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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "132" and "134" have both been used to designate the second coupling surface (see [0036] of the instant application specification). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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:
“a thermoelectric module having a first side thermally coupled to the second end of the conduction rod and a second side opposite and spaced apart from the first side, wherein the thermoelectric module is configured to transfer heat between the first side and the second side when supplied with electricity” in claim 1.
The thermoelectric module will be interpreted as described in [0034] of the specification of the instant application as a Peltier heat pump or any solid-state device capable of forced heat transfer.
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 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 5, 7 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 5 recites “wherein the latching mechanism includes at least one ball and another of the coupler…” is indefinite because it is unclear what ‘another’ is referring to. It is not clear if ‘another’ is referring to the coupler having a ball or if ‘another is referring to some other detail of the coupler. Since one cannot with certainty determine what the latching mechanism includes, claim 5 is indefinite.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 3, recites “wherein the one of the thermal battery and the coupler includes a screw mechanism for removably coupling the thermal battery to the coupler” is indefinite because, as written, it is unclear which one of the thermal battery and the coupler includes the screw mechanism since ‘the one of the thermal battery and the coupler’ has not been established with antecedent basis. The Office recommends removing the bolded ‘the’ from the claim, to suggest that either the thermal battery or the coupler can include a screw mechanism for removably coupling the thermal battery to the coupler.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeung, et. al. (WO 2017073816 A1, from IDS 01/29/2024, see translated doc for para numbers), hereinafter Jeung in view of Gray (US 20160243000 A1; form IDS 01/29/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Jeung teaches a low temperature sample rod device for side entry electron microscopes (intended use; Para 6, Fig. 2), the device comprising:
a conduction rod (conduction rod 30, para. 31) having a first end configured to support a sample (sample mounting tip 11, Para. 29) and a second end opposite and spaced apart from the first end (Fig. 3);
a thermoelectric module (Peltier element 21, Para. 31) having a first side thermally coupled to the second end of the conduction rod and a second side opposite and spaced apart from the first side (Fig. 3), wherein the thermoelectric module is configured to transfer heat between the first side and the second side when supplied with electricity (Fig. 3, Para. 31);
Although Jeung teaches that heat is transferred from the first end of the conduction rod, through the thermoelectric module and into a heat exchanger (heat exchange unit 22, Fig. 3, Para. 31), Jeung does not teach a coupler having a first coupling surface thermally coupled to the second side of the thermoelectric module and a second coupling surface; and a thermal battery having a battery coupling surface configured to be thermally coupled to the second coupling surface, wherein the thermal battery includes a material that can be melted from a solid phase to a liquid phase by heat transferred from the first end of the conduction rod, through the thermoelectric module, through the coupler, and into the thermal battery.
Gray teaches a coupler (heat transfer block 35, 41, [0071]) having a first coupling surface thermally coupled to the second side of the thermoelectric module (peltier device 33, 39, [0071]) and a second coupling surface (Fig. 3, [0071]); and
a thermal battery (first and second phase change material 31, 37, [0071]) having a battery coupling surface configured to be thermally coupled to the second coupling surface (Fig. 3, [0071]), wherein the thermal battery includes a material that can be melted from a solid phase to a liquid phase by heat transferred from the first end of the conduction rod, through the thermoelectric module, through the coupler, and into the thermal battery (Fig. 3, [0071]).
Gray modifies Jeung by suggesting including a coupler having a first coupling surface thermally coupled to the second side of the thermoelectric module and a second coupling surface and to include a thermal battery having a battery coupling surface configured to be thermally coupled to the second coupling surface, wherein the thermal battery includes a material that can be melted from a solid phase to a liquid phase by heat transferred from the first end of the conduction rod, through the thermoelectric module, through the coupler, and into the thermal battery.
Since both inventions are directed to cooled holders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gray because it would maintain the sample at the desired temperature for low cost (Gray, [0018]).
Regarding claim 2, Jeung teaches wherein the electron microscope is a transmission electron microscope ("TEM") (Para. 29).
Regarding claim 13, Jeung does not teach wherein the second coupling surface is defined by an axially facing surface of the coupler, and the battery coupling surface is defined by an axially facing surface of the thermal battery.
Gray teaches wherein the second coupling surface is defined by an axially facing surface of the coupler, and the battery coupling surface is defined by an axially facing surface of the thermal battery (Fig. 3).
Gray modifies Jeung by suggesting the second coupling surface is defined by an axially facing surface of the coupler, and the battery coupling surface is defined by an axially facing surface of the thermal batter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gray because the configuration would maintain the sample at the desired temperature for low cost (Gray, [0018]).
Regarding claim 14, Jeung does not disclose wherein the coupler has a longitudinal axis and the second coupling surface is defined by a surface of the coupler that forms an oblique angle with the longitudinal axis of the coupler, wherein the thermal battery has a longitudinal axis and the battery coupling surface is defined by a surface of the thermal battery that forms an oblique angle with the longitudinal axis of the thermal battery, wherein the longitudinal axis of the coupler is axially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the thermal battery.
Gray teaches wherein the coupler has a longitudinal axis (heat transfer block 35/41 has a longitudinal axis, Fig. 3) and the second coupling surface is defined by a surface of the coupler that forms an angle with the longitudinal axis of the coupler (surface of 35/41 adjacent to 31/37 forms a right angle with longitudinal axis of 35/31, Fig. 3), wherein the thermal battery has a longitudinal axis (31/37 has longitudinal axis, Fig. 3) and the battery coupling surface is defined by a surface of the thermal battery that forms an angle with the longitudinal axis of the thermal battery (surface of 31/37 adjacent to 35/41 forms a right angle with longitudinal axis of 31/37), wherein the longitudinal axis of the coupler is axially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the thermal battery (Fig. 3).
Gray does not teach that the angle is an oblique angle, in particular the second coupling surface forming an oblique angle with the longitudinal axis of the coupler and the battery coupling surface forming an oblique angle with the longitudinal axis of the thermal battery; however, forming an oblique angle represents a change in shape that is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. teaches “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” Absent demonstration of the criticality of the particular shape, the prior art renders obvious the claim. The specification of the instant application is devoid of information as to how the obliquely angled surfaces is significant or offers an advantage. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. for more information.
Regarding claim 15, Jeung does not disclose wherein the material comprises water.
Gray teaches wherein the material comprises water ([0040]).
Gray modifies Jeung by suggesting that the material of the thermal battery comprises water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gray because using water as the phase change material allows the container to maintain goods at 5°C for at least 48 hours at a temperature of 43°C ([0092]-[0093]).
Claims 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeung (WO 2017073816 A1) in view of Gray (US 20160243000 A1), further in view of Anderson, et. al. (WO 9316667 A1; from IDS 01/29/2024), hereinafter Anderson.
Regarding claim 3, Jeung in view of Gray does not disclose wherein the battery coupling surface of the thermal battery is removably coupled to the second coupling surface.
Anderson teaches wherein the battery coupling surface of the thermal battery is removably coupled to the second coupling surface (cold reservoir 18 (interpreted thermal battery) is removably coupled to base 17 of the probe tip 16 (interpreted second coupling surface), Figs. 1, 1A, pg. 4, lines 3-18 where 16 is taught to be removable).
Anderson modifies the combination by suggesting the battery coupling surface of the thermal battery is removably coupled to the second coupling surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Anderson because it would allow the thermal battery to be more easily recharged (Anderson, pg. 5, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 4, Jeung in view of Gray does not disclose wherein one of the thermal battery and the coupler includes a latching mechanism for removably coupling the thermal battery to the coupler.
Anderson teaches wherein one of the thermal battery and the coupler includes a latching mechanism for removably coupling the thermal battery to the coupler (pg. 5, lines 7-10).
Anderson modifies the combination by suggesting the coupler includes a latching mechanism for removably coupling the thermal battery to the coupler.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Anderson because it would allow the thermal battery to be more easily recharged (Anderson, pg. 5, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 7, Jeung in view of Gray does not disclose wherein the one of the thermal battery and the coupler includes a screw mechanism for removably coupling the thermal battery to the coupler.
Anderson teaches wherein the one of the thermal battery and the coupler includes a screw mechanism for removably coupling the thermal battery to the coupler (pg. 5, lines 7-10).
Anderson modifies the combination by suggesting a screw mechanism for removably coupling the thermal battery to the coupler.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Anderson because it would allow the thermal battery to be more easily recharged (Anderson, pg. 5, lines 10-15).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeung (WO 2017073816 A1), Gray (US 20160243000 A1), and Anderson (WO 9316667 A1), in view of Katers (AU 2011252807 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Although Anderson teaches a latching mechanism of the thermal battery/coupler, Jeun, Gray, and Anderson do not disclose wherein the latching mechanism includes at least one ball and another of the coupler and the thermal battery includes a detent for receiving the ball to couple the thermal battery to the coupler.
Katers discloses wherein the latching mechanism includes at least one ball and a detent for receiving the ball to couple two components ([0026]-[0028]).
