DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 3a in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged. Applicant has also added new claims 17 and 18, which are dependent on claims 9 and 13, respectively. The traversal is on the grounds that the different species in the restriction requirement are not mutually exclusive because they share some similarities. This is not found persuasive because the determination of a second calibration factor, as in Species 1, and the determination of a conversion factor, as in Species 2, are mutually exclusive characteristics between Species 1 and 2 regardless of any similarities; because the determination of a second calibration factor, as in Species 1, and the evaluation of a heat flow, as in Species 3, are mutually exclusive characteristics between Species 1 and 3 regardless of any similarities; because the determination of a conversion factor, as in Species 2, and the evaluation of a heat flow, as in Species 3, are mutually exclusive characteristics regardless of any similarities.
Also, because the evaluation of a heat flow based on a differential heat flow signal, a conversion factor, and a second calibration factor, as in Species 3a, and the evaluation of a heat flow based on a differential heat flow signal and a result of a comparison of a calibration step, as in Species 3b, are mutually exclusive characteristics regardless of any similarities; because the evaluation of a heat flow based on a differential heat flow signal, a conversion factor, and a second calibration factor, as in Species 3a, and the evaluation of a heat flow based on a differential heat flow signal, a differential heating power, a conversion factor, and a second calibration factor, as in Species 3c, are mutually exclusive characteristics regardless of any similarities; because the evaluation of a heat flow based on a differential heat flow signal, a conversion factor, and a second calibration factor, as in Species 3a, and the evaluation of a heat flow based on a differential heat flow signal, a differential heating power, a default second calibration factor, and a result of a comparison of a calibration, as in Species 3d, are mutually exclusive characteristics regardless of any similarities; because the evaluation of a heat flow based on a differential heat flow signal and a result of a comparison of a calibration step, as in Species 3b, and the evaluation of a heat flow based on a differential heat flow signal, a differential heating power, a conversion factor, and a second calibration factor, as in Species 3c, are mutually exclusive characteristics regardless of any similarities; because the evaluation of a heat flow based on a differential heat flow signal and a result of a comparison of a calibration step, as in Species 3b, and evaluating a heat flow based on a differential heat flow signal, a differential heating power, a default second calibration factor, and a result of a comparison of a calibration, as in Species 3d, are mutually exclusive characteristics regardless of any similarities; and because the evaluation of a heat flow based on a differential heat flow signal, a differential heating power, a conversion factor, and a second calibration factor, as in Species 3c, and the evaluation of a heat flow based on a differential heat flow signal, a differential heating power, a default second calibration factor, and a result of a comparison of a calibration, as in Species 3d, are mutually exclusive characteristics regardless of any similarities.
Therefore, claims 1-8, 12-16, and new claim 18 (which depends on withdrawn claim 13) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 5’, as shown in figure 2. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification does not include reference character 5’, as shown in figure 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, --and-- should be added before “placing” in line 4; there is no relationship between the heat source recited in lines 6-77 with the other objects recited in the method steps; “the” should be changed to --a-- in line 9; “estimating” should be changed to --evaluating-- in line 10; “a” should be changed to --the-- in line 10; “heart” should be changed to --heat-- in line 10; “CE” should be changed to --(CE)-- in lines 11 and 13; “F” should be changed to --(F)-- in line 12; and “while” should be changed to --and-- in line 12.
In claim 10, “CE” should be changed to --(CE)-- in lines 2 and 3.
In claim 11, “F” should be changed to --(F)-- in line 2; and “the temperature” should be changed to --a temperature-- in lines 2-3; “CE” should be changed to --(CE)-- in line 4.
In claim 17, “CE” should be changed to --(CE)-- in lines 2 and 29; “respectively” should be changed to --and-- in line 10; --respectively,-- should be added after “regions,” in line 10; --and-- should be added after “region;” in line 20; “respectively” should be changed to --and-- in line 22; --, respectively-- should be added after “region” in line 23; “U” should be changed to --(U)-- in line 26; and “heart” should be changed to --heat-- in line 30.
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 9-11 and 17 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.
In claim 9, it is not clear what object’s differential heat flow signal is being measured or determine, as recited in line 8; and there is lack of antecedent basis in the claim for “the measurement gas” and “the temperature of the measurement” in the last two lines.
In claim 17, there is lack of antecedent basis in the claim for the second calibration factor (CE) being determined by estimating the heat flow to or from the sample using the differential heat flow signal (U) and the conversion factor (F), as recited in lines 29-31 (base claim 9 states that the heat flow to or from the sample is estimated using the second calibration factor (CE), the differential heat flow signal (U), and the conversion factor (F)); and there is lack of antecedent basis in the claim for the conversion factor (F) being chosen depending on the pan type, the measurement gas, and the temperature of the measurement, as recited in lines 30-32 (base claim 9 states that the conversion factor (F) is chosen depending on the pan type only).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the following in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims:
A method for evaluating a heat flow to or from a sample in a sample pan using a differential scanning calorimeter, said method comprising the steps of measuring or determining a differential heat flow signal (U) while no heat is applied by a sample-side or the reference-side local heater arrangement; and estimating the heat flow to or from the sample using the differential heat flow signal (U), a conversion factor (F) and a second calibration factor (CE), whereby the conversion factor (F) is chosen depending on the pan type, and the second calibration factor (CE) is chosen depending on the pan type, the measurement gas, and the temperature of the measurement (claim 9).
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon by the examiner are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure by disclosing determining a heat flow to or from a sample using a differential scanning calorimeter, but do not disclose the allowable subject matter stated above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRELLYS JAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8-6.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/MIRELLYS JAGAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
12/12/25