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 .
Applicant’s filing of claims 1-32 on 3/27/23 is acknowledged. Claims 1-32 are pending and are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/13/23 was acknowledged. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the flask stirrer base of the claimed invention must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-32 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.
Claims 1, 27 and 32 are rejected because the scope of the claimed invention with regard to the “flask stirrer base” is unclear. In applicant’s specification, e.g., [0034] of PGPub, the flask stirrer base refers to 5 and 5’ of fig. 1 of the prior art’s flask stirring device. Is the flask stirrer base being positively claimed? For examination purposes, the flask stirrer base will be considered intended use and/or functional claim language.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 14, 20, 21, 30 and 31 are rejected because it is unclear how the air to flow in a first direction, second direction, third direction and fourth direction structurally further defines the claimed thermal separator apparatus.
Claims 3-4, 9-10 and 27 are rejected because it is unclear how the “thermal conductivity” structurally further defines the claimed “apparatus”.
Claim 7 is rejected because “a flask stirrer base” is unclear. Is the “flask stirrer base” in claims 1 and 7 refer to the same or a different flask stirrer base?
Claim Interpretation
The Office asserts that terms and phrases like “configured to” and “wherein” constitute recitations of intended use language for purposes of examination. The Office asserts that in the examined claims reciting such “configured to” language, the claim language that follows such recitations does not necessarily denote structure MPEP 2173.05(g). The functional limitation was evaluated and considered, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, a “wherein” clause may have a limiting effect on a claim if the language limits the claim to a particular structure. MPEP 2111.04. The determination of whether a “wherein” clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. While all words in each claim are considered in judging the patentability of the claim language, including functional claim limitations, not all limitations provide a patentable distinction.
During patent examination, the examined claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, unless a term has been given a special definition in the specification (“BRI”). See MPEP 2111.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14, 20, 21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Visinoni et al. (“Visinoni,” US Pub. No. 2014/0339070).
As to claim 1, Visinoni discloses a thermal separator apparatus comprising: a stand (base of holder 65) having a top surface configured to support a flask containing a substance to be stirred by a flask stirrer (“configured to” is intended use claim language, see above); and a plurality of first standoffs (at least the legs on one side of the holder, which is around positioning means 80 and 80’; [0039]) configured to be located between the stand and a flask stirrer base, thereby creating a first air gap (see empty volume between stand and base) between the stand and the flask stirrer base that allows air to flow straight through the first air gap in a first direction (“allows air to flow straight through the first air gap in a first direction” is considered intended use and/or functional claim language).
As to claim 2, Visinoni discloses the first air gap as shown in empty volume between stand and base in fig. 3-5. For “air to flow . . . second direction,” this is considered intended use and/or functional claim language.
As to claim 6, Visinoni does not disclose vertical voids that connect the first air gap to the top surface of the stand, as shown in figs. 3-5.
As to claim 7, Visinoni discloses a platform having a top surface (see sidewall(s) and flaps of holder 65 in figs. 3-5) configured to support the first standoffs. Visinoni discloses a plurality of second standoffs on the opposite side of the first standoffs. See at least the legs on one side of the holder, which is around positioning means 80 and 80’; [0039]. The claim language, “allows air to flow straight through the second air gap in a third direction” is considered intended use and/or functional claim language.
As to claim 8, Visinoni discloses the second air gap as shown in empty volume between stand and base in fig. 3-5. For “air to flow . . . fourth direction,” this is considered intended use and/or functional claim language.
As to claim 12, Visinoni does not disclose vertical voids that connect the first air gap to the second air gap, as shown in figs. 3-5.
As to claim 13, Visinoni discloses first and second standoffs are laterally offset, as shown in figs. 3-5.
As to claims 14 and 20-21, see figs. 3-5 and 112 rejection above.
As to claim 23, Visinoni discloses second standoffs integrally formed with the platform, as shown in figs. 3-5.
As to claim 24, see engagement/positioning means 25, 25’ in fig. 2.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5 and 9-11, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visinoni in view of Kim et al. (“Kim,” WO 2016013770 A1).
See Visinoni above.
As to claims 3-5 and 9-11, Visinoni does not specifically disclose the stand and standoffs are made from materials with the claimed thermal conductivities and is made from polyoxymethylene. Kim discloses a multiplex PCR chip 200 in fig. 2 comprising a multiple plates, which include a first plate 210 made of polyoxymethylene. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the stand and standoffs made from polyoxymethylene because it would be desirable to utilize an efficient heat transfer material. As for the claimed thermal conductivities, the combination of Visinoni and Kim properly read on the claimed thermal conductivities because Kim discloses the claimed polyoxymethylene, and thus, the properties of the claimed polyoxymethylene are properly disclosed. See MPEP 2112.01.
