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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s “Remarks”, filed April 28, 2026. The amendments therein have been thoroughly reviewed and entered. Any previous objection/ rejection not repeated herein has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been thoroughly reviewed but are deemed moot in view of the amendments, withdrawn rejections, and new and/or modified grounds for rejection, necessitated by the amendments, discussed below.
Claim Interpretation
In the patentability analysis of applicant’s pending device claims 1 and 6-10, aspects or limitations the examiner interprets as functional/process/intended use and/or not positively recited as part the claimed apparatus have been generally italicized whereas aspects interpreted as positively recited structural components are normally bolded. The bold font and italics are shown when the structure and functional/process/intended use and/or not positively recited are initially introduced though not necessarily repeated, particularly in dependent claims. The examiner applies this formatting for both the examiner and applicant’s convenience. However, absent the referenced typestyles, the patentability analysis will still be clear regarding which limitations the examiner interprets as structural versus functional/process/intended use and/or not positively recited structure. Also note that it has been held that recitations in which an element is "adapted to/for", “configured to/for”, “positionable”, “moveable/immovable”, etc., only requires the ability to so perform (i.e., functional/process/intended use). Generally, functional/process/intended use and/or elements not positively recited as part of the device will not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense with respect to the prior art. Please note these recitations have not been ignored by the examiner. All of the claimed recitations in applicant’s claims have been considered by the examiner and afforded the appropriate amount of patentable weight. In certain instances during prosecution, the examiner’s current interpretations regarding the patentable weight of these limitations may change based on the facts of the case. In which case, the examiner will make clear any change in previous interpretations and reasons therefore in the next Official action.
The examiner's patentability analysis below provides one or more interpretations and claim mappings of the claimed structures and steps although other interpretations may be possible. In the patentability analysis, the Office applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification and specific limitations from the specification have not been read into the claims.
See MPEP at least §2111.02, 2173.01 I 2114, and 2173.05(g).
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 1 and 6-10 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 claim 1:
line 6 recites “a direction from the first portion toward the second portion is upward, and the opposite direction is downward”;
lines 8-9 recite “a predetermined direction different from a vertical direction and to be biased in a contracting direction at least in an enlarged state”; and
penultimate line recites “the first portion and the second portion are biased in a direction that brings the first portion and the second portion close to each other in the vertical direction by the spring biasing unit.”
The claims include a confusing variety of directions. For example, “a direction and the opposite direction” is confusing relative to the “vertical direction” and the “predetermined direction”.
Also, claim 1 now recites the phrase “close to”, which is a relative phrase that renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear from the claim or applicant’s specification the distance between the portions that applicant considers “close to”. Same deficiency was found in claims 7 and 10. Also, the term “tightly” in claim 10 is vague and indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 6-10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Knippschild et al,. (US 2018/0361387; hereinafter “Knippschild”).
Regarding claim 1, Knippschild discloses a heat transfer device comprising
a receptacle (reads on enclosed area in which the vessel 1 resides in Fig. 1a); and
a spring biasing unit ,
wherein the receptacle has a first portion (heating body shells 4.2) and a second portion (lid shells 3.2), all of which are capable of being enlargeable and contractible in a predetermined direction different from a vertical direction, and to be biased in a contracting direction at least in an enlarged state (via at least one elasticity and spring characteristic of the at least one elastic ring 11, e.g., a rubber ring, and of the at least one spring element 6; see para [0036] et seq.) and
wherein a direction from the first portion toward the second portion is upward, and the opposite direction is downward,
the first portion and the second portion are biased in a direction that brings the first portion and the second portion close to each other in the vertical direction by the spring biasing unit (see para [0037] et seq.)
Note: the receptacle and spring bias unit are the only limiting structures in the heat transfer device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Knippschild discloses the heat transfer device comprises a shaft (formed by housing 9), the second portion is formed of a block pair 4.2 that is guided by the shaft to be able to be apart from and close to each other in the predetermined direction (see para [0035] et seq., “heating body shells 4.2, the two heating body shells 4.2 are supported in the interior space 2 radially elastically with respect to the axis of symmetry 1.0 via at least one spring element 6 and are held together via at least one elastic ring 11”).
Regarding claim 7, Knippschild discloses the shaft includes a compression spring pair 11 passing through in a direction that brings the block pair close to each other in the predetermined direction, at least when enlarged (see Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 8, Knippschild discloses a heating device comprising: the heat transfer device according to claim 1; and a heater 7 configured to be able to heat the heat transfer device (see para [0016] et seq.)
Regarding claim 9, Knippschild teaches the heating device according to claim 8; a container (reaction vessel); and a carrying device (lid) configured to be able to place and remove the container with respect to the heating device.
Regarding claim 10, Knippschild teaches the first portion is formed of the first block 3/4, the second portion 3/4 is formed of the second block, and the first block and the second block are biased in a direction that brings the first block and the second block close to each other in the vertical direction by the spring biasing unit so that the upper surface of the first block and the lower surface of the second block contact tightly.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 6-10 have been considered, as best understood, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
While the following prior art listed below is not specifically applied in this Official action, the examiner considers the listed prior art relevant to the overall prosecution and may be relied upon in the future based on applicant’s response(s).
i. Lem et al., (US 2008/0057544) teach at least two heating blocks, each having a groove for receiving a reaction vessel such that only a portion of the outer surface of the walls of the vessel are in direct contact with the heating block. The remaining portion of the outer surface of the walls of the reaction vessel remains exposed to ambient conditions. The reaction vessel comes into contact with only one heating block at a time either by movement of the vessel between the heating blocks or by movement of the heating blocks in relation to the vessel.
ii. Shin et al., (US 7,169,355) teach The system of this invention incorporates at least two heating blocks, each having a groove for receiving a reaction vessel such that only a portion of the outer surface of the walls of the vessel are in direct contact with the heating block. The remaining portion of the outer surface of the walls of the reaction vessel remains exposed to ambient conditions. The reaction vessel comes into contact with only one heating block at a time either by movement of the vessel between the heating blocks or by movement of the heating blocks in relation to the vessel.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached between9:30am-7:30 pm EST.
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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (571) 270-36383638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights