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 § 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wells" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 8 recites the limitation "the block" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelly-Greene et al. (herein ‘Greene’) (WO 2018/102781).
Regarding claim 1, Greene teaches an incubator system comprising a solid block (116, 216, and 316) having a higher thermal conductivity layer (made of metal) configured to overlie all of the wells of a plate (114) and an upper lower thermal conductivity layer (106, plastic or polymer) above the higher thermal conductivity layer (116, 216, and 316). (Refer to paragraphs [0098] and [0114]). (Refer to Figure 1B)
Regarding claim 2, a thermal block having a metal side (116, 216, and 316) for overlying the wells of the plate (114) and a plastic side (106, plastic or polymer).
Regarding claim 3, the higher thermal conductivity layer (116, 216, and 316) is a metal selected from aluminum, copper and iron. (Refer to paragraph [0114])
Regarding claim 4, the higher thermal conductivity layer (116, 216, and 316) is selected from metal, thermally doped plastic, graphite, ceramic, and a contained liquid. (Refer to paragraph [0114])
Regarding claim 5, the lower thermal conductivity layer (106, plastic or polymer) is a plastic. (Refer to paragraph [0098])
Regarding claim 6, the lower thermal conductivity layer (106) is selected from polypropylene, polyethylene, acrylic or any thermal insulator. (Refer to paragraph [0098])
Regarding claim 7, the block (116, 216, and 316) has a rectangular cross-section. (Refer to Figure 1B)
Regarding claim 8, the block (116, 216, and 316) has a rim on the lower thermal conductivity layer (106) to permit stacking. (Refer to Figures 1A and 1B)
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(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene in view of Blanchard (US 11,319,523).
Refer above for the teachings of Greene.
Greene fails to teach transporting the culture plate to an imager with the thermal block in place and removing the block before or after inserting the culture plate into the imager and the thermal block is removed before the cell culture plate is inserted in the imager.
Blanchard teaches an incubator system comprising a imager for monitoring cell growth, viability and other aspect of cells. (Refer to Col. Lines 10-15)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Greene with a imager in order to image the culture plate for cell growth monitoring, viability and other aspect of cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, EST.
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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571-272-1267. 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.
/JYOTI NAGPAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798