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 .
Detailed Action
Summary
This is the Non-Final Office Action based on application 17/437006 RCE filed 06/25/2026.
Claim 9-14 & 33 have been examined and fully considered.
Claims 1-8, 15-23 have been cancelled.
Claims 33 is newly added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/25/2026 has been entered.
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 9-12 & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious/unpatentable by DOWLING in US 20130196339 in view of in view of SCOTT in US 20150260621.
With respect to Claim 9, DOWLING teaches of a device which is overall called a slide pocket (abstract) to be used for individual tissue slide processing and treatment with multiple reagents of varying concentration and temperature within an automated IHC system (paragraph 0006). More specifically, DOWLING teaches of the device shown in Figs. 11 & 5 & 4 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
506
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
864
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
500
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DOWLING teaches of the device having a casing/shell portion (100) with a pocket (the open space which 400 is sitting in) and a removeable sample slide (400) which is inserted in in the pocket, and which is configured to be inserted or removed.
DOWLING further teaches of the device having a second shell potion (200) (paragraphs 0030-0033). This second shell portion can be considered the claimed removeable holder cover which covers inlet for the sample channels. On 200, there are items 220a and 230a which are covers and ports for the inlet channel and outlet channel. 220 is for input and 230 is output, for the fluidic channels 225 and 235 respectively (paragraph 0034). The fluidic channels 225 and 235 are for inlet and outlet of the sample. These inlets and outlets allow sample to be absorbed onto the sample slide.
DOWLING further teaches of there being at least one sealed space between the sample slide(400) and the casing (200 and 100)--- since any and all the spacing between them can be considered a sealed space.
The pocket in which slide 400 is inserted to as shown in the drawings 11, 5, & 4 as shown above is configured with what can be considered a “narrow opening that is configured such that the removeable sample slide may be inserted thereinto only by placing an edge of the removeable sample slide at the opening and sliding the removeable sample slide longitudinally through the narrow opening.”
DOWLING does not teach of the sample slide having substrate patches on it.
SCOTT is used to remedy this and teaches of a sample holder for an IHC system comprising: a casing (the "vacuum manifold slide frame", paragraph [0072], Figures 15A-15C, feature 205) and with a pocket (one of the "slide wells", paragraph [0072], Figure 15A, feature 302); a removable sample slide (the "slide", paragraph [0070], Figures 14 and 15A-15C, feature 10’) with one or a plurality of substrate patches (as defined by the "porous membrane", paragraph [0070], Figure 14, feature 201, which "acts as a sample support", paragraph [0071]) configured to be inserted into or removed from the pocket (since no further holding features than the "gasket", same paragraph, Figures 15A-15C, feature 401, are mentioned for the "vacuum manifold slide frame", see above).
Specifically, SCOTT teaches of the slide having a porous membrane attached to it (paragraph 0023, 0070). Further, SCOTT teaches that there are plurality of membranes such as 201 & 301 on Figures (paragraph 0072). The samples sections and membrane and put together in patches as instantly claimed (see Figure 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a sample slide with one or a plurality of patches/ or membranes attached to it as is done in SCOTT in the device of DOWLING due to the advantage the membranes on the slides have for acting as a sample support and allowing blocking and fluid transfer during rinsing and washing steps for example (SCOTT, paragraph 0070).
With respect to Claim 10, DOWLING teaches of the claims as shown above, but does not teach of using membranes for substrate patches. SCOTT is used to remedy this and teaches of the slide having a porous membrane (substrate patch) attached to it (paragraph 0023, 0070). Further, SCOTT teaches that there are plurality of membranes such as 201 & 301 on Figures (paragraph 0072). The samples sections and membrane and put together in patches as instantly claimed (see Figure 14), and both 301 and 201 are referred to a membrane (paragraphs 0071-0072). See reason for combination from Claim 9.
With respect to Claim 11, DOWLING of the claims as shown above, but does not teach of the membrane or membrane materials as claimed. SCOTT teaches that the membrane is a material such as glass polymer plastics which are shown in the cited paragraph (polyvinyl polymers are plastics (paragraph 0070). See reason for combination from Claim 9 for why one would want to use membranes of the materials used in SCOTT with the device of DOWLING.
With respect to Claim 12, DOWLING teaches of the invention as shown above, but not of pneumatic connectors/valves. SCOTT is used to remedy this and teaches of using valves (pneumatic connectors) on the housing/casing (paragraph 0053).
SCOTT more specifically teaches of a multi-port frame that allows multiple assays to be carried out concurrently, which is connectable and removeable from a vacuum manifold (vacuum actuator) that allows for easy transport to an incubator/refrigerator and back (abstract). The vacuum manifold is the same as the claimed vacuum actuator. The vacuum manifold has slide wells (paragraph 0024-0026, & Figure 14), and SCOTT further teaches that the manifold base 100 is in communication with a driving force such as a vacuum to drive fluid through the one or more slide holders 30, mounted on the slide holder frame 102, positioned on the manifold base. This also for washing and rinsing the sample (paragraphs 0050, 0052, 0076-0079, Figures 10, 11, & 12). The device with the structure described by SCOTT is configured to/capable of functioning in the way as claimed in instant claim 12, “to provide vacuum…. To obtain laminar flow.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a vacuum manifold/actuator and valves as is done in SCOTT in the device of DOWLING due to the advantage applying vacuum adds for sealing and effecting fluid flow (SCOTT, paragraph 0259).
With respect to Claim 33, DOWLING teaches of the device having a casing/shell portion (100) with a pocket (the open space which 400 is sitting in) and a removeable sample slide (400) which is inserted in in the pocket, and which is configured to be inserted or removed. As shown in figures 4, 5, and 11 the slide is configured to be inserted longitudinally into the opening and that it protrudes outside so as to facilitate mechanical removal. Also- through broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed orientation of the slide insertion into the holder can be interpreted as longitudinal insertion.
PNG
media_image2.png
864
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious/unpatentable by DOWLING in US 20130196339 in view of in view of SCOTT in US 20150260621 and further in view of LECK in US 20100285573.
With respect to Claim 13, DOWLING and SCOTT teach of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of using sealed liquid containers.
LECK is used to remedy this and teaches of a device having a reservoir holder, 41 (sample holder as claimed)- See Figure 15 and paragraphs 0242-0244. Assays are run on the slides that are held in the reservoir holder (paragraph 0249).
LECK teaches in Figure 18 of a chamber cover (casing with pocket) designed for a slide. The chamber cover has an opening (38), and when this opening is placed onto the reservoir this opening forms a continuous space with the reservoir (paragraph 0253).
LECK further teaches that a slide can be positioned at the bottom of the chamber inside the reservoir. The chamber has two layers and a through hole, pocket. The slide is attached to the bottom of the pocket to create the reservoir (paragraph 0251).
LECK teaches that the device has a pocket in the slide chamber (chamber for slides), and that four isolated channels are generated along each row of glass wells on the slide. The channels can have individual inlets, outlets, and physically separated channels. The device can also be modified to only contain one inlet and one outlet (paragraphs 0267-0268).
LECK teaches that there is a water-tight seal between the chamber cover and the holder/reservoir (paragraphs 0253-0254).
LECK teaches that the chamber cover or inlet member can have two openings/inlets (Figure 19 A & B, paragraphs 0253-0254). LECK teaches this allows for introduction of the sample into the water tight sealed space between the section of the casing, so as to allow the sample liquid to then be absorbed and moved through the channels on the slides. The channels can also have individual inlets, outlets, and physically separated channels on the slide itself, but the device can also be modified to only contain one inlet and one outlet (paragraphs 0267-0268).
LECK teaches that the inlet/inlets are sealable with a lid or valve (paragraph 0127) (this reads on the “removeable,” holder cover for covering one or a plurality of inlets of the one or more sample channels in the device so as when open allows for the introduction of the liquid sample, since the device can be used with a lid or without it and when open allows for liquid sample to flow in).
LECK further teaches of using item 9 which is a dispenser which can be considered a “sealed,” liquid container (see Figure 1) through broadest reasonable interpretation as it is sealed on many sides (paragraphs 0129-0131).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use liquid containers which are sealed as is done in LECK in the devices of DOWLING and SCOTT due to the advantage this would offer for dispensing liquid/matter into the device (LECK, paragraph 0129).
With respect to Claim 14, DOWLING and SCOTT teach of the invention as shown above. They do not teach of locking the slide into place. LECK teaches of locking and unlocking the slide chamber/ slide (paragraph 0255, 0256). This can be considered a lock for locking the sample slide through broadest reasonable interpretation as it is not claimed where the lock is attached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to lock the slides into place as is done in LECK in the devices of DOWLING and SCOTT due to the advantage this would offer for locking the slides into place and keeping them from moving around inside the device (LECK, paragraph 0129).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. They claims were significantly amended 06/25/2026, therefore necessitating the new grounds of rejection, and most notably, a new primary reference of DOWLING.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BATTRELL in US 20120177543
BATTRELL teaches of a microfluidic reactor system with a slide/substrate assembly(abstract). BATTRELL further teaches of using a clock lock clamp feature with the slide (paragraph 0214). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the click lock clamp feature of BATTRELL for the slides in SCOTT due to the advantage this offers for sealing the slide against the housing (BATTRELL, paragraph 0214).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. 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.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights