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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-8, 23-30 are pending.
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn.
Claims 15-22 are canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 23, 25, 26, 29 have been amended.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference number 118 is associated with “identifier readers” throughout the specification and in Para [0281] and to the processor within Para [00501] and [00471].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant recites “and wherein none of the sample receiving stations is associated with more than one of the plurality of sample test tracks, and wherein each of the sample test tracks from the plurality of sample test tracks is an automated sample test track comprising a corresponding processor”. The Examiner has reviewed the specification and although the specification in Para [00161] indicates “each individual ones of the sample test tracks may be associated with one of the plurality of sample receiving stations” it does not limit the sample receiving stations to only one sample test track.
In addition, the specification (Para [00291]) is unclear if each of the automated sample test tracks comprises its own corresponding processor as claimed. Further noted although the drawings show the sample test tracks 102 have a processor 126, it is still unclear if each automated sample test track has their own corresponding processor.
Claims 26-29 depend on claim 25 and therefore are also rejected.
Regarding claim 29, Applicant recites “wherein for each of the plurality of sample test tracks, the corresponding processor comprised by that sample test track”. The Examiner has reviewed the specification and has not identified sections that support the limitation. The limitation is considered new matter as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et. al. (CN 106882363A), machine translation.
Regarding Claim 1 Chen teaches “A biological sample test system” (Abstract, unmanned aerial vehicle transportation system for transporting hospital blood samples); “remote sample delivery system” (Page 2 Unmanned aerial vehicles). The recitation “configured to secure a container for a biological sample, the container including a sample identifier” is capability of the remote sample deliver system and therefore Chen discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the remote sample delivery system as claimed, such system is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein. Further taught “a sample receiving station” (Page 3 and 7, blood sample collection terminal 201) and “configured to receive the container from the remote sample delivery system based on the sample identifier, wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to automatically navigate to the sample receiving station upon the container being secured to the remote sample delivery system;” is additional capability language which Chen systems are fully capable of in as much as positively claimed. Further taught is “and a sample test track”(Page 5, The UAV will fly according to the planning path of the central control system); “ comprising a plurality of test stations” (Page 7 and Fig. 1, blood sample receiving terminal distributed in each inspection area); “ and a container conveyance system”(Page 1, the blood sample collection terminal and the blood sample receiving terminal are provided with conveyors for conveying the sample boxes, and the parking stops are arranged on two sides of the conveyor belt.). The recitation “configured to sequentially deliver the container to individual ones of the plurality of test stations based, at least in part, on the sample identifier.” is additional capability and Chen teaches all of the positively claimed features as claimed and therefore teaches to the capability.
Regarding Claim 2 Chen teaches all of claim 1 as above and the recitation “wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to navigate to the sample receiving station based, at least in part, on the sample identifier.” is capability of the delivery system. Chen discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the system as claimed, such system is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein.
Regarding Claim 3 Chen teaches all of claim 2 as above in addition to “a plurality of sample receiving stations” (Abstract, the blood sample collection terminals are arranged in all inpatient areas); “a plurality of sample test tracks, each individual ones of the sample test tracks associated with one of the plurality of sample receiving stations” (Abstract and Page 12 and 13, blood sample receiving terminals are distributed in all inspection areas. The nurse places the sample box on the conveyor belt of the blood sample collection terminal, which sends a request to the central control system to request the transport of the blood sample information. If the transport urgency is urgent, plan the route directly to the inspection area. If the transportation urgency is normal, plan the route to the transport relay and the weather monitoring terminal.). Therefore, depending on the location of the collection and receiving terminals and if the transfer is urgent or not creates different sample test tracks which teach to the plurality of sample test tracks which are associated with one of the plurality of sample receiving stations. The recitation “and wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to deliver the container to a predetermined one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based, at least in part, on an associated one of the plurality of sample test tracks.” is capability of the system which is taught in as much as positively claimed.
Regarding Claim 6 Chen teaches all of claim 3 as above and further teaches “wherein each of the plurality of sample test tracks has an availability status” (Page 24, the track changes based on the central control system and the urgency of the emergency which is a status). The recitation “wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to navigate to the one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based on the availability status of the associated one of the plurality of sample tracks.” is capability of the delivery system. Chen discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the system as claimed, such system is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein.
Regarding Claim 7 Chen teaches all of claim 3 as above and the recitation “wherein each of the plurality of sample test tracks is configured to update its availability status based, at least in part, on an expected wait time for a sample to be tested.” is capability of the delivery system. Chen discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the system as claimed, such system is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein.
