DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Drawing Objection
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/24/2026 with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation under 35 USC §112(f)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the interpretation of “thermoelectric module” under 35 USC §112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The term “thermoelectric module” is no longer being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f).
Rejections under 35 USC §112(b)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 5 and 7 under 35 USC §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The indefiniteness rejections of claims 5 and 7 have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC §103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Lamers, et. al. (US 20220404247 A1).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest art to the claimed invention is Lamers, et.al. cited above. Claim 3 and its dependent claims are allowable over such art for reciting “wherein the battery coupling surface of the thermal battery is removably coupled to the second coupling surface” because Lamers does not teach the thermal battery being removably coupled to the second coupling surface. No other art was found which teaches or suggests removable coupling of a thermal battery to a coupling surface of a low temperature sample rod.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lamers, et. al. (US 20220404247 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lamers teaches a low temperature sample rod device for side entry electron microscopes (Fig. 3, [0003], [0065]-[0066]), the device comprising:
a conduction rod having a first end configured to support a sample and a second end opposite and spaced apart from the first end (sample holder 323, shield 329, links 337, 347, and right side/end of 336 that connects to 381, 383, are interpreted as the conduction rod);
a thermoelectric module (thermal resistor 381, temperature-regulating heater 383, and thermal mass 385, [0068]-[0071], Fig. 3) having a first side thermally coupled to the second end of the conduction rod (381, 383, and 385 are thermally coupled to end of 337, end of 347, and right side/end of 381, Fig. 3) and a second side opposite and spaced apart from the first side (left side of 381 in 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, [0068]-[0071]);
a coupler (left side of longitudinal member 336 after 381, and longitudinal member 346, Fig. 3) defining a first coupling surface thermally coupled to the second side of the thermoelectric module (336 and 346, Fig. 3) and a second coupling surface extending from the first coupling surface and including a base and an outer surface that extends from the base, wherein the outer surface is cylindrical, conical, frustoconical, or rectangular ([0067] teaches 336 and 346 are cylindrical); and
a thermal battery (secondary thermal reservoir 343 and primary thermal reservoir 333) defining a complementary opening having a battery coupling surface shaped to engage the second coupling surface (opening in 343 that engages 336 and 346 in Fig. 3),
wherein the complementary opening is configured to be thermally coupled to the second coupling surface (Fig. 3), and
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 ([0053], [0084], Fig. 3, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Lamers teaches wherein the electron microscope is a transmission electron microscope ("TEM") ([0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Lamers teaches wherein the outer surface of the second coupling surface is cylindrical, and wherein the complementary opening of the thermal battery is cylindrical (Fig. 3, [0067]).
Regarding claim 13, Lamers teaches wherein the second coupling surface includes an axially facing surface of the coupler (Fig. 3), and
wherein the battery coupling surface is defined by includes an axially facing surface of the thermal battery (Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Regarding claim 10, Lamers does not teach wherein the outer surface of the second coupling surface is conical or frustoconical, and wherein the complementary opening of the thermal battery is conical or frustoconical. However, a change in shape to conical or frustoconical 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, Lamers does not teach wherein the outer surface of the second coupling surface is rectangular and wherein the complementary opening of the thermal battery is rectangular. However, a change in shape to rectangular 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 14, Lamers teaches wherein the coupler has a longitudinal axis (336 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 (ends of 336 and 346 form a right angle with longitudinal axis, Fig. 3), wherein the thermal battery has a longitudinal axis (333 has a 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 336 and 346 adjacent to 333 and 343 forms a right angle with longitudinal axis of 333), wherein the longitudinal axis of the coupler is axially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the thermal battery (Fig. 3).
Lamers 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamers (US 20220404247 A1) in view of Gray (US 20160243000 A1; form IDS 01/29/2024),
Regarding claim 15, Lamers does not disclose wherein the material comprises water.
Gray teaches wherein the material comprises water ([0040]).
Gray modifies Lamers 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]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamers (US 20220404247 A1) in view of Reed, et. al. (WO 2020092689 A1; from IDS 01/29/2024), hereinafter Reed.
Regarding claim 16, Lamers does not teach wherein the material comprises glycerin.
Reed teaches wherein the material comprises glycerin (Abstract, pg. 3, lines 19-21).
Reed modifies Lamers 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 Lamers (US 20220404247 A1) in view of Lee, et. al. (KR 20180087564 A, see English Translation for para numbers), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 17, Lamers does not teach wherein the material comprises propane.
Lee teaches wherein the material comprises propane ([0021], [0075]).
Lee modifies Lamers 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 Lee because such a phase change material has a negative melting point, allowing heat to be transferred and stored at a desired temperature (Lee, [0082]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamers (US 20220404247 A1) in view of Voth, et. al. (US 20170315598 A1; from IDS 01/29/2024), hereinafter Voth.
Regarding claim 18, Lamers 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 Lamersby 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, Lamers does not teach 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 Lamers 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, Lamers does not teach 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 Lamers 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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights