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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application as filed on April 19, 2024. Claims 1-23 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: Fig. 5 shows reference characters 22 and 32; however, a description of these characters is not provided in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6, 7, 8, 14-16, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 7, and 18 recite “thermos electrical conduction.” It is unclear what “thermos” electrical conduction means. It is believed that this should read --thermoelectrical conduction-- which is consistent with the terminology used in the specification and the art. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “visible light variation component,” which lacks an indefinite article. It is believed this should read -- a visible light variation component-- for consistency, grammar, and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “The system as in claim 6, atmosphere variation is produced by tubing source”; however, there is no transition phrase in the claim and tubing source lacks an indefinite article. It is believed this should read --The system as in claim 6, wherein atmosphere variation is produced by a tubing source-- for consistency, grammar, and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “A method of controlled incubation, including stimulating ecological manipulation: providing a sample; placing sample into well plate, providing temperature changes, varying carbon dioxide levels, varying visible light levels, varying levels of radiation; and observing result.” The claim lacks a transition phrase and well plate and result lack an indefinite article. It is believed this should read --A method of controlled incubation, including stimulating ecological manipulation, the method comprising: providing a sample; placing sample into a well plate, providing temperature changes, varying carbon dioxide levels, varying visible light levels, varying levels of radiation; and observing a result-- for consistency, grammar, and clarity. In addition, the step of “observing result” is unclear. For example, it is unclear what “result” is being observed and what or who is doing the observing. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites “The method as in claim 14, wherein well plate is removable” which lacks any article for “well plate.” Therefore, it is unclear whether “well plate” here refers to the well plate in claim 14 or a different well plate. The examiner suggests --the well plate--. In addition, it is unclear what is meant by removeable. The claim does not recite any other structure than the well plate and therefore it is unclear what the well plate would be removed from. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites “wherein well plate is variable in size up to 6 chambers.” The term “well plate” lacks any article. Therefore, it is unclear whether “well plate” here refers to the well plate in claim 14 or a different well plate. In addition, the term “variable” is unclear. For example, it is unclear if the well plate includes a configurable structure that may be manipulated to provide different numbers of chambers or if different well plates can be used that have varying numbers of chambers. Therefore, the following amendment is suggested: -- wherein the well plate includes 1 to 6 chambers.-- Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “The method as in claim 14, carbon dioxide variation is produced by tubing source”; however, there is no transition phrase in the claim and tubing source lacks an indefinite article. It is believed this should read -- The method as in claim 14, wherein carbon dioxide variation is produced by a tubing source-- for consistency, grammar, and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. In this instance claims 6 recites a generic place holder “component” with recited functions, such as temperature change, atmosphere variation, light variation and radiation exposure without any corresponding structure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification identifies structure of the components as follows, a thermoelectrical plate, tubing connected to a port with valves to control flow of gas, LEDs emitting visible light, and LEDs emitting ultraviolet light.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “the carbon dioxide gas variation” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the light wavelength” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the temperature change” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 8, the language “atmosphere variation is produced by tubing source” is indefinite. It is unclear how the atmosphere variation relates to the system and other claimed elements, e.g., is the tubing source the atmosphere variation component or are these separate components, and/or if the atmosphere variation component is causing/controlling the atmosphere variation through the tubing source. As a result, the claim components and scope are unclear.
In re claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “the light wavelength range” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claims 12 and 13, the claims recite the limitation “the light emitting diode component” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 17, the claim recites wherein each well plate contains a different sample in each chamber. The recitation “each well plate” implies that there is more than one well plate; however, the parent claim only recites a single well plate; therefore, this term lacks clear antecedent and/or is ambiguous in its relation to the claimed elements. In addition, the recitation “each chamber” lacks antecedent basis as the parent claim does not include any recitation of the well plate as including any chambers. It is pointed out that the term “chambers” is introduced in claim 16; however, claim 17 depends from claim 14.
