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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
1. Claims 1-7, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0170735 to Holmes in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0021401 to Ulitzur et al. and U.S. Patent No. 6,638.085 to Martin.
Holmes teaches a biological sample processing apparatus [0019], [0229] that includes a rack that “refers to a frame or enclosure for mounting multiple modules” [0385]. Holmes teaches that “In accordance with aspects of the invention a system may comprise: a housing; and a plurality of modules within said housing,” [0013].
Holmes further teaches that the module are removable and replaceable [0531].
Holmes further teaches that the “modules are mountable on one another with or without the aid of mounting members disposed on each module. The mounting members may be connecting interfaces between modules. In an example, each module includes a magnetic mounting structure for securing a top surface of a first module to a bottom surface to a second module. Other connecting interfaces may be employed, which may include magnetic features, adhesives, sliding features, locking features, ties, snap-fits, hook-and-loop fasteners, twisting features, or plugs,” and that “modules may be stacked on one or next to another to form a system for assaying a sample,” [0514].
Further, Holmes teaches that in use sample containers are placed in cartridges [0405] and that the cartridges can be placed in the modules [0396], [0449], [0481].
In the embodiment that Holmes teaches that includes an enclosure or housing, in order to remove and replace the modules and place the sample containers in the cartridges for analysis of the samples, it be inherently necessary to provide an opening in the housing and in the front of the housing to access the location of the modules that are or are to be stacked on one another or positioned next to one another.
Holmes teaches connecting modules using magnetic features, adhesives, sliding features, locking features, ties, snap-fits, hook-and-loop fasteners, twisting features, or plugs [0514] and twisting or turning to release modules [0531], [0532]. These features would not require disassembly of the enclosure or housing to remove the modules from a front opening.
Holmes teaches that the modules that are held in the enclosure/housing and include cartridges that may contain biological samples [0396] upon which biological samples one or more tasks such as assaying can be performed [0381], reading on applicant’s claimed removable sample cartridges.
Holmes further teaches that the modules work independently....to perform one or more tasks, such as assaying a biological sample,” and are removable simply by sliding out or twisting [0531], reading on applicant’s claimed independent operation and removability of the modules without disassembly of the module or enclosure [0531].
Holmes does not teach a communication unit configured to communicate to one or more internet- ready devices of the user via the internet through a web server; and a processor operably coupled with the display and having recorded thereon programmable instructions configured to: generate a task record that includes a basic data set having one or more parameters of the assay being performed; generate or access an internet-accessible link and associating the link to the task record; and output the link and the task record to the web server.
Ulitzur et al. teaches a cartridge for use in assaying an analyte in an automated water quality monitoring analyzer.
Ulitzur et al. teaches a Management Software communicating with the analyzer the enables a remote user to manage all the operations normally required by the user during measurement from remote locations via the internet. [0157]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Holmes to include a communication unit configured to communicate with a user’s internet-ready device to communicate with and manage all operations of the system of Holmes as taught by Ulitzur et al. so that a remote user can control the system of Holmes.
The use of a processor operably coupled with a display and having recorded thereon programmable instructions configured to: generate a task record that includes a basic data set having one or more parameters of the assay being performed; generate or access an internet-accessible link and associating the link to the task record; and output the link and the task record to the web server would be obvious to include and implement in Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. for purposes of providing and enabling remote control and operation and access to analysis data.
With regard to the limitation in claim 1 that sample processing module includes a movable release lever configured to lock and release the sample processing module with respect to the enclosure, Homes teaches that “each module includes a magnetic mounting structure for securing a top surface of a first module to a bottom surface to a second module.” And that “other connecting interfaces may be employed, which may include…locking features.” [0514]
Homes does not provide details the “locking features.”
Martin teaches a release mechanism that includes a lever member 14 that provides an interface that can be rotated to release harness connector 18 from module connector 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Homes in view of Ulitzur et al. to provide each module with a lever mechanism as taught by Martin to lock and release the modules in the enclosure of Homes in view of Ulitzur et al. for purposes of securing the modules in position while proving for easy removal and replacement. Orienting the level mechanism of Martin to release the modules when the lever is pushed downward would have been an obvious design choice.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin. teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding claim 2, Holmes in view of Ulitzur and Martin renders claim 1 obvious claim 1, from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that each of the plurality of sample processing modules includes at least: a valve drive, a syringe drive, a sonication horn and an instrument assembly.
Holmes teaches a fluid handling system that dispenses fluids and includes a pipette, syringe, capillary, or any other device [0699], and a sonication (which requires a generator, convertor and horn) [1540], that reads on applicant’s claimed sonification horn. Holmes further teaches that the sample handling system includes pumps and valves [0382], that pistons or plungers and valves and switches can be used to handle fluids [0760] and [0761]. As interpreted above, Holmes teaches applicant’s claimed valve drive and syringe drive in addition to applicant’s claim sonication horn and instrument assembly. Holmes teaches all the critical limitations of claim 2.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding claim 3, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders 2 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the instrument assembly includes a thermal cycling module and an optical excitation/detection module, wherein the instrument assembly is removable as a unit.
Holmes teaches a thermal block that provides thermal control and thermal cycling [1348], and optical sensors [0396] that read on applicant’s claimed thermal cycling module and optical excitation/detection module.
Therefore Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding claim 4, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recite that each of the plurality of sample processing modules includes a plurality of connectors thereon that couples with a corresponding plurality of connectors within the enclosure when held within the enclosure.
Holmes teaches electrical connectors that connect the modules to the enclosure [0498] and other connectors [0532] that read on applicant’s claimed plurality of connectors that couple with connectors within the enclosure.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 4 obvious.
V.) Regarding claims 5-7, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claims 1 obvious from which claims 5 and 6 depend.
Claims 5-7 recite two or more modules (claim 5), 2-100 modules (claim 6) and 2-26 modules (claim 7).
Holmes teaches that the enclosure may support any number of modules having any number of configurations [0511], and that sample processing devices may comprise one, two or more modules [0392], and shows six modules in Figure 4, which render obvious applicant’s claimed ranges of between 2 or more, between 2 and 100 and between 2 and 16 modules.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claims 5-7 obvious.
VI.) Regarding claim 13, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the enclosure and the corresponding plurality of connectors for each module of the plurality of sample processing modules are configured for compatibility with a plurality of differing types of the plurality of sample processing modules.
Holmes teaches electrical connectors that connect the modules to the enclosure [0498] and other connectors [0532] that read on applicant’s claimed plurality of connectors that couples with connectors within the enclosure, and a plurality of modules that work independently [381], that read on applicant’s claimed plurality of connectors for each module configured for compatibility with a plurality of differing types of modules.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 13 obvious.
VII.) Regarding claims 17 and 20, as noted above, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 17 depends. Claim 20 depends on claim 17.
Claim 17 recites that each of the plurality of sample processing modules are held within the enclosure by one or more quick-release mechanisms.
Claim 20 recites that each of the plurality of sample processing modules are held within the enclosure by one or more quick-release mechanisms.
Holmes teaches connecting modules using magnetic features, adhesives, sliding features, locking features, ties, snap-fits, hook-and-loop fasteners, twisting features, or plugs [0514] and twisting or turning to release modules [0531], [0532] which are interpreted as quick-release mechanisms claimed by applicant and the manner of sliding modules into the enclosure.
Further, at [0528], [0551] Holmes teaches that the modules can be inserted into the rack (enclosure) by providing attachment members that include “one or more tracks or rails,” that reads on applicant’s claimed structure that allows the modules to be slidably received within the enclosure from a front side.
Holmes in view of teaches all the limitations of claims 17 and 20.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claims 17 and 20 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding claim 21, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 20 obvious from which claim 21 depends.
Claim 21 recites that each of the plurality of sample processing modules includes upper and lower brackets configured to interface with corresponding upper and lower tracks in the enclosure.
Holmes teaches providing one or more tracks or rails in the enclosure for receiving and supporting the modules and corresponding mating structure on the modules [0528].
Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin does not teach the use of upper and lower tracks or upper and lower brackets on the modules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to modify Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin to include duplicate tracks in the enclosure and corresponding upper and lower brackets to interface with the tracks on the modules of Holmes, including upper and lower tracks for purposes of securing the modules in the enclosure against any undesired movement, inasmuch as it has been held that providing duplicative parts is obvious when no unexpected results are obtained. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B).
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 21 obvious.
IX.) Regarding claim 22, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 22 depends.
Claim 22 recites that each of the plurality of sample processing modules is configured to be removed from the enclosure and/or replaced within the enclosure manually without any tool.
In [0530] and [0531] Holmes teaches that in some embodiments the modules can be slid into or out of the enclosure (rack) as opposed to having to twist or turn the modules to engage/disengage the rack, thus teaching manual removal and/or replacement without the use of a tool.
Holmes teaches all the limitations of claim 22.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 22 obvious.
X.) Regarding claim 24, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 24 depends.
Claim 24 recites that each of the plurality of sample processing modules is configured to be removed from the enclosure and/or replaced within the enclosure manually with a single tool.
Holmes teaches attachment members that are used to secure the modules to the rack (enclosure) can be a hook fastener or a screw fastener [0528]. In the case of Holmes using a screw fastener, a single tool such as a screwdriver could be used to remove the screw fastener for purpose of removing a module, reading on “wherein each of the modules is configured to be removed and/or replaced manually with a single tool.”
Holmes teaches all the limitations of claim 24.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 24 obvious.
XI.) Regarding claims 26 and 27, as noted above, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 26 depends. Claim 27 depends from claim 26.
Claim 26 recites that each of the plurality of sample processing modules comprises an air intake and an air outlet to direct an airstream through the module for cooling.
Claim 27 recites that the air intake and air outlet are disposed on a rear side of each module of the plurality of sample processing modules and configured to align with a corresponding air intake and air outlet of the enclosure.
Holmes teaches providing air flow to cool the modules [1964]. Holmes teaches an inlet air flow “into each of the modules” is indicated by arrow 10204 in Fig. 108 and illustrates the air flow entering in via an inlet in the enclosure that is drawn in broken lines. In addition, Holmes teaches a fully enclosed pathway 10232 that is used to direct exhaust air flow to a filtered outlet 10234 - and teaches that the air flow can be reversed which would provide filtered air into the enclosure/modules. The structure of the enclosed exhaust air flow pathway 10232 is interpreted as being located at the rear of an enclosure as used by Holmes inasmuch as the modules are taught as being slid into position in the enclosure (rack) as discussed above. The modules of Holmes include air intakes into which air flow is directed by arrow 10204 in Fig. 108 as noted above and necessarily air outlets to allow air flow out from the modules. The air inlets and outlets of the modules comprise one or more openings and are aligned with the air intake(s) (shown in broken lines in Fig. 108) and exhaust passageway 10232 (air outlet) of the enclosure in the sense that the air flow passes through these aligned structures.
Holmes teaches all the limitations of claims 26 and 27.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claims 26 and 27 obvious.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0041300 to Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin.
Bishop teaches a biological sample processing apparatus [0055] that reads on applicant’s claimed “biological sample processing apparatus” that includes a housing/enclosure [0057] that receives sample processing modules [0055] in a front opening as shown in Fig. 1B, that reads on applicant’s claimed enclosure having a housing with a front opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
585
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bishop teaches that each sample processing module is held in the enclosure and configured to hold a removable sample cartridge and perform sample processing within the corresponding removable sample cartridge [0004], that reads on applicant’s claimed plurality of sample processing modules and removable sample cartridges and manner of performing sample processing on samples within the corresponding removable sample cartridge.
Bishop further teaches that control unit 104 is configured to independently operate each sample processing module [0056] and each processing module can be individually removed from the apparatus 100 for servicing, repair, or replacement [0060], that reads on applicant’s modules that are independently operable and readily removable from the enclosure and replaceable without disassembly of the module or enclosure.
Bishop teaches that the enclosure includes “front-facing interface panel 109 that provides user access to the plurality of processing modules 102a-p,” [0057]. The access provided by panel 109 is interpreted as being similar to applicant’s disclosure that “In some embodiments, replacement entails opening or removing one or more front access panels, while the enclosure itself and internal components therein remain intact.
Bishop does not teach a communication unit configured to communicate to one or more internet- ready devices of the user via the internet through a web server; and a processor operably coupled with the display and having recorded thereon programmable instructions configured to: generate a task record that includes a basic data set having one or more parameters of the assay being performed; generate or access an internet-accessible link and associating the link to the task record; and output the link and the task record to the web server.
Ulitzur et al. teaches a cartridge for use in assaying an analyte in an automated water quality monitoring analyzer.
Ulitzur et al. teaches a Management Software communicating with the analyzer the enables a remote user to manage all the operations normally required by the user during measurement from remote locations via the internet. [0157]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bishop to include a communication unit configured to communicate with a user’s internet-ready device to communicate with and manage all operations of the system of Bishop as taught by Ulitzur et al. so that a remote user can control the system of Bishop.
The use of a processor operably coupled with a display and having recorded thereon programmable instructions configured to: generate a task record that includes a basic data set having one or more parameters of the assay being performed; generate or access an internet-accessible link and associating the link to the task record; and output the link and the task record to the web server would be obvious to include and implement in Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. for purposes of providing and enabling remote control and operation and access to analysis data.
Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al does not teach that each sample processing module includes a movable release lever configured to lock and release the sample processing module with respect to the enclosure
Martin teaches a release mechanism that includes a lever member 14 that provides an interface that can be rotated to release harness connector 18 from module connector 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. to provide each module with a lever mechanism as taught by Martin to lock and release the modules in the enclosure of Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. for purposes of securing the modules in position while proving for easy removal and replacement. Orienting the level mechanism of Martin to release the modules when the lever is pushed downward would have been an obvious design choice.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Therefore, Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding claim 2, as noted above Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that each of the plurality of sample processing modules includes at least: a valve drive, a syringe drive, a sonication horn and an instrument assembly.
Bishop teaches a plurality of sample processing modules [0015] which can be configured with a syringe and syringe pump, pressure source, distribution valve, ultrasonic horn [0070], and a control unit that independently operates the sample processing modules, that read on applicant’s valve drive, syringe drive, sonication horn and instrument assembly [0056].
Bishop teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Therefore, Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding claim 4, as noted above Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that each of the plurality of sample processing modules includes a plurality of connectors thereon that couples with a corresponding plurality of connectors within the enclosure when held within the enclosure.
Bishop teaches that each sample processing module has a structural format than can be configured to electrically interface with the enclosure via a shared type connection [0058] and a main logic board with edge connectors 114 for establishing electrical connections to the modules [0059], that read on applicant’s plurality of connectors that couple with a corresponding plurality of connectors within the enclosure when held within the enclosure.
Bishop teaches all the limitations of claim 4.
Therefore, Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 4 obvious.
IV.) Regarding claims 5-7, as noted above Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claims 5 and 6 depend. Claim 7 depends from claim 6.
Claims 5-7 recite two or more modules (claim 5), 2-100 modules (claim 6) and 2-26 modules (claim 7).
Bishop teaches that the enclosure can hold at least two sample processing modules [0014] and show 16 modules in Fig. 1A, which anticipates applicant’s claimed ranges of between 2 or more, between 2 and 100 and between 2 and 16 modules.
Bishop teaches all the limitations of claims 5-7.
Therefore, Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claims 5-7 obvious.