Katers modifies the combination by suggesting that the latching mechanism of Anderson can include a ball and detent for receiving the ball in order to provide the coupling mechanism that couples the thermal battery to the coupler in the combination.
Katers is directed to solving the same problem faced by the inventor: that of providing a coupling mechanism to connect two objects. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filing date of the invention, would look to the teachings of Katers to provide the latching mechanism comprising the ball and detent, to solve the specific problem of needing to couple two components of the system together (see Katers, [0026]-[0028] and MPEP 2141.01(a), which teaches “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if… (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” ).
Regarding claim 6, Although Anderson teaches a latching mechanism of the thermal battery/coupler, Jeun, Gray, and Anderson do not disclose wherein the latching mechanism includes a quick release mechanism comprising at least one wedge, wherein movement of the wedge of the quick release couples the thermal battery to the coupler.
Katers teaches wherein the latching mechanism includes a quick release mechanism comprising at least one wedge, wherein movement of the wedge of the quick release couples two components ([0026]-[0028]).
Katers modifies the combination by suggesting that the latching mechanism of Anderson can include a quick release mechanism comprising movement of at least one wedge in order to provide the coupling mechanism that couples the thermal battery to the coupler in the combination.
Katers is directed to solving the same problem faced by the inventor: that of providing a coupling mechanism to connect two objects. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filing date of the invention, would look to the teachings of Katers to provide the latching mechanism comprising the wedge movement quick release, to solve the specific problem of needing to couple two components of the system together (see Katers, [0026]-[0028] and MPEP 2141.01(a), which teaches “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if… (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” ).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeung (WO 2017073816 A1), Gray (US 20160243000 A1), and Anderson (WO 9316667 A1), in view of Sagawa, et. al. (US 20140144863 A1), hereinafter Sagawa.
Regarding claim 8, although Gray teaches a coupler (heat transfer block 35, 41, [0071]) having a first coupling surface coupled to the second side of the thermoelectric module (peltier device 33, 39, [0071]), a second coupling surface (Fig. 3, [0071]), and a thermal battery (first and second phase change material 31, 37, [0071]) having a battery coupling surface coupled to the second coupling surface (Fig. 3, [0071]), Jeung, Gray, and Anderson do not disclose wherein the coupler includes a cylinder, and the second coupling surface is defined by a surface of the cylinder, wherein the thermal battery defines a cylindrical opening, and the battery coupling surface is defined by a surface of the opening.
Sagawa teaches wherein the coupler includes a cylinder, and the second coupling surface is defined by a surface of the cylinder (coupler 21, [0030], Fig. 3c), wherein the object being coupled to defines a cylindrical opening, and the coupling surface is defined by a surface of the opening (coupling joint 24 has inlet which is defined to fit around the coupler 21, [0034], Fig. 3c).
Sagawa modifies the combination by suggesting a connection/coupling between the coupler and thermal battery of the combination where a cylindrical coupling is fit inside of a cylindrical opening of the thermal battery of the combination in order to form the connection.
Sagawa is directed to solving the same problem faced by the inventor: that of providing a coupling mechanism to connect two objects. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filing date of the invention, would look to the teachings of Sagawa to provide a cylindrical coupler that is coupled to another component via a cylindrical opening in the other component into which the cylinder fits to form the coupling surface. Such a solution solves the specific problem of needing to couple two components of the system together (see Sagawa, [0030]-[0034], Fig. 3c, and MPEP 2141.01(a), which teaches “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if… (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” ).
Regarding claim 9, although Gray teaches a coupler (heat transfer block 35, 41, [0071]), a second coupling surface (Fig. 3, [0071]), and a thermal battery (first and second phase change material 31, 37, [0071]) having a battery coupling surface coupled to the second coupling surface (Fig. 3, [0071]), Jeung, Gray, and Anderson do not disclose wherein the second coupling surface is defined by an outer circumferential surface of the cylinder, and the battery coupling surface is defined by an inner circumferential surface of the opening.
Sagawa teaches wherein the second coupling surface is defined by an outer circumferential surface of the cylinder, and the coupling surface is defined by an inner circumferential surface of the opening ([0030]-[0034], Fig. 3c).
Sagawa modifies the combination by suggesting a connection/coupling between the coupler and thermal battery of the combination where a cylindrical coupling is fit inside of a cylindrical opening of the thermal battery of the combination in order to form the connection. Consequently the second coupling surface would be defined by an outer circumferential surface of the cylinder, and the coupling surface would be defined by an inner circumferential surface of the opening.
Sagawa is directed to solving the same problem faced by the inventor: that of providing a coupling mechanism to connect two components. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filing date of the invention, would look to the teachings of Sagawa to provide a cylindrical coupler that is coupled to another component via a cylindrical opening in the other component into which the cylinder fits to form the coupling surface. Such a solution solves the specific problem of needing to couple two components of the system together (see Sagawa, [0030]-[0034], Fig. 3c, and MPEP 2141.01(a), which teaches “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if… (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” ).
Regarding claims 10, Jeung, Gray, Anderson, and Sagawa apply mutatis mutandis as in claims 8-9 above, where the change in shape from a cylinder to a cone or conical frustum is a change in shape that is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. teaches “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” Absent demonstration of the criticality of the particular shape, the prior art renders obvious the claim because one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a conical coupler and conical or frustoconical opening to perform the same function of forming coupling surfaces as the cylindrical coupler and opening of Sagawa. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. for more information.
Regarding claim 11, Jeung, Gray, Anderson, and Sagawa apply mutatis mutandis as in claims 8-9 above, where the change in shape from a cylinder to rectangular prism is a change in shape that is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. teaches “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” Absent demonstration of the criticality of the particular shape, the prior art renders obvious the claim because one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a rectangular prism coupler and rectangular opening to perform the same function of forming coupling surfaces as the cylindrical coupler and opening of Sagawa. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. for more information.
Regarding claim 12, Jeung, Gray, Anderson, and Sagawa apply mutatis mutandis as in claims 8-9 above, where the change in shape from a cylinder to rectangular prism is a change in shape that is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. teaches “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” Absent demonstration of the criticality of the particular shape, the prior art renders obvious the claim because one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a rectangular prism coupler and rectangular opening to perform the same function of forming radially facing coupling surfaces as the cylindrical coupler and opening of Sagawa. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. for more information.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeung (WO 2017073816 A1) in view of Gray (US 20160243000 A1), further in view of Reed, et. al. (WO 2020092689 A1; from IDS 01/29/2024), hereinafter Reed.
Regarding claim 16, Jeung in view of Gray does not teach wherein the material comprises glycerin.
Reed teaches wherein the material comprises glycerin (Abstract, pg. 3, lines 19-21).
Reed modifies the combination by suggesting that the material of the thermal battery comprises glycerin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Reed because using glycerin may allow operation at the anticipated operating temperature (Reed, pg. 3, lines 21-25).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeung (WO 2017073816 A1) in view of Gray (US 20160243000 A1), further in view of Lee, et. al. (KR 20180087564 A, see English Translation for para numbers), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 17, Jeung in view of Gray does not teach wherein the material comprises propane.
Lee teaches wherein the material comprises propane ([0021], [0075]).
Lee modifies the combination by suggesting the material of the thermal battery comprises propane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen because such a phase change material has a negative melting point, allowing heat to be transferred and stored at a desired temperature (Chen, [0082]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeung (WO 2017073816 A1) in view of Gray (US 20160243000 A1), further in view of Voth, et. al. (US 20170315598 A1; from IDS 01/29/2024), hereinafter Voth.
Regarding claim 18, Jeung in view of Gray does not disclose wherein one of the second coupling surface and the battery coupling surface includes a thermal interface material coating.
Voth teaches wherein one of the second coupling surface and the battery coupling surface includes a thermal interface material coating (solder, [0036]).
Voth modifies the combination by suggesting a thermal interface material coating
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Voth because the solder provides a means of physical attachment for the thermal battery (phase change device 226) to be coupled to the thermally conductive material such that heat can be efficiently transferred, (Voth, [0036]).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the thermal interface material coating comprises a thermal paste or thermal adhesive.
Voth teaches wherein the thermal interface material coating comprises a thermal paste or thermal adhesive (solder, [0036]).
Voth modifies the combination by suggesting the thermal interface material coating comprises a thermal past or thermal adhesive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Voth because the solder provides a means of physical attachment for the thermal battery (phase change device 226) to be coupled to the thermally conductive material such that heat can be efficiently transferred, (Voth, [0036]).
Regarding claim 20, wherein the thermal interface material coating comprises a soft or liquid metal.
Voth teaches wherein the thermal interface material coating comprises a soft or liquid metal (solder, [0036]).
Voth modifies the combination by suggesting the thermal interface material coating comprises a soft or liquid metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Voth because the solder provides a means of physical attachment for the thermal battery (phase change device 226) to be coupled to the thermally conductive material such that heat can be efficiently transferred, (Voth, [0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220404247 A1 Vibration Free Cryogenic Cooling by Lamers, et. al.
Published 12/22/2022
Filed 06/21/2021
FEI Company
Has thermal battery, thermal regulator, sample holder
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881