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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-23 remain pending in the application. Claims 12-19 and 21-23 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/05/2026.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichel et al. (WO 2004051414 A2; cited in the IDS filed 09/21/2023) in view of Winiski et al. (US 20220333055 A1; effectively filed 11/05/2019).
Regarding claim 1, Reichel a system (Figs. 1A-1B; abstract) for chemical analysis of a sample material (abstract teaches chemical screening; [0067] teaches analysis of a chemical reaction), comprising:
a sample delivery system ([0018] teaches an acoustic emitter device for ejecting liquid out of a source vessel and onto a target device);
a sample microplate ([0035] teaches microtiter plates);
a chemical analyzing component ([0067] teaches an image detection system for detecting fluorescent light; [0213]-[0215] teaches the image detection system includes light sources and an image detector); and
a temperature and humidity control component ([0085] teaches devices and mechanisms for monitoring and controlling environmental factors, such as temperature and humidity; [0270] teaches the environmental enclosure is configured to maintain temperature and humidity inside the processing chamber).
Reichel fails to teach: wherein the temperature and humidity control component is a blower that produces a top down curtain of gas.
Winiski teaches a system for processing a biological sample (Fig. 3; abstract; [0003]). Winiski teaches a growth chamber, wherein humidity and temperature was maintained ([0267]). Winiski teaches the growth chamber was equipped with a fan, i.e. blower, that provides a flow of air ([0267]), wherein the flow of air is a top down curtain of gas (Fig. 3 shows element “M” providing a top down curtain of gas).
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 temperature and humidity control component of Reichel to incorporate Winiski’s teachings of controlling humidity and temperature in a chamber with a fan that provides a top down curtain of gas ([0267]; Fig. 3) to provide: wherein the temperature and humidity control component is a blower that produces a top down curtain of gas. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving control and maintenance of temperature and humidity of the system.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. providing and circulating air with a blower that produces a top down curtain of gas to control temperature and humidity in a chamber) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. control temperature and humidity in a chamber), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing with a blower that produces a top down curtain of gas would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling control temperature and humidity in a chamber from a desired direction, such as top down). See MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 2, Reichel further teaches wherein the sample delivery system comprises an acoustic droplet ejection system ([0018] teaches an acoustic emitter device for ejecting liquid out of a source vessel and onto a target device).
Regarding claim 3, Reichel further teaches wherein the sample delivery system further comprises an open port interface (Fig. 13C and [0186] teaches the acoustic emitter device 1370 includes an open port interface, i.e. main body 1340, which has an open port 1316,1318).
Regarding claim 4, Reichel further teaches wherein the system comprises a high throughput screening system (abstract, “high-throughput biological, chemical and biochemical, synthesis and/or screening”; [0088], “high-throughput non-contact liquid transfer apparatus”; [0131], “high throughput chemical synthesis or for screening”), a microfluidics system ([0035] teaches the system includes microchannels, i.e. microfluidics system) and/or a micro-electromechanical system ([0151] teaches a piezoelectric transducer controlled by drive electronics, i.e. microelectromechanical system, which generates droplets; [0184] teaches the droplets are micron sized).
Regarding claim 5, Reichel further teaches wherein the chemical analyzing component comprises a chromatography instrument, a mass spectrometer, an ultraviolet-visible spectrometer, a near-infrared spectrometer and/or a fluorescence/illumination detection instrument ([0067] teaches an image detection system for detecting fluorescent light; [0213]-[0215] teaches the image detection system includes light sources for exciting fluorescent markers and an image detector; i.e. fluorescence/illumination detection instrument).
Regarding claim 6, Reichel further teaches wherein the temperature and humidity control component comprises a flow of gas ([0270] teaches the environmental enclosure is configured to maintain temperature and humidity inside the processing chamber by supplying and circulating gas or air, i.e. flow of gas).
Regarding claim 7, Reichel further teaches wherein, the temperature and humidity control component controls at least one of the flow rate, temperature, humidity and/or atmospheric composition of the gas ([0085] teaches devices and mechanisms for monitoring and controlling environmental factors, such as temperature, humidity, air flow, and gas atmosphere compositions).
Regarding claim 8, note that “gas” is not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as an intended use of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (“gas”) worked upon by a structure (the system comprising a temperature and humidity control component) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Reichel further teaches wherein the temperature and humidity control component comprises a flow of gas ([0270] teaches the environmental enclosure is configured to maintain temperature and humidity inside the processing chamber by supplying and circulating gas or air, i.e. flow of gas), and therefore the system is structurally capable of being used with a gas, wherein the gas is at a temperature of above 37 °C. I.e. a gas with a temperature of above 37 °C can be supplied to the system at a later time.
Regarding claim 10, Reichel further teaches wherein the system allows for same-well reaction monitoring of in-situ kinetics (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; [0014] teaches the image detection system monitoring/recording reactions/condition within the target location; [0067] teaches monitoring and/or tracking chemical reactions or biological biochemical indicators with the image detection system; [0213] teaches monitoring and or measuring reactions within the wells by detecting and/or recording signal due to chemical reactions; therefore, the system is capable of monitoring in-situ kinetics of reactions in the same well).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichel in view of Winiski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Panetz (US 20140048168 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Reichel further teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a movable stage under said microplate (Fig. 16 shows a movable stage under microplates on shelves 1624; [0259] teaches a target plate X-Y linear stage).
Modified Reichel fails to teach: the system of claim 1, further comprising a slip cover having a hole covering said microplate.
Panetz teaches an automated apparatus for dispensing fluids into microplates utilizing microwell covers, which comprise open portions to allow a pipette access to one or more wells and impermeable portions which prevent the fluids from getting into wells shielded by the impermeable portions (abstract; Figs. 1-8). Panetz teaches a slip cover (Figs. 1-2; [0030] teaches sliding of the cover onto a microplate) having a hole (openings 30) covering a microplate (Figs. 7-8). Panetz teaches the microwell cover and manner of positioning pipettes over a microplate greatly minimize any chance of contamination from an errant liquid passing into an unintended well ([0041]), and minimize cross contamination ([0042]).
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 system of modified Reichel to incorporate the teachings of a slip cover for microplates of Panetz (Figs. 1-8; [0030],[0041]-[0042]) to provide: the system of claim 1, further comprising a slip cover having a hole covering said microplate. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully protecting the microplate and allowing access to one or more wells while minimizing contamination during fluid processing as taught by Panetz (Figs. 1-8; [0030],[0041]-[0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 07/30/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Reichel et al. (WO 2004051414 A2; cited in the IDS filed 09/21/2023) in view of Winiski et al. (US 20220333055 A1; effectively filed 11/05/2019).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103, wherein claim 9 has been incorporated into amended claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Winiski fails to teach “wherein the temperature and humidity control component is a blower that produces a top down curtain of gas” (Remarks, pages 7-8), the examiner disagrees.
Winiski teaches: a growth chamber, wherein humidity and temperature was maintained ([0267]). Winiski teaches the growth chamber was equipped with a fan, i.e. blower, that provides a flow of air ([0267]), wherein the flow of air is a top down curtain of gas (Fig. 3 shows element “M” providing a top down curtain of gas).
Note that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the combination of Reichel and Winiski, Winiski is not used to bodily incorporate the specific chambers and shelves for horizontal distribution of humidified air as discussed in paragraph [0146]). Rather, Winiski is used to teach a blower that produces a top down curtain of gas that maintains temperature and humidity in a system. Reichel teaches the system is an environmental enclosure is configured to maintain temperature and humidity inside the processing chamber ([0270]), but fails to teach the temperature and humidity control component is a blower that produces a top down curtain of gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the temperature and humidity control component of Reichel to incorporate Winiski’s teachings of controlling humidity and temperature in a chamber with a fan that provides a top down curtain of gas ([0267]; Fig. 3) to provide: wherein the temperature and humidity control component is a blower that produces a top down curtain of gas. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving control and maintenance of temperature and humidity of the system.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. providing and circulating air with a blower that produces a top down curtain of gas to control temperature and humidity in a chamber) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. control temperature and humidity in a chamber), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing with a blower that produces a top down curtain of gas would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling control temperature and humidity in a chamber from a desired direction, such as top down). See MPEP 2143(A).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to have modified the temperature and humidity control component of Reichel to incorporate Winiski’s teachings of controlling humidity and temperature in a chamber with a fan that provides a top down curtain of gas ([0267]; Fig. 3) to provide: wherein the temperature and humidity control component is a blower that produces a top down curtain of gas as an obvious rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). The particular placement of a blower to provide top down curtain of gas for controlling humidity and temperature in Reichel’s system is an obvious matter of design choice in view of Winiski (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Remarks, page 8, “As shown in FIG. 1 of the present application, the claimed top-down curtain of gas is directed downwardly onto microplate 102 by a blower. Consistent with that disclosure, paragraph [0038] explains that the "top-down curtain gas of heated/cooled and humidified air helps the control of the temperature and humidity of the sample in the sample delivery system 101/103, sample microplate 102, and/or chemical analyzing component 104””) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujii et al. (US 20200018775 A1; effectively filed 09/05/2019) teaches a temperature control system applied to an apparatus for analyzing a sample using a pipette nozzle and reaction container (abstract). Fujii teaches a temperature controller including a fan 73 to blow hot air ([0090]-[0092]; Figs. 10 and 13), wherein the fan blows a top down air curtain (Figs. 10 and 13). Fujii teaches a microplate ([0096]).
Fukuda et al. (JP 2004350641 A; see machine translation) teaches an automated culture processing apparatus ([0001]). Fukuda teaches a fan that provides a top down air curtain (Fig. 5, fan 43 that provides a downward air flow from filter 34). Fukuda teaches maintaining temperature and humidity ([0064]). Fukuda teaches dispensing robots (Fig. 5, element 13; [0039]).
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 HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights