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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nomine (US 7,334,346). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, as being disclosed by Nomine as teaching:
an apparatus (see title and abstract), comprising:
a freeze dry shelf ( shown in figure 1 near reference character 13) having a body 10 comprising a planar rectangular geometry (inherently shown in figure 1);
a surface layer 14 applied to a portion of the body; and
a component 2 disposed on the body of the freeze dry shelf to:
detect a measurement of a condition proximate the body (column 6 lines 55-67, especially line 65);
communicate a signal indicative of the condition via a contact disposed on an edge of the body (column 6 lines 55-67, especially line 60).
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anger (US 5,822,882). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, as being disclosed by Anger as teaching:
an system (see title and abstract), comprising:
a freeze dry shelf 140, 142, or 144 having a body 134, 136, or 138 forming a sheet (shown in figures 4A, 4B);
a surface layer 112 applied to a portion of the body;
at least one contact disposed on an edge of the body (shown in figures 4A, 4B);
a first component 212 or 214 coupled to the at least one contact and configured to detect a measurement of a condition proximate the body (figure 8 and column 7 lines 43-49); and
a second component 308 coupled to the at least one contact and configured to apply heat to the body (column 9 lines 4-35 and shown in figured 10A). Anger also discloses the claim 9 feature wherein the first component and the second component form a portion of a component array (column 7 lines 73-49), the claim 10 feature wherein the component array further comprises a coupling in electrical communication with at least one of the first component and the second component (column 9 lines 4-35), the claim 11 feature wherein the component array is distributed with one or more of the first component and the second component at a distance from the at least one contact (figures 4A, 10A), the claim 12 feature wherein the component array comprises at least one of a plurality of sensors or a plurality of heating elements (column 7 lines 43-49), the claim 13 feature wherein the first component corresponds to a first contact and the at least one contract and the second component corresponds to a second contact and the at least one contract (figures 4A, 10A), and the claim 14 feature wherein at least one of the first component or the second component is disposed along a middle of the body (in figures 4B, 10B).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang (US 11,287,185). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, as being disclosed by Jiang as teaching:
a method (see title and abstract), comprising:
forming a freeze dry shelf 116 having a body 118 comprising a planar rectangular geometry (shown in figure 1);
applying a surface layer to a portion of the body (column 3 lines 13-24 wherein the claimed layer is met by the disclosed water because both are applied to a portion of a body);
disposing at least one contact 122 on an edge of the body;
coupling a first component to the at least one contact to detect a measurement of a condition proximate the body (column 3 lines 36-47); and
coupling a second component to the at least one contact to apply heat to the body (column 3 lines 48-67).
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.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomine in view Jiang. Nomine discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the subject matter recited in claims 2-7. Jiang discloses the claim 2 feature wherein the component forms a portion of a component array disposed on the body (column 3 lines 36-47 and shown in figure 1), the claim 3 feature wherein the component array further comprises a coupling 102 extending between the component and at least one of another component or the contact (wherein the disclosed chamber meets the claimed coupling because both extend between a component and at least one other component or contact), the claim 4 feature wherein the component array comprises at least one heater and at least one sensor (column 3 lines 13-24), the claim 5 feature wherein the component array is distributed with the component disposed at a distance from the contact (shown in figure 1), the claim 6 feature wherein the component comprises at least one of a sensor and a heating element (column 3 lines 48-67), and the claim 7 feature wherein the component is disposed along a middle of the body (shown in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nomine with the teachings of Jiang for the purpose of optimal and energy saving freeze drying apparatus.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 8, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/317,808 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite a current application claimed surface layer applied instead of the copending claimed treatment application, since both have the same result with the same structure and function. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to omit the current claimed features of component detection and component heating which are absent from the copending claimed invention. Applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of the current claimed invention over the copending claimed invention such that a patent can be granted.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Jiang anticipation
Applicants argue that claim 15 is “patentable over Jiang under section 102 at least for similar reasons to those presented above with respect to claim 1” and claim “15 may also be patentable for further reasons.” Since those “similar reasons” are not addressed for claim 15 and those reasons do not expressly address claim 15, examiner cannot import those similar reasons in a speculative argument such that claim 15 may be patentable over that reference.
Anger anticipation
Applicants argue that elements 134, 136, 138 cannot be interpreted as sheets, however claim 15 recites a “body forming a sheet.” Those disclosures are not interpreted as sheets but rather form a sheet, as claimed.
In response to applicants' argument that the Anger reference fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicants rely (i.e., “sheets”) is not recited in the rejected claim. 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). Forming a sheet, as claimed is not the same as the asserted sheet. In the claim construction of Anger, reference characters 134, 136, 138, form a sheet as rejected.
Also, applicants argue that element 112 is a “cover that is not applied to the body of the freeze dryer shelf” and “the rejection is insufficient.” However, claim 8 recited a “surface layer applied to a portion of a the body” which is reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be met by cover 112 because that teaching is a surface layer and is applied to a portion of a body (column 6 lines 22-25).
In response to applicant's argument that “surface layer” and “body of the freeze dryer shelf”, recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicants further argue that “at least one contact is disposed on an edge of the body” is patentable, even though that claim recitation is clearly shown and discussed as rejected above.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Furthermore, applicants’ assertion that “first component coupled to the at least one contact and configured to detect a measurement of a condition proximate the body” is patentable over Anger, specifically the prior art teaching discussed above. Anger teaches a photosensor 212, that is coupled to a controller 202 (column 8 lines 18-31). Anger teaches the asserted claim feature as rejected and responded here, meeting the coupled and argued configuration.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Finally, applicants asset that the claimed “second component coupled to the at least one contact” is patentable over Anger. However, as rejected, heating device 308 is a component coupled to the at least one contact, as rejected and disclosed in column 9 lines 4-12 of Anger. Applicants assert that “the heater unit is coupled to the door and not to a contact of the shelf” but that is not what is claimed. The claims are rejected on what is claimed, not what is asserted and not claimed.
In response to applicants' argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicants reliy (i.e., “coupled to a contact of the shelf”) is not recited in the rejected claim. 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).
The rejection of claim 15 is maintained.
Double patenting rejection
The double patenting rejection is maintained, absent a terminal disclaimer approval or argument overcoming those rejections.
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 STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights