See figure 3 that encloses the heat sink 22);
components of the specimen holder are configured to operate as a forced convection chiller (page 5, lines 197-205 external heat exchange device being a cooling water supply device connected to the heat exchange unit 22 for circulating the low temperature heat medium (i.e. forced convection chiller)) that forcibly circulates a cooling medium to cool the heat radiating surface (cooling medium through 22a forcibly circulated (i.e. in order to have circulation, there must inherently be some force and low temperature cooling medium requires some chiller) and cools 22 via circulation passage 22a (i.e. cooling medium on 22 via 22a or indirectly on))
heat from the thermoelectric element is transferred to the specimen holder shaft unit (Kim expressly teaches on page 4, lines 166-168 “a heat transfer portion 24 which is in contact with both exposed outer surfaces of the pair of Peltier elements 21 and has one end in contact with one end of the heat conducting rod 30”. Therefore, there is contact between the thermoelectric element and the holder shaft unit (i.e. heat conducting rod). Moreover, page 6, lines 220-222 teaches heat absorption phenomenon occurs on the surface of the Peltier element 21 in contact with the heat transfer portion 24. Ultimately cooling heat conduction rod 30 and the sample mounting tip 11.” In other words, heat from the rod to the thermoelectric component. Kim further notes that in the heating method a “change in polarity of the power supply and circulate the heating medium through the heat medium circulation section. This ultimately heats the conducting rod (page 6, lines 224-227). That is, by a change in polarity heat from the thermoelectric element (i.e. Peltier) is transferred to the specimen holder shaft unit); and the heat is transferred via a mechanism (heat transfer portion 24 having a c-shape, see page 5, lines 172-174).
Kim et al. differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing the thermoelectric element has a multi-stage configuration; and an area of a heat absorbing surface of the thermoelectric element is smaller than an area of a heat radiating surface of the thermoelectric element.
However, Rue teaches the thermoelectric element (fig. 5, 504, [0034]) has a multi-stage configuration (504a/504b); and an area of a heat absorbing surface of the thermoelectric element is smaller than an area of a heat radiating surface of the thermoelectric element (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
638
755
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rue modifies Kim et al. by suggesting the substitution of a single stage Peltier element for a stacked or serial pair of individual Peltier elements ([0035]).
Since both inventions are directed towards cooling with Peltier elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the single stage Peltier element 21 of Kim et al. for a serial stacked configuration as suggested in Rue because the stacked pair allows for lower absolute temperatures to be attained ([0035]), therefore improving the operational range of temperature upon which the cooling system may operate. That is, facilitating the ability to cool to lower temperatures with the serial stacked Peltier as compared to the single stage.
Kim further fails to disclose the heat transfer mechanism is a clamping mechanism.
However, figure 6 shows 24 with holes in both the upper and lower 24. Since the transfer portions 24 requires some means of remaining in contact with both the rod 30 and both sides of the Peltier components 21, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide fasteners inside the holes of 24 such that 24 would act as a clamp because it would facilitate a means for the heat transfer elements to retain their position as described such that heat can be effectively transferred from the conducting rod 30.
Alternatively, while Kim teaches a heat transfer portion above and below the Peltier, Kim fails to disclose how they are held together so as to hold them in place for heat transfer.
However, Siemens teaches a clamp to secure the Peltier blocks together so as to secure the heat exchange vessel (see page 1, lines 17-27).
Siemens modifies the combined device by suggesting how the device would be secured together.
Since both inventions are directed towards Peltier mechanisms it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to clamp the heat transfer means to the Peltier device of Kim as suggested by Siemens because it would resolve the problem as to how to keep the device in a fixed orientation for heat exchange. Moreover, the clamp would allow for both sides of the device to have the same working temperature, therefore enabling more precise control of the heat transfer in the Peltier device of the combined device.
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. teach wherein the thermoelectric element is a thermoelectric element that utilizes at least one effect selected from the Peltier effect (page 4, line 144).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. teach wherein the heat radiation side of the thermoelectric element and the cooling unit are in contact with each other (page 4, lines 147-154, Peltier element has one side in contact with one end of the heat conducting rod and the other side in contact with the heat exchange unit 22 to recover heat from the Peltier element 21. Thus 22a is on the heat radiating side. Since 22a is connected to external unit, the external cooling water supply is in indirect contact with the thermoelectric element via circulation path 22a).
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. teach a cooling medium of the cooling unit is composed of a solid cooling medium, a liquid cooling medium, or a gas cooling medium (water, see page 5, lines 203-205)
Regarding claims 7-8, Kim et al. teach wherein the specimen holder shaft is rotatable and movable back and forth (the shaft of figure 6 when outside of the vacuum chamber is movable both rotatably and back and forth by manual rotation or translation by an operator. The claim in no way requires any structure to achieve the claimed function. However, in the event structure is required, see the 103 rejection herein below interpreting the functional language to require some structure other than manual operation).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Rue and further in view of van de Water et al. (US pgPub 2007/0252090) (herein Water).
Regarding claims 7-8, Kim fails to disclose any movement of the specimen holder shaft.
However, Water teaches wherein the specimen holder shaft unit is rotatable ([0035], last sentence) and wherein the specimen holder shaft unit is movable back and forth ([0035], last sentence).
Water modifies Kim by suggesting a control unit outside of the column for the purpose of translating and or rotating the sample holder.
Since both inventions are directed towards TEM sample holders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motion controller of Water in the device of Kim because it would facilitate a means of positioning of the sample relative to the electron beam to enable flexibility in the portion of the sample to be imaged and/or allow for correction for any positional misalignment between the sample and the electron beam.
Relevant art of interest to the applicant:
US5075555 to Woldseth teaches a pyramidal Peltier element.
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 MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights