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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 13-17, 19 and 21-23 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the non-final Office Action mailed 12/3/2025.
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 13-17, 19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 19525258, hereinafter Steinbrenner in view of United States Application Publication No. 2011/0236278, hereinafter Motadel, United States Patent No. 3,633,793, hereinafter Edmundson, United States Application Publication No. 2004/0048361, hereinafter Isobe and United States Patent No. 5,579,929, hereinafter Schwartz.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Steinbrenner teaches a pipette tip system (figures 1-3) for use with a plurality of pipette tips (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is taught in abstract), the system comprising: a support (item 3) connected to a base (item 1), the support defining a top surface plane (the top surface of item 3), the base comprises a first side (one of long sides of item 11), a second side (one of the short sides of item 11), a third side (the other of the long sides of item 11) and a fourth side (the other of the short sides of item 11), each side is substantially perpendicular to the top surface plate (figure 1); the support comprises an array of pipette tip receiver openings (item 4) arranged in a NxM array (figure 2), wherein the N is less than M (figure 2), the support (item 1) further comprising: a short-side card rail edge (item 9 on the right and left side of figure 2) on an edge of the support along the N side of the array (figure 2); and a long-side card rail edge (item 9 on the top and bottom side of figure 2) on an edge of the support card along the M side of the array (figure 2); a support card lid (item 5) comprising: a long-side lid rail edge (item 10 on the right and left side of figure 3) extending from a support card lid first surface (figure 3), which is adapted to slidably mate with the long-side card rail edge (figures 1-3); and a short-side lid rail edge (item 10 on the top and bottom side of figure 3) extending from a support card lid second surface (figure 3), which is adapted to slidably mate with the short-side card rail edge (figures 1-3).
Steinbrenner fails to teach the support is a support card.
Motadel teaches a pipette tip tray system which is made of a pipette tray (Motadel, item 300) with tongues (Motadel, item 340) and a base with grooves (Motadel, item 550) which interconnect so that the trays can be manufactured efficiently as the plate can be releasably secured to the rack without energy and time required for welding the two components together (Motadel, paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have split the support of Steinbrenner into a card and a base with tongues on the tray and grooves in the base which interconnect because it would allow for the system to be manufactured efficiently as the plate can be releasably secured to the rack without energy and time required for welding the two components together (Motadel, paragraph [0060]).
Steinbrenner and Motadel fail to teach each side comprising a female key constructed to mate with a male key from an adjacent base, when the base is moved towards the adjacent base in a direction that is perpendicular to the side; and a male key constructed to mate with a female key from an adjacent base, when the base is moved towards the adjacent base in a direction that is perpendicular to the side; wherein the male key and female key positioned on the first side are separated by a first distance, and the male key and female positioned on the second side are separated by a second distance; the first distance is larger than the second distance; the female key comprises a slot with a slot opening, the slot having a floor disposed at a bottom end of the slot, a necked portion and a distal leading portion, wherein the distal leading portion is narrower than the flared portion and narrower than the slot opening; and wherein the flared portion has a maximum transverse width greater than the width of the slot opening prior to mating.
Edmundson teaches a modular storing system with a base that has a side comprising a female key (item 26) constructed to mate with a male key (item 28) from an adjacent base (figure 6), when the base is moved towards the adjacent base in a direction that is perpendicular to the side (column 2, lines 23-33); wherein the female key comprises a slot (figure 6) with a slot opening (the further part of item 26 from item 10), the slot having a floor disposed at a bottom end of the slot (figure 6) and the male key comprises a flared portion (the widest part of item 28), a necked portion (the portion of item 28 closest to item 10) and a distal leading portion (the portion of item 28 furthest from item 10), wherein the distal leading portion is narrower than the flared portion and narrower than the slot opening (figure 6); and wherein the flared portion has a maximum transverse width greater than the width of the slot opening prior to mating (figure 6). Edmundson also teaches that use of elongated grooves and ribs can be substituted for a ball and socket (column 2, lines 34-37).
Isobe teaches a rack with each side having a female key (Isobe, the female portion of item 2c of item 1 on the left) constructed to mate with a male key (Isobe, the male portion of item 2c of item 1 on the right) from an adjacent base (Isobe, figure 10), when the base is moved towards the adjacent based in a direction that is perpendicular to the side (Isobe, paragraphs [0100] and [0101]); and a male key (Isobe, the male portion of item 2c of item 1 on the left) constructed to mate with a female key (Isobe, the female portion of item 2c of item 1 on the right) from an adjacent base (Isobe, figure 10), when the base is moved towards the adjacent base in a direction that is perpendicular to the side (Isobe, paragraphs [0100] and [0101]); so that it would allow for the structures to be detachably connected in a planar state along the horizontal direction (Isobe, paragraph [0101]).
Schartz teaches a holder with the keys positioned close to the edges of the device with the keys positioned further away from each other on the first side and closer together on the short side (Schwartz, figure 1a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added both the male and female keys described in Edmundson to each side (as described in Isobe) close to the edge of each side so that they are further apart on the long side and closer together on the short side (as described in Schartz) of the device of Steinbrenner because it would allow for the structures to be detachably connected in a planar state along the horizontal direction (Isobe, paragraph [0101]).
Regarding that the “mating comprises three steps: (1) the distal leading portion (75A-3) enters the slot opening; (2) the slot elastically expands to allow the flared portion to enter, and (3) the slot closes around the necked portion when the male key is fully mated with the female key,” these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Steinbrenner, Motadel, Edmundson and Isobe and the apparatus of modified Steinbrenner is capable of having two systems which are brought together as described in the three steps. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Steinbrenner (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 14, modified Steinbrenner teaches wherein the support card (see supra) and the base (see supra) comprise a tongue-and-groove mating system (see supra).
Regarding claim 16, Steinbrenner teaches wherein the support card comprises an apron (item 11) extending away from the top surface (figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 17, Steinbrenner teaches wherein the array pipette tip receiver openings (item 4) is adapted to receive the pipette tips of different sizes (the openings would be capable of holding pipette tips of varying lengths).
Regarding claim 19, modified Steinbrenner teaches wherein the distal leading portion (the portion of item 28 furthest from item 10) is narrower than the slot (figure 6).
Regarding claim 21, Steinbrenner teaches wherein the first and third sides are longer than the second and fourth sides (see supra).
Regarding claim 22, modified Steinbrenner teaches wherein the male key of the first side is closer to the female key of the second side than the female key of the first side (see supra).
Regarding claim 23, modified Steinbrenner teaches wherein the male key of the second side is closer to the female key of the third side than the female key of the second side (see supra).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Edmundson is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Edmundson is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned. The problem the inventor is concerned is a horizontal connection between adjacent structures and Edmundson is related to this connection. Edmundson discloses the connections of containers with each other through a snap connection. When one of ordinary skill in the art is looking on methods for connecting containers together they would look to other structures (not only in the pipette design) which connect plastic structures together. This is further shown as the reference of Edmundson is classified in B65D21/0204 which is for joinable containers which are joined together by interconnecting formation forming part of the container. This classification is in the same problem-solving area of connecting structures together. As both the classification of the prior art of Edmundson (connecting structures together) and the overall concept of connecting structures in Edmundson, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Edmundson and combined this reference with the other references disclosed above to arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding applicant’s argument that this “connecting structures” framing is overly broad, absurdly embracing train couplers or dovetails. Edmundson is much closer to the same art than applicant’s comparison of “train couplers or dovetails” as Edmundson is connecting plastic containers with each other and the pipette system can be considered as a plastic container, thereby rendering Edmundson as pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the combination is physically incompatible and destroy the principle of operation is not found persuasive. Firstly, the sections of Edmundson the applicant is pointing to is not utilized for the combination. The applicants are pointing to the embodiments disclosed in figures 4 and 5 of Edmundson. However, figure 6 of Edmundson is being utilized in this combination. The applicant is correct is saying that Edmundson discloses the vertically sliding of the tubes relative to one another, however, figure 6 and column 2, lines 23-33, disclose a different embodiment in which the structures are moved horizontally such that the ball and socket connect with each other when they are horizontally brought into contact with one another.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the combination does not disclose the claimed features is not found persuasive. Here again applicant is seeming to point to the embodiments disclosed in figures 4 and 5 of Edmundson, however, the rejection above utilizes the embodiment described in figure 6 of Edmundson. The applicant’s additionally state that Edmundson does not disclose slot expansion or closure around of neck. However, examining figure 6 of Edmundson, item 26 is seen to be formed more than just a half of a circle. Therefore, when item 28 is pushed into item 26, item 26 would have to expand in order for item 28 to fit within the structure, thereby reading on the instant limitations. The references of Isobe and Schartz are not being utilized for the teaching of the structure of the male and female keys itself, but rather Isobe is being utilized for having both a male and female key on each side of the structure the reason for combining the references and Schartz is being utilized to teach the spacing of the male and female keys.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796