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 . 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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim objection
Claim 43 is objected. Terms “ in sample containers” in line 2 should be revised to read as “in the sample containers”; and term “comprising” should be amended to read as “comprising:”.
Claim 44 is objected. Terms “operating a, and” should be revised.
Appropriate action 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.
Claim 39 is 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.
Claims Must Particularly Point Out and Distinctly Claim the Invention (MPEP 2173), therefore, term “can be” in claim 39 makes the claim indefinite, because it is not clear if the limitation after that is required or just optional (see MPEP 2173.05(h)(II)). For examination it is interpreted as not required limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by ISHII1, JP2009220875A.
Claim 43
ISHI in figs.4 and 6 teaches:
A method for removing liquids from samples in sample containers by evaporation by means of a device for treating samples in sample containers under vacuum (this is preamble and If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” See MPEP 2111.02 (II)), comprising
moving (rotation of samples around LI and L2 e.g., ¶0007)) sample containers (100,200) in a way that samples (M) flow continuously in one direction (function met by inclined position and due continuous rotation of container e.g., fig.8) on an inner surface of the sample containers (100,200).
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.
Claims 23-35 39-42, 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHII, JP2009220875A, in view of KERNEN , EP 3002056 A1, and Guy2 , US 5114533 A.
Claim 23
ISHII in e.g., figs.1 and 6 teaches:
A device (1) for treating samples in sample containers 200 under vacuum (vacuum chamber 62), comprising:
a vacuum chamber (vacuum chamber 62), wherein the vacuum chamber (62) interacts with a vacuum pump 64,
wherein the vacuum chamber (62) is closed in a vacuum-tight manner (chamber 62 is vacuumed, so it is fundamental and inherently should be vacuum-tight manner to create an airtight enclosure to remove air and maintain extremely low pressure) and opened in order to load and unload (function met by chamber in order to handle containers) sample containers (200),
a sample holder (30), wherein the sample holder (30) comprises a base surface (base surface of 30 and 120) and a plurality of sample container receptacles (plurality of containers 200 better shown in fig.6 are located in receptacles made in 120) for receiving the sample containers (200), a sample holder axis (L2) runs perpendicular (see fig.1) to the base surface of the sample holder (30), a drive unit (52) is mounted in the vacuum chamber (62) and drives (via shaft 10, 20, 58) the sample holder (30) about a longitudinal axis (LI) of the vacuum chamber (62),
a drive mechanism (51), wherein the drive mechanism (51) is arranged outside the vacuum chamber (62) and is drivingly coupled (via 10) to the drive unit (52),
wherein the drive unit (52) is connected (via 58,32,20) to the sample holder (30) via a holder bar (32,20), the sample holder axis (L2) is designed as a central axis of the holder bar (32),
ISHII does not specifically teach:
arranged in a housing …a cover, …. via the cover (although it is well known and obvious to have a housing and cover and vacuum chamber arranged in the housing with a cover to load and load containers),
the sample holder axis of the sample holder is designed to be movable in a wobbling manner over a specified acute holder angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the vacuum chamber.
In the similar field of endeavor, KERNEN in figs.1-2 and underlined portions on English translation provided by the office teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
656
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a sample holder arranged in a housing (1) …a cover (110), the sample holder axis (L1) of the sample holder (32) is designed to be movable in a wobbling manner (produced by hypotrochoid of 30 as shown on the drawing) over a specified acute holder angle (angle between L1 and L2 shown on drawing) relative to the longitudinal axis (L2) of the chamber (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use KERNEN‘s drive unit for ISHI’s drive unit wherein the modified ISHI’s sample holder axis of the modified ISHI’s sample holder is designed to be movable in a wobbling manner over a specified acute holder angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the modified ISHI’s vacuum chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to shaking the sample for satisfactory and optimal mixing while reducing risk.
The combination does not specifically teach: arranged in a housing …a cover, …. via the cover (although it is well known and obvious to have a housing and cover and vacuum chamber arranged in the housing with a cover to load and load containers).
However, It is a common knowledge of using housing with cover, additionally/alternatively:
In the similar field of endeavor, Guy in figs.1-2 teaches a sample holder arranged in a housing (1), the vacuum chamber (8) is closed in a vacuum-tight manner and opened (function met by chamber in order to handle containers) in order to load and unload sample containers (200) via the cover (10,11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Guy‘s housing and cover for the modified ISHII‘s device wherein the vacuum chamber is arranged in the modified ISHI’s housing, wherein the modified ISHI’s vacuum chamber is closed in a vacuum-tight manner and opened in order to load and unload modified ISHI’s sample containers via the modified ISHI’s cover. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect its contents from the external environment, contain the vacuum process, and provide a controlled, sealed space for experiments or applications.
Claim 24
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 23, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein the holder angle is predetermined to be a range of between (and including) 8° and 85° to the longitudinal axis.
KERNEN Teaches the sample container occupying at least a first position and a second position during the movement, wherein a cutting space formed by the first position and the second position of the sample container is smaller than the sample container even.
The specific claimed between 8 and 85, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum range disclosed by KERNEN that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired mixing manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the between 8 and 85 is used, as already suggested by KERNEN. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the between 8 and 85 stated and since these ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of KERNEN. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed between 8 and 85 or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 25
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 23, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein the holder angle is 40°. KERNEN Teaches the sample container occupying at least a first position and a second position during the movement, wherein a cutting space formed by the first position and the second position of the sample container is smaller than the sample container even.
The specific claimed 40, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum range disclosed by KERNEN that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired mixing manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the 40 is used, as already suggested by KERNEN. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the 40 stated and since these ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of KERNEN. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed 40 or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 26
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 23, ISHI teaches wherein the sample holder axis (L2) and the holder bar (32) are mounted so as to be movable about the longitudinal axis (LI) of the vacuum chamber (62), the longitudinal axis (LI) forming a wobble axis (as cited above) for the same reason and motivation cited above.
Claim 27
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 23, ISHI teaches wherein the sample holder receptacles each have a mounting axis which are designed as longitudinal axes, and the longitudinal are aligned parallel to one another (see fig.6 which this limitation is met by 200 ,i.e., the longitudinal axes and longitudinal200).
Claim 28
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 27,ISHI teaches wherein the sample holder axis (L2) is aligned parallel to the receiving axes of all sample container receptacles (200).
Claim 29
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 23, KERNEN teaches
a drive shaft (23) cooperating with the drive unit (unit comprising 22,24,25,26),
wherein the drive shaft (23) generates a wobbling motion of the sample holder (32) about the longitudinal axis (L2) via the holder bar (31) for the same reason and motivation cited above.
Claim 30
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 29, KERNEN teaches
wherein the drive shaft (23) cooperates with a gear unit (20,21) for transmitting rotational movement (see underlined potion on translation) ) for the same reason and motivation cited above.
Claim 31
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 30, KERNEN teaches
wherein the gear unit (20,21) comprises a first gear wheel (20) connected to the drive shaft (22) and a second gear wheel (21) connected to the sample holder ( via 10,31,30), with the first gear wheel (20) and the second gear wheel (21) meshing with one another in a drive-locking manner, for the same reason and motivation cited above.
Examiner notes that using drive-locking manner for gears is common knowledge used to prevent unwanted movement or back driving.
Claim 32
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 31, KERNEN teaches
wherein the holder bar (31) is connected (via30) to the second gear wheel (21), for the same reason and motivation cited above.
Claim 33
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 30, KERNEN teaches
wherein the gear unit (21,22) forms a step-up gear or a reduction gear, for the same reason and motivation cited above.
(The choice between a step-up gear (increasing speed, decreasing torque) or a reduction gear (decreasing speed, increasing torque) depends entirely on the specific application requirements of your mechanical system. )
Claim 34
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 23, KERNEN teaches
wherein the holder bar (31) is mounted and guided by a joint (30) that is spaced apart from the sample holder (32) and the drive unit (unit comprising 24,25,26), for the same reason and motivation cited above.
Claim 35
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 34, KERNEN teaches
wherein the joint (30) is arranged in a joint holder (portion connected between 30 and 21) connected to the vacuum chamber (10 via 20,21) for the same reason and motivation cited above.
Claim 39
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 23, further comprising
a set of different drive units (51),
wherein one drive unit (51) at a time can be releasably (this is not a positively recited limitation and is not required) connected into the vacuum chamber (62) for achieving (function met by drive unit) different movements of the samples in the sample containers (200) during the treatment of samples and can be coupled to the drive mechanism (50).
Claim 40
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches :
A method for operating a device for treating samples in sample containers under vacuum according to claim 23, ISHI further teaches comprising carrying out continuous movement of the inclined sample holder (30) about the longitudinal axis (LI during treatment of the samples.
Claim 41
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the method according to claim 40, KERNEN further teaches wherein the movement is carried out as a wobbling motion of the sample holder (32) about the longitudinal axis (L1) for the reason and motivation as cited above .
Claim 42
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches :
A method according to claim 40, wherein the drive unit (51) drives the sample holder (30) about the longitudinal axis (LI) but does not teach at a wobble frequency of between 0.5 rpm and 150 rpm.
