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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the support unit, the chamber unit, the rotating unit and the rotation guide unit of claim 7 and the sensor of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. Claim 10 is also objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the interrelationship between the chamber unit and the thermal block module is unclear. Is the chamber unit attached to the thermal block module? If so, how is it attached? Is the thermal block module housed within the chamber unit or vice versa?
Further, the interrelationship between the reaction vessel of the thermal block module and the reaction vessels of the chamber unit is also unclear. Are the reaction vessels one in the same or are they different elements used for two separate purposes?
Claims 8 and 10 depend on claim 7 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nana et al. (hereinafter Nana) US 2017/0266668.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Nana discloses a portable thermal block module comprising: a heating element (TEC 400/706); a heat block (thermal block 100, 300, 703 or 704) stacked on the heating element as shown in Fig. 7, the heat block comprising a substrate and one or more bodies (wells 102) [0153-0155 and 0171], the one or more bodies being located on the substrate so as to be spaced apart from each other as shown in Figs. 1, 3 and 7, each of the bodies comprising an insertion recess (wells 102) configured to allow at least a part of a reaction vessel (reaction vessel 201) to be inserted thereinto as discussed in [0154] and shown in Fig. 2, each of the substrate and the bodies being made of a thermally conductive material [0047, 0126-0127 and 0148]; and a fixing unit (heat sink 700 and primary control board 710) [0171].
PNG
media_image1.png
400
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nana discloses wherein the heating element (TEC 706) comprises a planar heating element as shown in Fig. 7.
Regarding claim 3, Nana discloses wherein the heat block comprises 1 to 2000 bodies as shown in Fig. 1, 3 and 7.
Regarding claim 6, Nana discloses wherein: the fixing unit comprises a first fixing unit and a second fixing unit (heat sink 700 and primary control board 710) [0171], and a part of the first fixing unit and a part of the second fixing unit directly or indirectly contact each other (via mounting sockets 705 and mechanical fasteners 707) to fix the heating element and the heat block between the first fixing unit and the second fixing unit as shown in Fig. 7.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (hereinafter Chang) KR 20130124801 cited in the IDS filed 06/26/2024.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Chang discloses portable thermal block module comprising: a heating element (heat conducting plate 160); a heat block (tube rack 200) stacked on the heating element as shown in Fig. 1, the heat block comprising a substrate and one or more bodies (tube insertion holes 210), the one or more bodies being located on the substrate so as to be spaced apart from each other as shown in Fig. 1, each of the bodies comprising an insertion recess configured to allow at least a part of a reaction vessel to be inserted thereinto, each of the substrate and the bodies being made of a thermally conductive material (aluminum) [0030]; and a fixing unit (body 100) [0026-0032].
PNG
media_image2.png
276
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses wherein the heating element comprises a planar heating element as shown in Fig 1.
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses wherein the heat block comprises 1 to 2000 bodies as shown in Fig 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nana US 2017/0266668 as applied above to claims 1-3, 6 and 9.
Regarding claim 4, Nana does not expressly disclose wherein each of a thinnest part of each body and the substrate has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 1 mm.
However, since providing each body and the substrate such that a thinnest part has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 1 mm would only require a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, a mere change in size or dimension of the device, i.e. thickness, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Nana discloses a sensor (sensor 305), in response to the heat block comprising two or more bodies, the sensor is configured to be located on the substrate (For example, in some instances, an RTD may find use in monitoring the reaction vessel temperature, e.g., by measuring the temperature at a temperature monitoring area of the thermal block that is in close proximity to the reaction vessel. ) so as to be spaced apart from the bodies [0155 and 0173].
Nana does not expressly disclose that the sensor is located between the at least two bodies. However, absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to provide the sensor between the at least two bodies, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI-C).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang KR 20130124801 as applied above to claims 1-3 and 9.
Regarding claim 4, Chang does not expressly disclose wherein each of a thinnest part of each body and the substrate has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 1 mm.
However, since providing each body and the substrate such that a thinnest part has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 1 mm would only require a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, a mere change in size or dimension of the device, i.e. thickness, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Chang discloses a sensor (sensor 310) [0040].
However, Chang does not expressly disclose that the sensor is located on the substrate between the at least two bodies. Absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to provide a sensor on the substrate between the at least two bodies., since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI-C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYDIA EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-3242. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Wednesday 08:00-18:00 EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 571-272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYDIA EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights