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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “and being penetrated” and it is recommended to change the wording for clarity. For example, “and being penetrated” could be changed to “to be penetrated”.
Claim 14 recites “temperature control plate, of the magnetic stirrer” and it seems this should be changed to “temperature control plate of the magnetic stirrer” (comma removed).
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites “and being penetrated” and it is recommended to change the wording for clarity. For example, “and being penetrated” could be changed to “to be penetrated”.
Claim 15 recites “a separation layer” in line 15 which should be changed to “the separation layer” as “a separation layer” is previously recited in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-6 and 7-15 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 3 recites “, in particular opposite the first side” in line 3. It is unclear if this is a required limitation or not. This could be resolved by removing “, in particular”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claims 4-10 are also rejected because they are dependent on rejected claim 3 and do not overcome the deficiencies of claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the broad recitation: “the separation layer is at least partially formed by conversion from the base material of the base layer”, and the claim also recites “, in particular by generating an oxidic layer by anodic oxidation of the base layer and/or by passivation of the base layer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
This could be resolved by amending the claim by removing “, in particular” to clarify that the claim requires generating an oxidic layer by anodic oxidation of the base layer and/or passivation of the base layer.
Claim 5 recites “in particular a plastic layer” and it is unclear if the plastic layer is required or not. This could be resolved by amending as: “The sample receiving element according to claim 3, wherein the separation layer is a plastic layer formed separately from the base layer[[,]]
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation 50 µm to 130 µm, and the claim also recites “preferably of 60 μm to 120 μm, and more preferably from 90 μm to 110 μm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims especially due to the use of the term “preferably”.
Claim 8 recites the broad recitation “wherein the base material comprises an aluminum alloy” and the claim also recites “preferably an aluminum-magnesium-silicon alloy” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim especially due to the use of the term “preferably”.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “a defined geometric shape” and the claim also recites “preferably a circular plate” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims especially due to the use of the term “preferably”.
Claim 9 recites “preferably the first zone being circular and the second zone being annular” and it is unclear if this is a required limitation or optional due to the use of the word “preferably”.
For the purpose of examination “preferable” limitations are interpreted to be optional.
Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 9.
Claim 11 recites “, in particular opposite the first side” in line 3. It is unclear if this is a required limitation or not. This could be resolved by removing “, in particular”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the first side” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A first side is first introduced in claim 3, which is not in the dependency chain of claim 12.
Claim 13 is also rejected because it is dependent on rejected claim 12 and does not overcome the deficiencies of claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the separation layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A separation layer is first introduced in claim 3, which is not in the dependency chain of claim 13.
Claim 13 recites “the base material” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. At least one base material is introduced in claim 3, which is not in the dependency chain of claim 13.
Claim 13 recites “the base layer” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A base layer is first introduced in claim 3, which is not in the dependency chain of claim 13.
Claim 14 recites the broad recitation “a laboratory device” and the claim also recites “preferably the laboratory device is configured as a magnetic stirrer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims especially due to the use of the term “preferably”.
Claim 14 recites the broad recitation “a sample receiving element” and the claim also recites “and further preferably the sample receiving element is configured as a placement plate, in particular a temperature control plate, of the magnetic stirrer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims especially due to the use of the terms “preferably” and “in particular”.
For the purpose of examination “preferable” limitations are interpreted to be optional.
Claim 15 recites “preferably wherein the sample receiving element has a first side facing the sample” in line 8 and it is unclear if this is a required limitation or optional due to the use of the word “preferably”.
For the purpose of examination “preferable” limitations are interpreted to be optional.
Claim 15 recites “, in particular opposite the first side” in line 9. It is unclear if this is a required limitation or not. This could be resolved by removing “, in particular”.
Claim 15 recites “preferably comprises a step” in line 15 and it is unclear if this is a required limitation or optional due to the use of the word “preferable”.
For the purpose of examination “preferable” limitations are interpreted to be optional.
Claim 15 recites “further preferably wherein a suitable insert…..” in line 18 and it is unclear if this is a required limitation or optional due to the use of the word “preferably”.
Claim 15 recites “further preferably wherein in forming a recess” in line 20 and it is unclear if this is a required limitation or optional due to the use of the word “preferably”.
For the purpose of examination “preferable” limitations are interpreted to be optional.
Claim 15 recites “the first zone” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “in particular wherein the insert forms the first zone” in line 19 and it is unclear if this is a required limitation or not and “in particular” could be removed to clarify the meaning of the limitation.
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 1-4, 6-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guenter (Attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102006005155) as evidenced by NDT Supply.com (attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “NDT”, Precision Ferrites & Ceramics (attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “PFC”, and Magnets and Motors (attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “MM”.
Regarding claim 1, Guenter discloses a sample receiving element (heating plate 4) for use in or with a laboratory device (magnetic stirrer, para. [0001]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
855
1655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guenter discloses the sample receiving element is configured to receive a sample (liquid within a vessel, para. [0002]) to be treated by the laboratory device and being penetrated by a magnetic field (para. [0036]) during operation of the laboratory device, and wherein the sample receiving element is configured to effect, at least in sections, an interruption of an electric current induced by changes in the magnetic field (changing magnetic field, claim 1) that penetrates the sample receiving element (not explicitly stated, but the sample receiving element/heating plate 4 is made of metallic aluminum alloy with a ceramic layer 11 made of aluminum oxide, pars. [0018], [0020]-[0021] & [0023], thus, the electric current induced by the magnetic field in the metallic aluminum will be interrupted at the ceramic layer due to the increased resistance of this layer: As evidenced by NDT and PFC, the resistance of aluminum oxide is much greater than metallic aluminum [PFC, for aluminum oxide, “electrical resistance” column, page 1, NDT, for metallic aluminum, “resistivity” column, page 1] and as evidenced by MM, the changing magnetic field [Guenter, claim 1] will induce electrical current in the aluminum sample receiving element [MM, “movement is causing electrical currents”, page 3, 1:46-2:02]).
Regarding claim 2, Guenter discloses wherein the sample receiving element is temperature-controllable (para. [0013]) by a temperature control device (heating coils 22) to allow heat transfer from or to a sample received by the sample receiving element.
Regarding claim 3, Guenter discloses wherein the sample receiving element (heating plate 4) has a first side (upper side, para. [0041], shown annotated above for claim 1) facing the sample and a second side (underside 19, shown annotated above for claim 1) facing away from the sample, in particular opposite the first side (Fig. 3), and wherein the sample receiving element comprises a base layer of at least one base material (aluminum alloy base layer 23, pars. [0011]-[0012] and [0042]) and a separation layer (oxide-ceramic layer 11, pars. [0011]-[0012] and [0042]), the separation layer extending in a region of the sample receiving element from the first side to the second side (annotated below, extending from the first side to the second side along peripheral edge 10) of the sample receiving element (shown annotated below) and forming a zoning of the base layer (“zoning” in that the base layer is located centrally and surrounded by the ceramic layer, as indicated annotated below, and in grooves 21, para. [0044]), and the separation layer is formed of a separation layer material (oxide-ceramic, para. [0011], aluminum oxide, para. [0021]) having a greater specific electrical resistance than the at least one base material (aluminum alloy, para. [0018]) of the base layer (as evidenced by NDT and PFC, the resistance of aluminum oxide is much greater than metallic aluminum or various alloys [PFC, for aluminum oxide, “electrical resistance” column, page 1, NDT, for metallic aluminum and alloys, “resistivity” column, page 1]):
PNG
media_image2.png
818
1676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Guenter discloses wherein the separation layer is at least partially formed by conversion from the base material of the base layer, in particular by generating an oxidic layer by anodic oxidation of the base layer (para. [0024]) and/or by passivation of the base layer.
Regarding claim 6, Guenter discloses wherein the base material is an electrical conductor (aluminum alloy, para. [0018]) and the separation layer material (aluminum oxide, para. [0021]) is an electrical non-conductor (as evidenced by NDT and PFC, the resistance of aluminum oxide is extremely high [> 1014 Ω-cm, PFC, for aluminum oxide, “electrical resistance” column, page 1,] while metallic aluminum and aluminum alloys have very low resistance [≈ 10-8 Ω-cm, NDT, for metallic aluminum and alloys, “resistivity” column, page 1]).
