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. 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. Claim(s) 21-25 and 28-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Cawse (2003/0153095) . Regarding claim 21, Cawse discloses an apparatus comprising: a reactor module (14; see paragraph 23) configured and arranged to drive a plurality of reactions (parallel reactions; see paragraph 18) of a plurality of reaction mixtures (formulations or mixtures; see paragraph 17) within a plurality of reaction vessels (wells 24; see paragraph 23) in accordance with a plurality of reaction conditions (levels of factors of a reaction; see paragraph 26) to form compositions (product; see paragraph 25) within the plurality of reaction vessels, wherein the plurality of reaction vessels include reagents (reactants or catalysts; see paragraph 24) contained therein according to experimental design parameters (user’s specified design inputs; see paragraph 24) for a plurality of reaction mixtures, the experimental design parameters defining the plurality of reaction conditions associated with a set of synthetic routes (the set of parameters specific to each well, and varying across the wells, define a synthetic route respective to each well; see paragraphs 24 and 26) each designed to reach a single target end product (this is met at least by the iterative refinement around a “best” result in a search for a “lead”; see paragraph 27; also note that the specific examples discussed in paragraphs 39-42 are all aimed at a specific desired reaction product) , wherein the plurality of reaction conditions each vary for the plurality of reactions with a plurality of values and the single target end product is the same for each of the set of synthetic routes (see previous remark; and paragraphs 24-26) ; an analysis subsystem (16; see paragraph 23) configured and arranged to analyze the compositions while contained within the plurality of reaction vessel (see paragraph 25) ; and control circuitry (18) configured and arranged to identify optimum reaction conditions (iteratively finding “best” results; see paragraphs 25-27) for synthetically forming the single target end product based on the analysis of the compositions received from the analysis subsystem (see paragraphs 25-27) , the optimum reaction conditions including a set of reaction conditions (the “best” result after a sequence of iteratively refined “best” results; see paragraphs 25-27) to form the single target end product as optimized for an objective. Regarding claim 22, Cawse discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the control circuitry is further configured and arranged to provide revised experimental design parameters as feedback control (2 nd or successive space; see paragraph 27) , the revised experimental design parameters including adjusted reaction conditions for a plurality of additional reactions designed to reach revised optimum reaction conditions for the single target end product (see paragraphs 18, 25, and 27) . Regarding claim 23, Cawse discloses the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the control circuitry is further configured and arranged to identify the adjusted reaction conditions based on the analysis of the compositions received from the analysis subsystem (the 2 nd or successive space is centered on the “best” result of the previous one, but narrowed and refined; see paragraph 27) . Regarding claim 24, Cawse discloses the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the control circuitry is further configured and arranged to provide the revised experimental design parameters to a dispensing subsystem (12; see paragraph 23) , the apparatus further including the dispensing subsystem configured and arranged to deliver the reagents to the plurality of reaction vessels for the plurality of reaction mixtures of the reagents in accordance with the experimental design parameters (see paragraphs 23-25) . Regarding claim 25, Cawse discloses the apparatus of claim 21, further including an automation subsystem (20; see paragraph 23) configured and arranged to selectively move the plurality of reaction vessels (see paragraph 23) from at least one of (note that only one of the following is necessary) : a location proximal to a dispensing subsystem to the reactor module based on the experimental design parameters (“charging” of samples to the reactor; see paragraphs 24-25) ; and the reactor module to a location proximal to the analysis subsystem based on the experimental design parameters. Regarding claim 28, see the foregoing rejection of claim 21, for all limitations. Claim 28 is essentially just a method version of apparatus claim 21, with clearly corresponding limitations in generally the same order. Regarding claims 29-30, see the foregoing rejections of claims 22-23, respectively. Regarding claim 31, Cawse discloses the method of claim 29, wherein identifying the revised optimum reaction conditions for the single target end product includes using the revised experimental design parameters to run an additional test and further optimizing reaction conditions for synthetically forming the single target end product from analysis of the compositions therefrom (paragraphs 25-27) . Regarding claim 32, Cawse discloses the method of claim 28, further including providing, via the control circuitry, the experimental design parameters to the dispensing subsystem for controlling the plurality of reactions of reagents within the plurality of reaction vessels (see paragraphs 24-25) . Regarding claim 33, Cawse discloses the method of claim 28, wherein the plurality of reaction conditions include at least one of different reagents and different reagent concentration (see paragraphs 24-26) , and delivering the reagents includes delivering different amounts of reagents using the dispensing subsystem and thereby providing the plurality of reaction mixtures having different concentrations of reagents to different reaction vessels of the plurality of reaction vessels according to the experimental design parameters (see paragraphs 24-26 and 44) . Regarding claim 34, Cawse discloses the method of claim 28, wherein analyzing the compositions includes comparing the compositions contained within the plurality of reaction vessels to a target composition, the target composition being selected from the single target end product and an intermediate of the single target end product, and wherein the single target end product is known and the objective is selected from the group consisting of: yield, purity, cost, and a combination thereof (see paragraphs 24-31) . 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. Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument. Claim (s) 26, 35, 37, 38, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawse (2003/0153095) . Regarding claims 26, 35, and 37, see the foregoing rejections of claims 21 and 28 for limitations recited therein. Regarding claim 26, Cawse does not disclose the highlighted limitations: the plurality of reaction vessels which are individually selectable and movable . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Cawse such that the plurality of reaction vessels ... are individually selectable and movable , because it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in separable elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman , 168 USPQ 177, 179. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Regarding claim 35, Cawse discloses the method of claim 28, further including selectively moving, via an automation subsystem (20; see paragraph 23) , the plurality of reaction vessels from a location proximal to the dispensing subsystem to the reactor module (“charging” of samples to the reactor; see paragraphs see paragraphs 24-25) ... . Cawse does not disclose the highlighted limitations: selectively moving, via an automation subsystem, the plurality of reaction vessels from a location proximal to the dispensing subsystem to the reactor module and from the reactor module to a location proximal to the analysis subsystem based on the experimental design parameters . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Cawse to include selectively moving, via an automation subsystem, ... from the reactor module to a location proximal to the analysis subsystem based on the experimental design parameters , because it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Regarding claim 37, Cawse does not disclose the highlighted limitations: wherein selectively moving the plurality of reaction vessels includes selectively moving the plurality of reaction vessels to the location proximal to the analysis subsystem responsive to the plurality of reactions being driven to completion . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Cawse to include selectively moving the plurality of reaction vessels to the location proximal to the analysis subsystem responsive to the plurality of reactions being driven to completion , because it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Regarding claim 38, see the foregoing rejection of claim 21, for all limitations except the following. Cawse discloses (limitations similar to those of claim 21) ... an analysis subsystem (16; see paragraph 23) configured and arranged to analyze compositions while contained within the plurality of reaction vessels (see paragraph 25) and after the reactions have begun and at any time during a set of reaction times (reaction times; see paragraphs 45 and 53) by providing an analysis beam (e.g., a laser beam for laser mass spectroscopy; see paragraph 25) selectively toward the plurality of reaction mixtures and analyzing results therefrom; an automation subsystem (20; see paragraph 23) configured and arranged to selectively move the plurality of reaction vessels (see paragraph 23) ... ; and ... (limitations similar to those of claim 21) . Cawse does not disclose the highlighted limitations: an automation subsystem configured and arranged to selectively move the plurality of reaction vessels from the reactor module to a location proximal to the analysis subsystem based on the experimental design parameters It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Cawse such that the automation subsystem were configured and arranged to selectively move the plurality of reaction vessels from the reactor module to a location proximal to the analysis subsystem based on the experimental design parameters , because it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Regarding claim 40, Cawse further teaches the apparatus of claim 38, further including a dispensing subsystem configured and arranged to deliver the reagents to the plurality of reaction vessels for the plurality of reaction mixtures having the plurality of reaction conditions (see paragraphs 23-26) , wherein: the automation subsystem is configured and arranged to selectively move the plurality of reaction vessels from a location proximal to the dispensing subsystem to the reactor module (“charging” to the reactor; see paragraphs 24-25) ; and the control circuitry is configured and arranged to provide the experimental design parameters to the dispensing subsystem (specified design inputs; see paragraph 24) . Claim (s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawse (2003/0153095) , in view of Agrafiotis et al. (6,421,612) . See the foregoing rejection of claim 21, for limitations recited therein. Regarding claim 27, Cawse does not disclose the highlighted limitations: wherein the reactor module includes a plurality of reactor modules configured and arranged to drive the plurality of reactions in parallel and at a plurality of different temperatures, and each of the plurality of reactor modules includes a thermal energy emitter configured and arranged to provide thermal energy toward at least a portion of the plurality of reaction mixtures . Agrafiotis et al. disclose a reactor module that includes a plurality of reactor modules configured and arranged to drive the plurality of reactions in parallel and at a plurality of different temperatures (see column 47, lines 24-37) . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Cawse such that the reactor module included a plurality of reactor modules configured and arranged to drive the plurality of reactions in parallel and at a plurality of different temperatures , similarly to the invention of Agrafiotis et al., in order to get better coverage of the parameter space, as suggested by Agrafiotis et al. (see column 47, lines 17-23) . Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known and common knowledge to include a thermal energy emitter when it is desired to control temperature . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the invention of Cawse such that each of the plurality of reactor modules includes a thermal energy emitter configured and arranged to provide thermal energy toward at least a portion of the plurality of reaction mixtures , because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. C laim (s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawse (2003/0153095) , in view of Hajduk et al. (2002/0001538) . See the foregoing rejection of claim 38 for limitations recited therein. Regarding claim 39, Cawse discloses the apparatus of claim 38, an automation subsystem (20; see paragraph 23) configured and arranged to: ... ; and ... the plurality of reaction vessels being in and out of the reactor module for different periods of time based on the experimental design parameters (see paragraphs 45 and 53) . Cawse does not disclose the highlighted limitations: seal the plurality of reaction vessels ; and selectively move the plurality of reaction vessels to and from the reactor module for different periods of time based on the experimental design parameters. Hajduk et al. disclose sealing a plurality of reaction vessels (see paragraph 101) . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Cawse to include sealing the plurality of reaction vessels , similarly to the invention of Hajduk et al., because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination to include selectively moving the plurality of reaction vessels to and from the reactor module ..., because it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 36 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "individually moving ... the first and second of the ... reaction vessels to a location proximal to the analysis subsystem upon completion of the respective reactions and the optimum reaction conditions including the set of reaction conditions include select values for each of the plurality of reaction conditions as defined by the experimental design parameters including: ... one of reagents and reagent concentrations; and ... one of temperature and period of time", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 36. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2369 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Walter Lindsay can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1674 . 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. /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /GEOFFREY T EVANS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852