V.) Regarding claim 13, as noted above Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the enclosure and the corresponding plurality of connectors for each module of the plurality of sample processing modules are configured for compatibility with a plurality of differing types of the plurality of sample processing modules.
Bishop teaches that each sample processing module has a structural format than can be configured to electrically interface with the enclosure via a shared type connection [0058] and a main logic board with edge connectors 114 for establishing electrical connections to the modules [0059], that read on applicant’s plurality of connectors for each module are configured for compatibility with a plurality of differing types of modules.
Bishop teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Therefore, Bishop in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 13 obvious.
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin as applied to claim 1 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0292967 to Kim et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, claim 8 recites one or more removable panels that partly cover the front opening of the enclosure housing.
As noted above, Holmes teaches a biological sample processing apparatus [0019], [0229] that includes a rack that “refers to a frame or enclosure for mounting multiple modules” [0385]. Holmes teaches that “In accordance with aspects of the invention a system may comprise: a housing; and a plurality of modules within said housing,” [0013].
Holmes further teaches that the module are removable and replaceable [0531].
Holmes further teaches that the “modules are mountable on one another with or without the aid of mounting members disposed on each module. The mounting members may be connecting interfaces between modules. In an example, each module includes a magnetic mounting structure for securing a top surface of a first module to a bottom surface to a second module. Other connecting interfaces may be employed, which may include magnetic features, adhesives, sliding features, locking features, ties, snap-fits, hook-and-loop fasteners, twisting features, or plugs,” and that “modules may be stacked on one or next to another to form a system for assaying a sample,” [0514] and twisting or turning to release modules [0531], [0532] which are interpreted as quick-release mechanisms claimed by applicant.
Further, Holmes teaches that in use sample containers are placed in cartridges [0405] and that the cartridges can be placed in the modules [0396], [0449], [0481].
In the embodiment that Holmes teaches that includes an enclosure or housing, in order to remove and replace the modules and place the sample containers in the cartridges for analysis of the samples, it be inherently necessary to provide an opening in the housing and in the front of the housing to access the location of the modules that are or are to be stacked on one another or positioned next to one another.
As to the structure of the modules, Holmes also teaches that the modules may have a housing [0496] and that “A housing of the module may enclose the module therein. The housing may completely enclose the module or may partially enclose the module. The housing may form an air-tight enclosure around the module, ” [0497]. When using a module having a housing that completely encloses/seals the module, the housing would inherently include/require a door for providing access for receiving/removing a sample cartridge into/from the module as taught by Holmes.
Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin does not teach one or more removable panels that partly cover the front of the enclosure.
Kim et al. teaches a prior art modular automatic analyzer that included a single door in the housing of the automatic analyzer for purposes of removing cartridges in which samples were process [0083] and an improvement that involves providing first and second doors for purposes of removing cartridge in which samples are processed [0084].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide the modules of Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin with housings having access doors to receive/remove cartridges in/from the modules and to further modify Holmes to include one or more doors or removable panels to access the sample processing modules and sample cartridges of Holmes in view of the teachings of Kim et al. so that the modules of Holmes can be removed and replaced as taught at [0531] conveniently and without disassembly of the modules or enclosure.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Kim et al. renders claim 8 obvious.
4. Claims 9, 10, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0325183 to Tscherepanow et al.
I.) regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites a central display that displays status information as to any module of the plurality of sample processing modules; wherein the processor is further configured to: generate a QR code and associate the QR code with the assay being performed, wherein the QR code is configured to direct a user to the link when scanned; and display the QR code on the display for scanning by the user.
As noted above, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders it obvious to include a communication unit configured to communicate with a user’s internet-ready device to communicate with and manage all operations of the system of Holmes as taught by Ulitzur et al. so that a remote user can control the system of Holmes.
Homes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin does not teach having the processor is configured to: generate a QR code and associate the QR code with the assay being performed, wherein the QR code is configured to direct a user to the link when scanned; and display the QR code on the display for scanning by the user.
Tscherepanow et al. teaches that providing QR codes that link to websites is well known [0005].
It would have been obvious to modify Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin to have the processor generate a QR code associated to an assay being performed and providing the QR code to a remote user on a display to allow the remote user to scan the QR code and be directed to a link to the assay based on Tscherepanow et al.’s teaching the use of QR codes with website links.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Tscherepanow et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Tscherepanow et al. renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the central display is a touch display and configured to selectively display status information as to any of the one or more modules therein upon receiving a selection by a user via the touch display or automatically.
Holmes teaches an electrical display [0210] that can be a touch display [0181] (in addition to teaching independent operation of the modules as noted above), that reads on applicant’s claim use of a touch display and displaying status of one or more modules. At [0210] Holmes teaches that the modules are operatively coupled to a central touch display that displays status information as to one or more of the modules.
Holmes teaches all the limitations of claim 10.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Tscherepanow et al renders claim 10 obvious.
III.) Regarding claims 11 and 12, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Tscherepanow et al. render claim 9 obvious from which claims 11 and 12 depend.
Claim 11 recites the central display is tiltable to one or more positions to facilitate improved interaction by a user during use.
Claim 12 recites a display output that outputs a display signal to an external display in addition to that displayed by the central display.
Holmes teaches a displaying information on a smart phone or tablet [1445] which are tiltable, that read on applicant’s claimed use of a tiltable display and an external display. Holmes further teaches providing two-way communication to an external device for purposes of sending and receive data and instructions [0040], wireless communication with another system [0092] and “in combination” with systems Holmes discloses, an interactive display on a support structure of a remote system [0217].
Holmes teaches all the limitations of claims 11 and 12.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Tscherepanow et al. renders claims 11 and 12 obvious.
5. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Memory module” (Wikipedia).
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the plurality of differing types of sample processing modules include earlier generation sample processing modules having one or more discontinued components and next generation sample processing modules having one or more updated components.
Holmes does not teach modules that include earlier generation modules having discontinued components and next generation module having updated components.
“Memory modules” (Wikipedia) teaches memory modules that were originally designed to be used in specific computer models, but later standardized for use in all computers and which memory modules have distinguishing characteristics including voltage, capacity, speed and form factor.
Applicant discusses prior analysis systems in the Background section of applicant’s disclosure.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to adapt applicant’s modules for use as earlier and next generation modules in view of “Memory modules” (Wikipedia) for purposes of using the modules in similar analysis systems and being able to use different generations of modules in the same system such that as new technology came out it could effectively be added to the same system including the earlier modules.
The functionality of the modules as recited in claim 15 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date inasmuch as applicant admits that these functionalities are applicable to, and thus known, in earlier generation modules and therefore corresponding earlier analysis systems. Further, Holmes teaches module functionalities as noted above. Providing for the use of “next generation” modules that have the same functionality as recited in claim 15 would merely provide for replacing worn out modules with new modules whether earlier or next generation.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and “Memory module” (Wikipedia) renders claim 14 obvious.
6. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,801,163 to Asauchi.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claims 18 and 19, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 17 obvious from which claims 18 and 19 depend.
Claim 18 recites that each of the plurality of sample processing modules is configured with a plurality of connectors disposed along a rear side thereof and one or more retraction features on a front side thereof to facilitate removal and/or insertion of the respective module.
Claim 19 recites that the retraction feature comprises one or more notches or opening for receiving a tool or finger for removal of the module from within the enclosure.
Holmes teaches electrical connectors [0498] on the modules that are connected when the modules are inserted into the device [0498]. Holmes fails to teach the connectors disposed along a rear side thereof. Holmes does not teach a retraction feature that has notches or an opening for receiving a tool or finger for removal of modules from the enclosure.
First, it would have been an obvious design choice to provide the electrical connectors on the rear sides of the modules of Holmes in order to provide for electrical connection when the modules are fully inserted into and seated in the enclosure. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Second, Asauchi teaches ink cartridges that are designed to be removably received into a holder 4 having a housing 101. The ink cartridges of Asauchi include retraction features (102b in Figs. 4 and 5) having notches for receiving a tool or a finger to remove the ink cartridges from the slots in the holder 4 for purposes of removing and replacing the ink cartridges.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Holmes to provide the modules of Holmes with retention features of Asauchi for purposes of removing and replacing the modules of Holmes. Such a modification involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results as set forth in MEPE 2143(I).
Further, it would have been obvious to provide the retraction features at the front of the modules of Holmes in view of the manner Holmes provides mating structures on the modules that allow the modules to mate with tracks or rails in the enclosure [0528]. As noted above, Holmes teaches than the modules can be slid into position in the enclosure. At [0498] Holmes teaches that the modules can have electrical connections and that “a module may be brought into electrical connection with a device when a module is inserted/attached to the device.” It would have been an obvious design choice to provide the electrical connectors on the rear sides of the modules of Holmes in order to provide for electrical connection when the modules are fully inserted into and seated in the enclosure. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Asauchi renders claims 18 and 19 obvious.
7. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0217214 to Thomsen.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 23, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 23 depends.
Claim 23 recites that each of the plurality of sample processing modules is configured with a fingerhole for manually removing the module from the enclosure without any tools.
Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin does not teach providing the module with fingerholes for removing the modules from an enclosure.
Thomsen teaches shelves 11 (comparable to modules) that are removably received in a cabinet 12 (comparable to enclosure) that include “removal means 17” that comprise finger grip holes into which a user can insert his or her finger to pull the shelves out from the interior of the cabinet [0035].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to modify the modules of Holmes with fingerhole structures as taught by Thomsen for purposes of easily removing the modules from the enclosure of Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Thomsen renders claim 23 obvious.
8. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0357106 to Varshavsky et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 25, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 24 obvious from which claim 25 depends.
Claim 25 recites that the single tool comprises a handle and one or more tabs for actuating a quick-release mechanism and engaging the module to allow removal of the module from the enclosure by pulling on the handle.
Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin does not teach a single tool having a handle and one or more tabs for activating a quick-release mechanism and engaging the module to remove the module by pulling on the handle of the tool.
As noted above, Holmes teaches that the modules can be connected to one another using “locking features.”
Varshavsky et al. teaches a tool for removing connector adaptor modules (32) from a panel (30). The tool includes a projection (22) one on one end for engaging and compressing an elastic retaining latch and a hook 24 on the other end for engaging and pulling an adaptor module (32) from the panel (30) and a handle (26) between the opposite ends ( See Figures 1A, 3, 4C and 4I).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin such that the modules are configured to be removed or replaced using a tool as disclosed by Varshavsky et al. so that the modules are secured in their positions when in use, and otherwise readily and easily removed and replaced when desired.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Varshavsky renders claim 25 obvious.
9. Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0056285 to Hagström et al.
I.) Regarding applicants claim 30, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 30 depends. Claim 31 depends from claim 30.
Claim 30 recites that the entire enclosure is sealed from airflow therein by a secondary housing, film or cover.
Claim 31 recites that the apparatus is configured such that a power supply for each of the modules is disposed outside of the housing of the respective module.
Regarding claim 30, Holmes teaches processing biological samples from which an infectious pathogen may be detected. [1794].
Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin does not teach that the enclosure can be sealed from airflow by a secondary housing, film or cover.
Hagström et al. teaches the use of biological safety cabinets for housing laboratory equipment that process hazardous activities [0002], including pathogenic materials [0003].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to applicant’s effective filing date to modify Holmes and place the device of Holmes et al. in view of Ulitzur et al. and Martin in a safety cabinet as taught by Hagström et al. for purposes of containing infectious pathogens during processing for the protection of laboratory personnel.
Regarding claim 31, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Hagström et al. renders obvious the apparatus of claim 30. Additionally, Holmes teaches that the apparatus can be plugged into an external power [0613] as noted above.
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Hagström et al. renders claim 31 obvious.
10. Claims 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Hagström et al. as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0171387 to Krahn et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 32, as noted above Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Hagström et al. renders claim 31 obvious from which claim 32 depends.
Claim 32 recites that the enclosure is configured so as to be thermally coupled to an interior of the enclosure to cool by acting as a heat sink.
Holmes teaches internal batteries [0613], [1461] and further teaching cooling in some embodiments and the use of heat sinks in [1138].
Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Hagström does not teach cooling the enclosure by thermally coupling the enclosure to an interior of the enclosure or thermally insulating a power supply from the enclosure.
It is known that batteries generate heat when in use as taught by Krahn et al. at [0027].
In order to avoid excessive heat in the apparatus of Holmes that might adversely affect the analysis of biological samples, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior art applicant’s effective filing date to thermally couple the enclosure structure to a heat sink and thermally insulate the power supply, including the battery pack, from the enclosure to prevent over heating within the enclosure in Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin and Hagström
Therefore, Holmes in view of Ulitzur et al., Martin, Hagström and Krahn et al. renders claim 32 obvious.
11. Claims 80, 82-88 and 90-93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0292967 to Kim et al., Ulitzur et al. and Martin
As noted above, Holmes teaches a biological sample processing apparatus [0019], [0229] that includes a rack that “refers to a frame or enclosure for mounting multiple modules” [0385]. Holmes teaches that “In accordance with aspects of the invention a system may comprise: a housing; and a plurality of modules within said housing,” [0013]. Holmes also teaches a display, including a touchscreen display [0181].
Holmes further teaches that the module are removable and replaceable [0531].
Further, Holmes teaches that in use sample containers are placed in cartridges [0405] and that the cartridges can be placed in the modules [0396], [0449], [0481].
In the embodiment that Holmes teaches that includes an enclosure or housing, in order to remove and replace the modules and place the sample containers in the cartridges for analysis of the samples, it be inherently necessary or otherwise obvious to provide an opening in the housing and in the front of the housing to access the location of the modules that are or are to be stacked on one another or positioned next to one another.
As to the structure of the modules, Holmes also teaches that the modules may have a housing [0496] and that “A housing of the module may enclose the module therein. The housing may completely enclose the module or may partially enclose the module. The housing may form an air-tight enclosure around the module, ” [0497]. When using a module having a housing that completely encloses/seals the module, the housing would inherently or otherwise obvious to include/require a door for providing access for receiving/removing a sample cartridge into/from the module as taught by Holmes.
Holmes does not teach a communication unit configured to communicate to one or more internet-ready devices of the user via the internet through a web server; and a processor operably coupled with the display and having recorded thereon programmable instructions configured to: generate a task record that includes a basic data set having one or more parameters of the assay being performed; and generate or access an internet-accessible link and associating the link to a data output by a respective sample processing modules as to the assay being performed by the respective module,
wherein a unique internet-accessible link is generated for the assay being performed for each of the plurality of processing modules.
Ulitzur et al. teaches a cartridge for use in assaying an analyte in an automated water quality monitoring analyzer.
Ulitzur et al. teaches a Management Software communicating with the analyzer the enables a remote user to manage all the operations normally required by the user during measurement from remote locations via the internet. [0157]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Holmes to include a communication unit configured to communicate with a user’s internet-ready device to communicate with and manage all operations of the system of Holmes as taught by Ulitzur et al. so that a remote user can control the system Holmes.
The use of a processor operably coupled with a display and configured to: a processor operably coupled with the display and having recorded thereon programmable instructions configured to: generate a task record that includes a basic data set having one or more parameters of the assay being performed; and generate or access an internet-accessible link and associating the link to a data output by a respective sample processing modules as to the assay being performed by the respective module,
wherein a unique internet-accessible link is generated for the assay being performed for each of the plurality of processing modules would be obvious to include and implement for purposes of providing and enabling remote control and operation and access to analysis data.
With regard to th