As to claim 22, Visinoni does not specifically disclose the first standoffs are fastened to the platform with non-metallic fasteners. Kim discloses the first, second and third plates are bonded together by various bonding methods applicable in the art, such as tape bonding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the first standoffs fastened to the platform with non-metallic fasteners, such as tape bonding, because it would be desirable to utilize a commonly known attachment mechanism that can withstand various temperatures.
Claims 15-19 and 25-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visinoni in view of Hayman (US Pub. No. 2008/0056957, cited in IDS).
See Visinoni above.
As to claims 15-17, Visinoni does not specifically disclose a plurality of substantially identical stand sets on top of the platform, which is at least four stand sets; and each stand comprises a plurality of different diameter recesses. Hayman discloses a plurality of substantially identical stand sets on top of the platform, which is at least four stand sets; and each stand comprises a plurality of different diameter recesses in [0034] et seq. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a plurality of substantially identical stand sets on top of the platform, which is at least four stand sets; and each stand comprises a plurality of different diameter recesses because it would be desirable to have an arrangement capable of accommodating sets of differently sized glass reaction tubes or vial and supports one or more interchangeable reaction block wedges safely and snugly, all to enhance safety and allow excellent heat transfer ([0002] and [0007] of Hayman).
As to claims 18-19 and 28-29, while Visinoni does not specifically disclose the claimed cross-sectional area comparisons, Visinoni discloses in figs. 3-5 the cross-sectional area of the stand is greater than the cross-sectional area of the first standoffs, and cross-sectional area of the platform is greater than the cross-sectional area of the second standoffs. Hayman discloses dimensions of each reaction block wedge, and base holder in [0035] et seq. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the claimed cross-sectional area comparisons because it would appear that such dimensions are result-effective variables, and thus, it would be obvious to determine, through routine experimentation, the claimed dimensions because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claims 25-26, Visinoni does not specifically disclose the claimed vertical distance. Hayman discloses the vertical distance does not exceed 5 inches, or 1.5 inches in [0035] et seq. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the claimed vertical distance because the claimed dimension would create a safe and effective heat transfer for the liquid samples within each vial and do not to interfere with the magnetic field, being generated from below the hot plate surface ([0008] of Hayman).
As to claim 27, Visinoni discloses a stand (base of holder 65); a platform having a top surface (see sidewall(s) and flaps of holder 65 in figs. 3-5); a plurality of first standoffs (at least the legs on one side of the holder, which is around positioning means 80 and 80’; [0039]; the claim language, “allows air to flow straight through . . . first direction” is considered intended use and/or functional claim language); a plurality of second standoffs (see at least the legs on one side of the holder, which is around positioning means 80 and 80’; [0039]; the claim language following “configured to” is considered intended use and/or functional claim language); a plurality of tabs (see engagement/positioning means 25, 25’ in fig. 2); and the first and second standoffs are laterally offset (figs. 3-5). As for the thermal conductivity, see 112 rejection above. This is considered an intended use and/or functional limitation. As for the plurality of stands, Visinoni does not specifically disclose a plurality of stands. Hayman discloses a plurality of substantially identical stand sets on top of the platform in [0034] et seq. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a plurality of substantially identical stand sets on top of the platform because it would be desirable to have an arrangement capable of accommodating sets of differently sized glass reaction tubes or vial and supports one or more interchangeable reaction block wedges safely and snugly, all to enhance safety and allow excellent heat transfer ([0002] and [0007] of Hayman).
As to claims 30-31, see figs. 3-5 of Visinoni and 112 rejection above.
As to claim 32, Visinoni discloses a method of automatically stirring the contents of a flask while closely maintaining the temperature of the contents, the method comprising: providing an automatic stirring device having a base; providing a thermal separator apparatus according to claim 27 and placing it over the base of the stirring device; placing a flask on at least one of the plurality of stands of the thermal separator apparatus, the at least one flask have contents to be stirred and a stirrer magnetically coupled to the stirring device base; locating the automatic stirring device, the thermal separator apparatus and the at least one flask in a temperature-controlled incubator; and allowing air to circulate through the first and the second air gaps of the thermal separator apparatus. See figs. 2-5 and [0024] et seq. of Visinoni. However, Visinoni does not specifically disclose the claimed a plurality of stands in claim 27. Hayman discloses a plurality of substantially identical stand sets on top of the platform in [0034] et seq. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a plurality of substantially identical stand sets on top of the platform because it would be desirable to have an arrangement capable of accommodating sets of differently sized glass reaction tubes or vial and supports one or more interchangeable reaction block wedges safely and snugly, all to enhance safety and allow excellent heat transfer ([0002] and [0007] of Hayman). See also MPEP 2112.02.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORE RAMILLANO JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
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.
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.
/LORE R JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
12/13/2025