Regarding claim 7, Guenter discloses wherein in a direction parallel to the first side and/or to the second side of the sample receiving element, the separation layer has an extension of 50 μm to 130 μm, preferably of 60 μm to 120 μm, and more preferably from 90 μm to 110 μm (“A layer thickness of at most 100 micrometers has proven to be particularly preferred”, para. [0020]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
549
915
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Guenter discloses wherein the base material comprises an aluminum alloy, preferably an aluminum-magnesium-silicon alloy (para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 9, Guenter discloses wherein the sample receiving element is a plate (heating plate 4) having an outline of a defined geometric shape (Fig. 1), preferably a circular plate (circular, Fig. 1), and the separation layer is provided in a centered region of the plate (such as along the bottom side surfaces as Guenter teaches the ceramic layer may be formed on the underside, para. [0026], except in the groove 21, para. [0044]) and has an outline corresponding to a defined geometric shape (such as a circle as viewed from below):
PNG
media_image4.png
567
1250
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Guenter discloses wherein the separation layer divides the base layer into a first zone and a second zone provided therearound (viewed from the bottom side, the ceramic layer is present as a circular shape, annotated above, and also a spiral shape or other circular shapes around the heating coils, para. [0041], shown below, such that the base layer is “divided” between the grooves 21 for the coils 22 by a surface having a ceramic layer formed between the grooves 21 such that the grooves form “zones” of the base layer without a ceramic layer, para. [0041], where the outer groove/second zone is provided “therearound” the inner groove/first zone):
PNG
media_image5.png
876
1450
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It is noted that Guenter does not disclose the optional limitation of “preferably the first zone being circular and the second zone being annular”.
Regarding claim 11, Guenter discloses wherein the sample receiving element (heating plate 4) has a first side facing the sample (upper side) and a second side facing away from the sample (under side 19), in particular opposite the first side, and wherein a recess extending at least partially from the first side to the second side is provided in a region of the sample receiving element (Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
487
967
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Guenter discloses wherein a protective layer (ceramic part of the layer guarantees “a high scratch resistance and corrosion resistance”, para. [0020]) is provided on the first side (upper surface, shown above for claim 1, para. [0026]) of the sample receiving element.
Regarding claim 13, Guenter discloses wherein the protective layer (para. [0020]) consists of the same material as the separation layer (ceramic layer 11) and/or wherein the protective layer is formed at least partially by conversion from the base material (aluminum alloy, para. [0018]) of the base layer (para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 14, Guenter discloses a laboratory device (magnetic stirrer, para. [0001]) comprising a sample receiving element (heating plate 4) according to claim 1 (see discussion for claim 1 above), wherein preferably the laboratory device is configured as a magnetic stirrer (para. [0001]) and further preferably the sample receiving element is configured as a placement plate, in particular a temperature control plate (heating plate 4), of the magnetic stirrer.
Regarding claim 15, Guenter discloses a method for manufacturing a sample receiving element (heating plate 4) for a laboratory device (magnetic stirrer, para. [0001]), the sample receiving element being configured to receive a sample (liquid within a vessel, para. [0002]) to be treated by the laboratory device and being penetrated by a magnetic field (para. [0036]) during operation of the laboratory device, and wherein the sample receiving element is configured to effect, at least in sections, an interruption of an electric current induced by changes in the magnetic field (changing magnetic field, claim 1) that penetrates the sample receiving element (not explicitly stated, but the sample receiving element/heating plate 4 is made of metallic aluminum alloy with a ceramic layer 11 made of aluminum oxide, pars. [0018], [0020]-[0021] & [0023], thus, the electric current induced by the magnetic field will be interrupted at the ceramic layer due to the increased resistance of this layer: As evidenced by NDT and PFC, the resistance of aluminum oxide is much greater than metallic aluminum [PFC, for aluminum oxide, “electrical resistance” column, page 1, NDT, for metallic aluminum, “resistivity” column, page 1] and as evidenced by MM, the changing magnetic field [Guenter, claim 1] will induce electrical current in the aluminum sample receiving element [MM, “movement is causing electrical currents”, page 3, 1:46-2:02]), preferably wherein the sample receiving element has a first side (upper side, shown annotated above for claim 1) facing the sample and a second side facing away from the sample (underside 19, shown above for claim 1), in particular opposite to the first side, and the method comprises the following steps: providing a base layer of the sample receiving element and forming a separation layer (by electrochemical conversion in an electroplating bath, para. [0024]) in a region of the sample receiving element such that the separation layer extends from the first side to the second side of the sample receiving element and forms a zoning of the base layer (extends from the first side to the second side in that the layer 11 covers the first side surface [upper side], para. [0041], the peripheral edge 10, para. [0042], and extends under the plate to the second side [underside 19], para. [0044], “zoning” in that the base layer is located centrally and surrounded by the ceramic layer, as indicated annotated above for claim 3, and in grooves 21, para. [0044]) wherein the separation layer is formed of a separation layer material (aluminum oxide, para. [0021]) having a greater specific electrical resistance than a base material (aluminum alloy, para. [0019]) of the base layer (As evidenced by NDT and PFC, the resistance of aluminum oxide is much greater than metallic aluminum [PFC, for aluminum oxide, “electrical resistance” column, page 1, NDT, for metallic aluminum, “resistivity” column, page 1]).
It is noted that Guenter does not appear to disclose (the optional limitations of) forming a separation layer preferably comprises a step of forming a recess, the recess being provided in a region of the sample receiving element and extending from the first side to the second side, nor does Guenter appear to disclose the optional step of further preferably wherein a suitable insert is inserted into the recess, which insert is manufactured separately, in particular wherein the insert forms the first zone of the base layer, or further preferably wherein in forming a recess, at least a first zone of the base layer is removed such that the first zone and a second zone of the base layer formed by removing the first zone are present.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter (Attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102006005155) as evidenced by NDT Supply.com (attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “NDT”, Precision Ferrites & Ceramics (attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “PFC”, and Magnets and Motors (attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “MM” as applied to claim 3 above and in further view of Herz et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 3043335A1) as evidenced by Crest Coatings Inc. (attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “CC”.
Regarding claim 5, Guenter does not expressly disclose wherein the separation layer is a layer formed separately from the base layer.
However, Herz et al. discloses a lab device (magnetic stirrer, Abstract) having a separation layer
(encapsulation 15) wherein the separation layer is a layer formed separately from the base layer (section 10, Fig. 4), in particular a plastic layer (para. [0018], plastic “tetrafluoroethylene” is Teflon, as evidenced by CC, the resistance of Teflon is also much greater than aluminum alloy, > 1018 Ω-cm, see CC page 1, “volume resistivity” row).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Guenter by using a separation layer comprising a plastic which is formed separately from the base layer.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a plastic layer to simplify forming the separation layer (e.g. not requiring anodization process using potentially hazardous liquid, such as acids, and electrodes) while providing for a layer which simplifies cleaning (Herz et al., para. [0006]) and still protects from chemical exposure.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter (Attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102006005155) as evidenced by NDT Supply.com (attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “NDT”, Precision Ferrites & Ceramics (attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “PFC”, and Magnets and Motors (attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “MM” as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Zipperer (US 3554497).
Regarding claim 10, Guenter is silent as to the stirring bar size, but the first zone (shown above for claim 9) has the same diameter as the heating coil (Guenter, heating coils 22) closest to the center of the plate (Fig. 3) and Zipperer discloses a magnetic stirrer (Abstract) wherein the stirring bar (stirring member 32) substantially occupies the area within the innermost coil (heating bars 34), but is not larger than the diameter of the inner coil (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Guenter wherein a diameter of the first zone substantially corresponds to a maximum extension of a magnetic stirring bar which can be set in motion by the magnetic field that penetrates the sample receiving element.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to size the stirring bar to be nearly as large, but no larger than the first zone (corresponding to the heating coil groove 21 of Guenter annotated above for claim 9) in order to ensure a high flow velocity (flow coming off the end of the stirring bar) over the surface closest to the heating coil in order to facilitate heat transfer (e.g. via convection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774