In re claim 20, the claim recites the limitation “the light variation component” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “ the light wavelength range” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 depends from a rejected base claim, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to natural phenomena without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are directed to a method. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, “Embodiments of the present invention relate to inducing noticeable changes to a simulated environment by adding stresses similar to those encountered by the environment by climate change.” (par. 1).
Independent claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A method of controlled incubation, including stimulating ecological manipulation by providing temperature changes, varying gas levels, varying visible light intensity, and varying levels of radiation.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 4 further define the abstract idea such as by defining parameters of method. Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses natural phenomena.
Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 describes Earth’s atmosphere, weather, and other natural phenomena which vary every day. For example, temperature changes are provided by geothermal activity, earth’s rotation, climates, microclimates, and the sun. Gas levels are varied by wind, ecological elements, such as oceans, plant life, and man. Light intensity is varied by the atmosphere and the rotation of the Earth, and radiation is varied by the sun, atmosphere, the Earth’s magnetic poles, and the rotation of the Earth. All of these combine to stimulate ecological manipulation of a nature’s flora and fauna. Claims 2 and 4 further describe natural phenomena, such as visible light (e.g., from the sun) and lightning (thermoelectric).
The claims do not recite any additional structure or elements that limit the type of changes/variations to a particular device, methodology of control, technology, or any other physical elements that would recite more than the natural phenomena itself. As a result, the claim as a whole recites no particular application or additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. As a result, claims 1, 2, and 4 are not eligible under Section 101.
The examiner suggests amending claim 1 to incorporate additional elements of the climate chamber, such as, for example, those recited in claim 6, such that the claim as a whole recites a particular application and/or additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception in order to transform the claims to be eligible under Section 101.
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 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, 6, 7, 9, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2020/0319217 by Verhoef et al. (“Verhoef”).
In re claim 1, Verhoef discloses a method of controlled incubation, including stimulating ecological manipulation [Abstract describes Incubation system and method for automated cell culture and/or testing ] by providing temperature changes [¶53, among others, describes a climate control system 112. Climate parameters of main chamber 54 that may be monitored and/or regulated by climate control system 112 include temperature], varying gas levels [¶53, among others, describes a climate control system 112. Climate parameters of main chamber 54 that may be monitored and/or regulated by climate control system 112 include gas levels (e.g., CO.sub.2, oxygen, etc.) and particulate levels (e.g., by filtering)], varying visible light intensity [¶¶24, 28, 66,93,128, among others, describe a light source (e.g., LEDs) illuminating the wells, the light source may include an array of light-generating elements that can be selectively energized (i.e., varied)], and varying levels of radiation [¶¶ 24, 63, 53, among others, describes a climate control system 112. Climate parameters of main chamber 54 that may be monitored and/or regulated by climate control system 112 include ultraviolet radiation].
In re claim 2, Verhoef discloses the temperature change is produced through thermos electrical conduction [¶56 describes heaters may be thermoelectric heaters].
In re claim 6, Verhoef discloses a system [Fig. 1/Abstract] comprising: a temperature change component [¶53, among others, describes a climate control system 112. Climate parameters of main chamber 54 that may be monitored and/or regulated by climate control system 112 include temperature]; an atmosphere variation component [¶53, among others, describes a climate control system 112. Climate parameters of main chamber 54 that may be monitored and/or regulated by climate control system 112 include gas levels (e.g., CO.sub.2, oxygen, etc.) and particulate levels (e.g., by filtering)]; visible light variation component [¶¶24, 28, 66,93,128, among others, describe a light source (e.g., LEDs) illuminating the wells, the light source may include an array of light-generating elements that can be selectively energized (i.e., varied)] and a radiation exposure control component [¶¶ 24, 63, 53, among others, describes a climate control system 112. Climate parameters of main chamber 54 that may be monitored and/or regulated by climate control system 112 include ultraviolet radiation].
In re claim 7, Verhoef discloses wherein the temperature change is produced through thermos electrical conduction [¶56 describes heaters may be thermoelectric heaters].
In re claim 9, Verhoef discloses the light variation component is a wide spectrum light emitting diode [¶29].
In re claim 14, Verhoef discloses a method of controlled incubation, including stimulating ecological manipulation [Abstract describes Incubation system and method for automated cell culture and/or testing]: providing a sample [Abstract, ¶¶2, 35, describes samples, such as cell cultures for incubation]; placing sample into well plate [Fig. 4 shows microplate 58 with 6 chambers or wells 152 for holding the samples, ¶¶2,12,35 describes samples such as cell cultures], providing temperature changes [¶53, among others, describes a climate control system 112. Climate parameters of main chamber 54 that may be monitored and/or regulated by climate control system 112 include temperature], varying carbon dioxide levels [¶53, among others, describes a climate control system 112. Climate parameters of main chamber 54 that may be monitored and/or regulated by climate control system 112 include gas levels (e.g., CO.sub.2, oxygen, etc.) and particulate levels (e.g., by filtering)], varying visible light levels [¶¶24, 28, 66,93,128, among others, describe a light source (e.g., LEDs) illuminating the wells, the light source may include an array of light-generating elements that can be selectively energized (i.e., varied)], varying levels of radiation [¶¶ 24, 63, 53, among others, describes a climate control system 112. Climate parameters of main chamber 54 that may be monitored and/or regulated by climate control system 112 include ultraviolet radiation]; and observing result [¶¶12, 49 describes results from any of the sensors may be monitored anywhere, anytime by a user].
In re claim 15, Verhoef discloses the well plate is removable [¶58 describes the microplate may be removed from incubator via entry/exit chamber 122a and maintenance door 116b].
In re claim 16, Verhoef discloses the well plate is variable in size up to 6 chambers [Fig. 4 shows microplate 58 with 6 chambers or wells 152].
In re claim 17, Verhoef discloses, wherein each well plate contains a different sample in each chamber [¶14,35 describe individual wells may be contain a sample and that sample can include any suitable assembly, material, substance, isolate, extract, particles, or the like. Samples may be different such as biological cells including established cells (cell lines), stem cells, primary cells, cells of a tissue sample, transfected cells, cells from a clinical sample (e.g., a blood sample, a fluid aspirate, a tissue section, etc.), clones of cells, or the like].
In re claim 18, Verhoef discloses the temperature change is produced through thermos electrical conduction [¶56 describes heaters may be thermoelectric heaters].
In re claim 20, Verhoef discloses the light variation component is a wide spectrum light emitting diode [¶29 describe illumination using LEDs].
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 3, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Vernof in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0349783 by Bender (“Bender”).
In re claims 3, 8, and 19, Verhoef discloses monitoring and controlling carbon dioxide levels in the incubator including a source of carbon dioxide connected to the chamber, see, e.g., ¶¶53, 110. Vernof doesn’t explicitly teach the carbon dioxide gas variation is produced by tubing source. However, Bender teaches the laboratory device includes a climate chamber and/or an incubation system, and the laboratory system further includes a first fluid supply system that supplies at least one fluid to the climate chamber and/or the incubation system. In particular, the first fluid supply system comprises one or more fluid pumps and tubes for conducting a gas to the climate chamber and/or to the incubation system, such as carbon dioxide, see, e.g., ¶20.
Vernof and Bender are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a laboratory device including a climate chamber and/or an incubation system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Vernof to include the reservoir and tubing arrangement for gas manipulation, as taught by Bender, in order to improve incubator operation, for example, by providing a faster and safer operation of the laboratory device as the storage locations of the fluid reservoirs are predetermined, the fluid reservoirs in the receiving sections are protected from possible damage, tilting and falling over, the tubes and hoses can effectively be protected from damage or kinking, thus fulfilling work safety requirements, see, e.g., ¶17.
Claims 4, 5, 10-13, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Vernof in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0349783 by Rhenac Systems GMBH (“Rhenac”).
In re claims 4, 10, and 21 Verhoef discloses LEDs and providing UV light, see, e.g., ¶¶28, 29. UV light is electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths of 10–400 nanometers.1 However, to the extent that Vernof lacks an explicit teaching of the light wavelength range being 380 nanometers to 500 nanometers, Rhenac teaches light sources, in particular, for use with biological material in a climate chamber or laboratory, that includes wavelengths in the range of 380-500 nanometers, see, e.g., ¶8.
Vernof and Rhenac are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the laboratory device includes a climate chamber and/or laboratories.
Vernof teaches an incubator/climate chamber with LEDs and UV radiation. Rhenac also teaches a climate chamber for laboratory experiments with LEDs and UV radiation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Vernof to simply substitute one type of lighting wavelength with another type of lighting wavelength, as taught by Rhenac, to achieve the predictable result of radiating a sample or the chamber, for example, to simulate effects of the sun on, sterilize, or fluoresce samples.
In re claims 5, 11, and 22, Verhoef discloses LEDs and providing UV radiation, e.g., ¶¶28, 29, 53. Verhoef does not explicitly disclose the radiation level variation is produced by ultraviolet light emitting diodes. However, Rhenac teaches light sources, in particular, for use with biological material in a climate chamber or laboratory, includes and irradiation unit formed of LEDs in wavelengths in the range of 380-500 nanometers (UV), see, e.g., ¶¶6-8.
Vernof and Rhenac are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the laboratory device includes a climate chamber and/or laboratories.
Vernof teaches an incubator/climate chamber with UV radiation. Rhenac also teaches a climate chamber for laboratory experiments with UV radiation produced by LEDs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Vernof to simply substitute one type light source (ultraviolet) with another type of light source (ultraviolet LED), as taught by Rhenac, to achieve the predictable result of radiating a sample or the chamber, for example, to simulate effects of the sun on, sterilize, or fluoresce samples.
In re claims 12 and 23, Verhoef lacks, but Rhenac teaches wherein the light emitting diode component emits light at a wavelength of 280 nanometers [¶8].
Vernof and Rhenac are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the laboratory device includes a climate chamber and/or laboratories.
Vernof teaches an incubator/climate chamber with UV radiation. Rhenac also teaches a climate chamber for laboratory experiments with UV radiation produced by LEDs at a wavelength of 280 nanometers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Vernof to simply substitute one type light source (ultraviolet) with another type of light source (Ultraviolet LED 280nm), as taught by Rhenac, to achieve the predictable result of radiating a sample or the chamber, for example, to simulate effects of the sun on, sterilize, or fluoresce samples.
In re claim 13, Verhoef lacks, but Rhenac teaches the light emitting diode component emits light at a wavelength of 350 nanometers [¶8].
Vernof and Rhenac are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the laboratory device includes a climate chamber and/or laboratories.
Vernof teaches an incubator/climate chamber with UV radiation. Rhenac also teaches a climate chamber for laboratory experiments with UV radiation produced by LEDs at a wavelength of 350 nanometers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Vernof to simply substitute one type light source (ultraviolet) with another type of light source (Ultraviolet LED 350nm), as taught by Rhenac, to achieve the predictable result of radiating a sample or the chamber, for example, to simulate effects of the sun on, sterilize, or fluoresce samples.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
CN 106613522 describes a miniature artificial climate box capable of remote controlling a climate chamber comprising a culture box, a control box, and a water tank that can be integrally formed. The climate chamber is provided with a sensor for detecting multiple parameters and automatic multi-parameter control. The culture box is made by transparent organic glass material to provide a light and temperature control device to control temperature in climatic chamber. The utility model is especially suitable for observation and research of plant growth for students.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Wikipedia definition for “Ultraviolet”.