The specific claimed wobble frequency of between 0.5 rpm and 150 rpm, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” frequency disclosed by KERNEN that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired mixing of sample, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the frequency of between 0.5 rpm and 150 rpm is used, as already suggested by KERNEN. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the KERNEN stated and since these frequency of between 0.5 rpm and 150 rpm are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of KERNEN. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed range or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 44
ISHI teaches the method according to claim 43, comprising
operating a, and
carrying out continuous movement (met by rotation) of an inclined sample holder (30) about a longitudinal axis (LI) during treatment of the samples (100,200),
wherein the device for treating samples in sample containers under vacuum comprises:
a vacuum chamber (62), wherein the vacuum chamber (62) is arranged in a housing (not shown but these well-known systems are inherently located in a housing) and interacts with a vacuum pump (60,64),
the sample holder (30), wherein the sample holder (30) comprises a base surface (base surface of 30 and 120) and a plurality of sample container receptacles (plurality of containers 200 better shown in fig.6 are located in receptacles made in 120) for receiving the sample containers (200), a sample holder axis (L2) runs perpendicular (see fig.1) to the base surface of the sample holder (30), a drive unit (52) is mounted in the vacuum chamber (62) and drives (via shaft 10, 20, 58) the sample holder (30) about a longitudinal axis (LI) of the vacuum chamber (62),
a drive mechanism (51), wherein the drive mechanism (51) is arranged outside the vacuum chamber (62) and is drivingly coupled (via 10) to the drive unit (52),
wherein the drive unit (52) is connected (via 58,32,20) to the sample holder (30) via a holder bar (32,20), the sample holder axis (L2) is designed as a central axis of the holder bar (32),
ISHII does not specifically teach:
arranged in a housing …a cover, …. via the cover (although it is well known and obvious to have a housing and cover and vacuum chamber arranged in the housing with a cover to load and load containers),
the sample holder axis of the sample holder is designed to be movable in a wobbling manner over a specified acute holder angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the vacuum chamber.
In the similar field of endeavor, KERNEN in figs.1-2 and underlined portions on English translation provided by the office teaches:
a sample holder arranged in a housing (1) …a cover (110), the sample holder axis (L1) of the sample holder (32) is designed to be movable in a wobbling manner (produced by hypotrochoid of 30) over a specified acute holder angle (angle between L1 and L2) relative to the longitudinal axis (L2) of the chamber (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use KERNEN‘s drive unit for ISHI’s drive unit wherein the modified ISHI’s sample holder axis of the modified ISHI’s sample holder is designed to be movable in a wobbling manner over a specified acute holder angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the modified ISHI’s vacuum chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to shaking the sample for satisfactory and optimal mixing while reducing risk.
The combination does not specifically teach: arranged in a housing …a cover, …. via the cover (although it is well known and obvious to have a housing and cover and vacuum chamber arranged in the housing with a cover to load and load containers).
However, It is a common knowledge of using housing with cover, additionally/alternatively:
In the similar field of endeavor, Guy in figs.1-2 teaches a sample holder arranged in a housing (1), the vacuum chamber (8) is closed in a vacuum-tight manner and opened (function met by chamber in order to handle containers) in order to load and unload sample containers (200) via the cover (10,11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Guy‘s housing and cover for the modified ISHII‘s device wherein the vacuum chamber is arranged in the modified ISHI’s housing, wherein the modified ISHI’s vacuum chamber is closed in a vacuum-tight manner and opened in order to load and unload modified ISHI’s sample containers via the modified ISHI’s cover. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect its contents from the external environment, contain the vacuum process, and provide a controlled, sealed space for experiments or applications.
Claim 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHII, JP2009220875A, in view of KERNEN , EP 3002056 A1, and Guy , US 5114533 A, and Schwarz, US 20070223305 A1.
Claim 36
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 23, but the combination does not teach wherein the drive mechanism and the drive unit are coupled to one another via a contactless coupling.
In the similar field of endeavor, Schwarz in fig.8 teaches the drive mechanism 134 and the drive unit 130 are coupled to one another via a contactless coupling (¶0036:The drive shaft 134 of the drive motor 130 is coupled to a magnet plate 136 as shown in detail in FIG. 8.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Schwarz ‘s contactless coupling for the modified ISHI‘s device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have reduced maintenance & downtime, leak-free operation, enhanced safety, and greater flexibility.
Claim 37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHII, JP2009220875A, in view of KERNEN , EP 3002056 A1, and Guy , US 5114533 A, and Cole, US 6878342 B2.
Claim 37
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 23, Cole in Fig.1
teaches further comprising a device for heating the sample containers and the samples, wherein the device for heating the sample containers and the samples are IR emitters directed onto the samples from above (col.8 L.28-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cole‘s IR emitters for the modified ISHI‘s device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a low power, compact size system.
Claim 38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHII, JP2009220875A, in view of KERNEN , EP 3002056 A1, and Guy , US 5114533 A, and Chen, US 20230073882 A1.
Claim 38
ISHI in view of KERNEN and Guy teaches the device according to claim 23, Chen in fig.5 teaches further comprising a set of different types of sample holders, wherein each of the sample holders is detachably connectable to the drive unit .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Chen‘s different holders for the modified ISHI‘s device. One of ordinary skill in the art knows samples may be different would have been motivated to make this modification in order to at least improving applicability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 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, 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Prior art of record
2 Prior art of record