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
Acknowledgment is made that this application is a continuation of parent application 17/433,119 (USPN 12050210).
Information Disclosure Statement
While it is not necessary for the Applicant to submit an information disclosure statement that lists the prior art reference(s) previously cited and considered by the Office in the parent application for the latter filed continuing application claiming the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to said parent application (other than an international application that designated the U.S.), the information will not be printed on any patent issuing from the continuing application unless cited by the Applicant on an IDS or by the Examiner on a PTO-892 for the present application. See MPEP § 609.02. While the Examiner has reviewed the reference(s) of the parent application(s), the Examiner has not verified that all of the reference(s) listed in the parent application(s) appear on the present IDS and/or PTO-892.
The information disclosure statement(s)
(IDS) submitted on 06/18/2024 and 03/25/2025 is/are in compliance
with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
Drawings filed 06/18/2024 is acceptable.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive.
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an Examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).
The Examiner notes that the present claim set is directed to the column cartridge, which interacts with the oven.
The following title is suggested:
“CARTRIDGE WITH HEAT BLOCK FOR ANALYSIS .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 18,
the Examiner objects to the narrative phrasing, the Examiner suggesting “wherein the RFID is configured to have information written into the RFID during exchange of the column cartridge, where said information is indicative that the column cartridge is used”.
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.
MPEP § 2173.02(I) states in part: “if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate”.
MPEP § 2173.05(b)(II):
A claim may be rendered indefinite by reference to an object that is variable. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
Claim(s) 11-24 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 11:
A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art could read the limitation “A column cartridge comprising: an analysis column that is held in a column oven” with more than one reasonable interpretation including that the Applicant is claiming a system comprising the column cartridge and the column oven or that the Applicant is claiming a column cartridge wherein the analysis column is configured to be held in a column oven. The Examiner has looked to the disclosure for guidance and found that the column oven is 100 in fig. 1 which is not comprised by the column cartridge, but rather the remainder/entirety of fig. 1 (see also fig. 6 showing absence and installation of the column cartridge). As best understood by the Examiner and for the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the aforementioned limitation as “A column cartridge comprising: an analysis column that is configured to be held in a column oven”.
A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art could read the limitation “wherein the first heat block is heated by a second heat block that transfers heat from a heat source provided in the column oven” with more than one reasonable interpretation including that the Applicant is claiming that the column cartridge comprises the second heat block, the heat source, and the column oven or that the Applicant is claiming a column cartridge wherein the first heat source is for heating with a second heat block that transfer heat from a heat source provided in the oven (i.e., that the second heat block, the heat source, and the oven are not comprised by the column cartridge). The Examiner has looked to the disclosure for guidance and found that the second heat block (referenced in the specification as best understood as the heat block 101) is part of the column oven 100 (aka column temperature control unit) (see at least [0029] explaining how the column heat block 103 of the column cartridge 104 comes into contact with the heat block 101; see also fig. 6A showing the heat block 101 present when the column cartridge is not yet inserted). As best understood by the Examiner and for the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the aforementioned limitation as “wherein the first heat block is for being heated by a second heat block that transfers heat from a heat source provided in the column oven”.
Regarding claim 24,
similar to the analysis provided for independent claim 11, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art could read the limitation “a surface that is in contact with the second heat block” with more than one reasonable interpretation including that the Applicant is claiming that the column cartridge comprises the second heat block or that Applicant is claiming that the surface has the intended use of being placed in contacted with the second heat block. The Examiner has looked to the disclosure for guidance and found that the second heat block (referenced in the specification as best understood as the heat block 101) is part of the column oven 100 (aka column temperature control unit) (see at least [0029] explaining how the column heat block 103 of the column cartridge 104 comes into contact with the heat block 101; see also fig. 6A showing the heat block 101 present when the column cartridge is not yet inserted). As best understood by the Examiner and for the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the aforementioned limitation by the latter interpretation of intended use (i.e., that the second heat block is not a claimed element of the column cartridge).
Regarding claim(s) 16,
the Examiner identifies that the column oven is a variable object which is referenced by the claim(s), and that the variability of said object renders said claim(s) indefinite. In particular, the Examiner notes that as best understood, the column oven is not a claimed element of the column cartridge (see preceding analysis of independent claim 11), and that the “joined portion of the column cartridge and the column oven has a variable width” depends not only on the claimed column cartridge, but also on the characteristics of the external column oven. Moreover, it is further unclear as to which portion of the claimed oven is being referenced as part of the joined portion. As best understood by the Examiner and for the purpose of examination, the claimed column cartridge appears to be configured to hold different types of analysis columns of different shapes/sizes.
Regarding claim(s) 17,
similar to claim 16, the Examiner identifies that the column oven is a variable object which is referenced by the claim(s), and that the variability of said object renders said claim(s) indefinite. In particular, the Examiner notes that as best understood, the column oven is not a claimed element of the column cartridge (see preceding analysis of independent claim 11), and that the “joined portion of the column cartridge and the column oven” depends not only on the claimed column cartridge, but also on the characteristics of the external column oven. Furthermore, limitation “the analysis column can be identified by fitting of the structure” appears to narrative and absent a structural means for so identifying. As best understood by the Examiner and for the purpose of examination, the claimed column cartridge appears to be configured to hold different types of analysis columns of different shapes/ sizes.
Dependent claim(s) of rejected claim(s) is/are likewise rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Applicant cited Hasegawa* et al (WO 2017199335 A1; hereafter “Hasegawa”).
*machine translation previously provided by Examiner with foreign document in parent application and still utilized for English citations
Regarding independent claim 11, as best understood,
Hasegawa teaches a column cartridge (fig. 16, column holder 11) (Examiner notes that column holder is a broad reasonable interpretation of a column cartridge, however, for a narrower explicitly same nomenclature Hasegawa teaches utilizing a multi-column holding cartridge, see Example 27 and page 15, Example 27 “Further, a part of the configuration of one embodiment can be replaced with the configuration of another embodiment, and the configuration of another embodiment can be added to the configuration of one embodiment”; see also especially fig. 28, 94; additional obviousness analysis provided) comprising:
an analysis column (fig. 16, separation column 2) that is held in a column oven (fig. 16) (page 11, Example 15 “The temperature adjustment units 60, 61, 63 have a heater for heating, a sensor for monitoring temperature, and the like, and temperature control is performed from an external control unit (not shown)”); and
a first heat block (heat block portion of holder 11) that transfers heat to the analysis column (fig. 16, separation column 2) ([0138] “The temperature control parts 60, 61 and 63 use the column holder 11, the first fitting holder 12, and a pipe holder 62 as heat blocks”);
wherein the first heat block (heat block portion of holder 11) is heated by a second heat block (fig. 16, 12 and/or 62 as heat block) that transfers heat from a heat source (heater) provided in the column oven (fig. 16).
With further regards to the nomenclature “cartridge”, it is the Examiner’s position that: an ordinary artisan would reasonably interpret Hasegawa’s column holder as a column cartridge; or an ordinary artisan would at least at once envisaged that Hasegawa’s multi-column cartridge is reasonably taught to be utilized for Hasegawa’s holder to increase the number of columns, make the columns easier to handle & store, and/or make the switching between columns easier; or, nevertheless, or in the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so substitute for the aforementioned reasons.
Regarding claim 21 and claim 22, where claim 21 depends on claim 11 and where claim 22 depends on claim 11,
Hasegawa is silent (at least in the explicit embodiment of fig. 16): (claim 21) wherein the analysis column is cylindrical, and a surface of the first heat block that is in contact with the analysis column has a curved groove having substantially a same diameter as the analysis column; (claim 22) wherein the analysis column has a planar connection portion, and the planar connection portion is in contact with a planar surface of the first heat block.
However:
Legal precedent has condoned the use of particular examples of what may be considered common sense or ordinary routine practice including changes in shape, see MPEP § 2141(I) & 2144.04(IV)(B), and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only routine skill in the art is required to design the column as cylindrical or flat, and likewise only routine skill in the art is required to change the shape of a heat block to be curved.
Furthermore, the Examiner takes Official Notice that chromatography columns may conventionally be cylindrical or have a planar shape (Examiner notes that such shapes could be factually supported within other embodiments of Hasegawa and/or supported by the other prior art of record).
In view of the proceeding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to commonsensically optimize the shape of Hasegawa’s heat block to the shape of the column (i.e., grooved for a cylindrical shape column, and planar for a flat shaped column) thereby providing sufficient surface contact for conductive heat transfer and/or for proper support without unwanted gaps for stabilization of the column. The Examiner notes with regards to cylindrical geometries (and groove) that this geometry appears to be particularly useful for single columns thereby providing increased surface area contact, whereas planar geometries appear to be particularly useful for a plurality of columns in a cartridge that may be stacked/shifted.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Applicant cited Hasegawa in view of Applicant cited Matsuba* (JP 2000111536 A; hereafter “Matsuba”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 11,
Hasegawa teaches wherein the column cartridge (fig. 2, column holder 11; fig. 28, cartridge 94; see independent claim analysis) includes a portion in which the column heat block (heat block portion of holder 11) is arranged, and a surface of the column heat block (heat block portion of holder 11) is in contact with the analysis column (fig. 16, separation column 2), and wherein there is a bottom surface of the column cartridge (fig. 2, column holder 11).
Hasegawa does not teach wherein the column cartridge includes an opening portion in which the column heat block is arranged
However:
It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144(V)(C), Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (BPAI. 1969), and In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to make a separate a portion of the holder to be a distinct heat block portion thereof.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); see also MPEP § 2144.07. In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to make a select portion of Hasegawa’s holder to be a material more conducive for heat transfer/stability.
Furthermore, Matsuba teaches a column temperature control block (fig. 1, temperature control block 1) comprising a column (fig. 1, tube portion 13) and including an opening portion (opening portion within control block 1 for heat transfer block 3) in which a column heat block (fig. 1, heat transfer block 3) is arranged, and a surface of the column heat block (fig. 1, heat transfer block 3) opposite to a surface in contact with the analysis column (fig. 1, tube portion 13) is smaller than a bottom surface of the column temperature control block (fig. 1, temperature control block 1).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make separate Hasegawa’s heat block portion from the remainder of Hasegawa’s holder—as supported by Matsuba’s distinct and smaller heat block—thereby reducing costs &/or weight (less material needs to be able to properly conduct heat) and/or promoting more consistent heat transfer (by the smaller area for transfer).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Applicant cited Hasegawa* et al (WO 2017199335 A1; hereafter “Hasegawa”) in view of Applicant cited Sabolis et al (US 20190033271 A1; hereafter “Sabolis”).
Regarding claim 18 and claim 19, where claim 18 depends on claim 11 and where claim 19 depends on claim 18,
Hasegawa does not teach an RFID: wherein the RFID is provided in the column cartridge; and wherein information indicating that the column cartridge is used is written into the RFID during exchange of the column cartridge.
Sabolis teaches wherein an RFID (fig. 17, RFID tag 408) is provided in the column cartridge (fig. 17, removable column holder 90), wherein information indicating that the column cartridge (fig. 17, removable column holder 90) is used is written into the RFID (fig. 17, RFID tag 408) during exchange of the column cartridge (fig. 17, removable column holder 90) (Title “GAS CHROMATOGRAPH DEVICE WITH COLUMN RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE THEREOF”; Abstract “auto-recognize the column in the gas chromatograph device”; [0057] “Column recognition technology system 400 may also be configured to write number of runs 420 associated with the auto-recognized column 12. With this feature or configuration, column recognition technology system 400 may be configured to enable users to see how close the auto-recognized column 12 is to the end of its lifetime based on number of runs 420 written to the auto-recognized column 1”’ [0058] “two-way communication 402 between gas chromatograph device 10 and auto-recognized column 12 may be configured for reading stored information from column 12 as well as writing new information to column 12” and “column parameters 412 pulled or read from RFID tag 408 by column recognition technology system 400 may include, but are not limited to, column inner diameter 414, film thickness 416, column length 418, number of runs 420, maximum allowable operating parameters 422, the like, and combinations thereof. In addition, the stored information pulled or read from RFID tag 408 by column recognition technology system 400 may be configured to calculate variables 424 of gas chromatograph device 10. In select embodiments, these variables 424 calculated for gas chromatograph device 10 may include, but are not limited to, linear velocity 426, inlet carrier gas pressure 428, the like, and combinations thereof. In other select embodiments, the stored information pulled or read from RFID tag 408 by column recognition technology system 400 may be configured to limit other input parameters or variables 424 of gas chromatograph device 10. As an example, and clearly not limited thereto, these other input parameters limited by the stored information pulled or read from RFID tag 408 may include, but are not limited to, maximum temperatures 430, the like, etc. These parameters may be configured to ensure the best performance and limit damage to column 12”; [0082] “writing new information to column 12 including number of runs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sabolis’ RFID column recognition technology with Hasegawa’s column cartridge for at least the purposes as put forth by Sabolis, further including for tracking use of the column and other parameters thereof and thereby better facilitating better performance, limiting damage, reducing manual labor, and/or preventing wasted runs from undesired reuse of columns where new columns are necessary/desired. With further regards to claim 19, The Examiner additionally notes that the determination of whether a wherein/whereby/adaptation or similar clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case as put forth by MPEP § 2111.04. Additionally, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987). In the present case, the wherein statement pertaining to writing information into the RFID during exchange of the of the column cartridge is not fully directed to the structural limitations of the column cartridge; the Examiner’s claim interpretation is that the RFID is configured to be so capable of having information so indicative of the column cartridge being used written there into.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Applicant cited Hasegawa in view of newly cited Ozbal (US 20150377842 A1; hereafter “Ozbal”).
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 11,
Hasegawa does not teach wherein the column cartridge (fig. 16, column holder 11) has a structure where one side of an installation direction has a notch, and another side does not have a notch.
Ozbal teaches a cartridge (fig. 4, cartridge 405) that has a structure where one side (side with notched corner 450) of an installation direction has a notch (fig. 4, notched corner 450), and another side (other side without notched corner 450) does not have a notch ([0043] “The notched corner 450 that acts as a key to prevent improper insertion of the cartridge 405 into a system”; [0048] “a user inserts the cartridge in the orientation that is accepted by the instrument. That orientation is dictated by the notch in the cartridge”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ozbal’s cartridge notch with Hasegawa’s cartridge for the expected purpose to prevent improper insertion of the cartridge.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Applicant cited Hasegawa in view of newly cited Maier-Rosenkranz et al (US 20120085462 A1; hereafter “Rosenkranz”).
Regarding claim 16 and claim 17, where claim 16 depends on claim 11 and where claim 17 depends on claim 11, where both claim 16 and claim 17 are as best understood,
Hasegawa teaches wherein the column cartridge is configured to hold different types of analysis columns (Background-Art “separation column to be used is selected” and “Therefore, it is important to establish a small and simple replacement mechanism and replacement method”; Examiner notes that this establishes the problem—and associated motivation thereof—solved by Hasegawa pertaining to replacing with desired separation column).
Hasegawa does not teach (claim 16) wherein a structure of a joined portion of the column cartridge and the column oven has a variable width depending on a type of the analysis column, nor (claim 17) wherein a structure of a joined portion of the column cartridge and the column oven has a structure depending on the analysis column, and the analysis column can be identified by fitting of the structure.
Rosenkranz teaches in figs. 2-4 wherein a structure of a column (fig. 4,exemplary column 30) has a variable width depending on a type of the column (fig. 4,exemplary column 30), and the column (fig. 4,exemplary column 30) can be identified (via a sensor) by the joined fitting of the column (fig. 4,exemplary column 30) ([0005]; [0027] “a sensor that determines the size of the column when the column is inserted into the holding member and that communicates with the controller. The column may include a variety of chromatography columns having different shapes and sizes, which require packing with chromatography media, but an exemplary embodiment includes a cylindrical column. The media may include any chromatography media or phase materials (e.g., inorganic and/or organic) in a variety of different forms (e.g., spherical or irregular particulates), and exemplary media include metal oxide (e.g., silica) or polymeric (e.g., polyethylene) particulates. Sensors may include any optical, mechanical or electrical sensors, but an exemplary sensor may include any mechanical sensor or switch”; [0052] “slot mouth width that is sized to accommodate a width of a second column”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rosekranz’s column width size accommodation and sensor for determining size of column with Hasegawa’s column cartridge, thereby better enabling identification of the type (e.g., small, medium, large) of column.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Hasegawa in view of Applicant cited Kanai et al (US 20140290491 A1; hereafter “Kanai”).
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 11,
Hasegawa teaches the heat source (heater) for a column cartridge (fig. 2, column holder 11).
Hasegawa does not teach wherein the heat source is a sheet heater.
However, Kanai teaches a heat source (heater 18 &/or 20) which is a sheet heater (heater 18 &/or 20) ([0030] “flat heaters 18 and 20”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Kanai’s flat heater design for Hasegawa’s heater, thereby providing finer temperature control including by even heat distribution across an area and reducing risks of hot/uneven spots. The Examiner additionally notes that the heat source is not a claimed element of the column cartridge. See MPEP § 2111.04 pertaining to wherein clauses.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Hasegawa in view of newly cited Lunsford et al (US 20070175270 A1; hereafter “Lunsford”).
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claim 11,
Hasegawa does not teach wherein the analysis column is covered with a heat insulating material except both ends and a surface that is in contact with the first heat block.
Lunsford teaches wherein an analysis column (see separation column in fig. 1, comprising body 104) is covered with a heat insulating material (fig. 1, insulting material 106) except both ends (opposing ends, see openings 103) and a surface (exposed surface) that is in contact with a heat block (not shown; heating means comprising metal block) (Title “Thermally Insulated Apparatus For Liquid Chromatographic Analysis”; Abstract “A thermally insulated apparatus provides a substantially adiabatic environment for elevated temperature liquid chromatography applications. The thermally insulated apparatus minimizes or eliminates temperature gradients between columns and mobile phases, and maintains a temperature at or near the set point of an operably coupled heating means”; [0010] “[0010] FIG. 1A depicts one embodiment of the thermally insulated apparatus (100) of the invention. The elongated metallic body (104) in this embodiment is cylindrical with longitudinal and radial axes. Two openings (103) are located at opposing ends of the longitudinal axis of the metallic body. Insulating material (106) contacts the outer surface of the metallic body (104), and completely encircles or surrounds it over at least some of the length. In other portions of the length, the metallic body (104) does not contact the insulating material (106), which allows metallic body (104) to contact an external heating source”; [0020] “the thermally insulated apparatus is used in combination with a heating means. The heating means can be any heating means that is well known in the art, including, for example, radiant/convection, conductive, Peltier heaters, Peltier coolers, electrical heater coils, heated circulated air, direct electrical heating, heating element/thermocouple into a metal block, and the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lunsford’s column insulation with Hasegawa’s column for the purposes as put forth by Lunsford, emphasizing the maintaining of an elevated temperature with minimized/eliminated temperature gradients and therefore assisting with more reliable analysis. With further respect to the extent of the covering, the Examiner notes that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to commonsensically cover the otherwise exposed portions of Hasegawa’s column with insulation for thermal isolation while not covering the areas of Hasegawa’s column that are connected at the ends for fluidic coupling as well as the area of Hasegawa’s column that are contacting a heater block portion for thermal heating thereof.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Hasegawa in view of newly cited Lunsford and in further view of newly cited Sakuta* (CN 109283238 A; hereafter “Sakuta”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 24, which depends on claim 23, as best understood,
Hasegawa does not teach wherein the first heat block is covered with the heat insulating material except the surface that is in contact with the analysis column and a surface that is in contact with the second heat block.
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that covering heated portions with thermal insulation is a conventional activity in the art.
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Sakuta teaches wherein a heat block (fig. 4, heating block 14) is covered with a heat insulating material (fig. 4, insulating sleeve 16) except the surfaces that are in contact with other components.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Hasegawa’s heating block with conventional heat insulating material—as factually supported by Sakuta’s heat insulation of a heating block—for the expected and routine use of insulating the heating block from unwanted temperature changes and therefore better maintaining an elevated temperature with minimized/eliminated temperature gradients and therefore assisting with more reliable analysis. With further respect to the areas uncovered by thermal insulation material, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been commonsensically obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not insulate areas of the heating block which are intended to convey heat (i.e., an ordinary artisan would be knowledgeable to not place insulation between elements intended that were intended for heat flow).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following claim(s) is/are drafted by the Examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, and is/are presented to Applicant for consideration:
Examiner Proposed claim based on dependent claim 13 including independent base claim 11 and intervening claim 12:
A column cartridge comprising:
an analysis column that is configured to be held in a column oven; and
a first heat block that transfers heat to the analysis column;
an opening portion in which the first heat block is arranged;
wherein the opening portion is arranged at a bottom surface of a lower portion of the column cartridge, and
wherein the first heat block is positioned in the opening so as to be capable of being heated by a second heat block that transfers heat from a heat source provided in the column oven,
The Examiner notes that in the above proposed claim that the column oven, the second heat block, and the heat source are not claimed elements, whereas the column cartridge is merely configured to be held in a column oven, and the first heat block is merely capable of being heated by the column oven.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 16JUL2026
Prosecution Insights