Regarding Claim 8 Chen teaches all of claim 1 as above and the recitation “wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to navigate to a plurality of sample receipt locations and secure at least one container at each of the plurality of sample receipt locations.” is capability of the delivery system. Chen discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the system as claimed, such system is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 23, 24, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Raptopoulos et. al. (US 20170129603 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Raptopoulos teaches “A biological sample test system” (Paras [0045], [0136] and [0159], and FIG 1., payload transportation system 100 using UAV, As illustrated in FIG. 5J, user interface 536 may provide a list of UAV stations including, for example, a “MCH Central Lab” station, a “MCH North” station, a “MCH East” station, and a “MCH Hamilton Pavilion” station, identifies a blood sample.); “comprising a remote sample delivery system” (Fig 9A, unmanned aerial vehicle). The recitation “configured to secure a container for a biological sample, the container including a sample identifier” is capability of the remote sample deliver system and therefore Raptopoulos discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the remote sample delivery system as claimed, such system is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein. In addition, Raptopoulos teaches (Para [0136] , [0140], and Fig. 4A number 3., Payload having an identification which can be a barcode, quick response code, or other identification in which scanning the barcode identifies the blood sample. The payload (e.g., the blood sample ). Further taught “a sample receiving station (Fig. 1 and Para [0176], As described, in some embodiments, UAV station 140 can include a landing platform 144 and an exchange station 146. A landing platform facilitates landing and launching of UAV 130. An exchange station 146 receives a payload, a payload container, or a battery from UAV 130); and “configured to receive the container from the remote sample delivery system based on the sample identifier, wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to automatically navigate to the sample receiving station upon the container being secured to the remote sample delivery system;” is additional capability language which Raptopoulos systems are fully capable of in as much as positively claimed. However also taught (Paras [0007], [0062], [0068], [0140], [0141], [0192] UAV has a flight control system which has host processors which is for flying and navigating the UAV. Then a reader (e.g., an RFID reader) of the UAV can read info from the container unique ID and transmit it to UAV service and UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the payload container using the first identification of the payload container. As a result, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV that carries the payload container based on the second identification transmitted by the UAV. For example, if UAV service 120 receives an RFID identifying the payload container housing the blood sample from a particular UAV, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV based on the RFID of the blood sample. The method is performed at a portable electronic device including one or more processors and memory. The portable electronic device obtains an identification of the payload to be transported. The identification of the payload is associated with a destination location of the payload. The portable electronic device provides the identification of the payload to a UAV service) Therefore the reader on the UAV reads the container ID (sample identifier) and its transmitted to the processors (processors within the UAV service and the flight control system) configured to navigate the remote sample delivery system (UAV) to the sample receiving station (UAV station). Further taught is “and a sample test track, comprising a plurality of test stations and a container conveyance system configured to sequentially deliver the container to individual ones of the plurality of test stations based, at least in part, on the sample identifier.” (Para [0008], [0053], [0054], [0059], and [0162],, For example, UAV station 140 may include a delivery truck carrying multiple payloads to be delivered and carrying one or more UAVs 130 for transporting the payloads. In accordance with the information received from UAV service 120 (e.g., flight route, payload information, etc.), one or more UAVs 130 may be launched from a UAV station 140 to transport payloads to their destination locations (e.g., another UAV station 140, a residential address, or a business address. In some embodiments, landing platform 144 can be mounted, attached, or integrated to an exchange station 146, such as a transporting vehicle (e.g., delivery truck, a van) or a fixed facility (e.g., a distribution warehouse). Exchange station 146 can include a payload processing mechanism (e.g., a robot) to enable the receiving and exchanging of payload containers or payloads. In some embodiments, exchange station 146 can also include a battery exchanging mechanism for exchanging battery of a landed UAV 130. In some embodiments, the battery exchanging mechanism and the payload processing mechanism may be separate mechanisms or may be integrated to form a single mechanism. UAV station 140 is described in more detail below with FIG. 2A. The UAV service can determine the destination location of the payload container using the destination location associated with the identification of the payload. The exchange station 146 can be a mobile station that are capable of travelling to any location, thereby significantly increases the range of payload transportation of the UAV. There is a need to integrate the UAVs with mobile exchange stations, such as package transporting vehicles, to provide flexibility and mobility for transporting packages to multiple neighborhoods.). Therefore the sample test track is the van route used to bring the payload container to the destination location. The plurality of test stations is taught within the multiple neighborhoods, residential address, or business address which can include hospitals and labs. The container conveyance system is the delivery truck or other transporting vehicle or robot.
Regarding Claim 2 Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 1 as above and the recitation “wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to navigate to the sample receiving station based, at least in part, on the sample identifier.” is capability of the delivery system. Raptopoulos discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the system as claimed, such system is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein. Raptopoulos further teaches (Paras [0007], [0062], [0068], [0140], [0141], [0192] UAV has a flight control system which has host processors which is for flying and navigating the UAV. Then a reader (e.g., an RFID reader) of the UAV can read info from the container unique ID and transmit it to UAV service and UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the payload container using the first identification of the payload container. As a result, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV that carries the payload container based on the second identification transmitted by the UAV. For example, if UAV service 120 receives an RFID identifying the payload container housing the blood sample from a particular UAV, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV based on the RFID of the blood sample. The method is performed at a portable electronic device including one or more processors and memory. The portable electronic device obtains an identification of the payload to be transported. The identification of the payload is associated with a destination location of the payload. The portable electronic device provides the identification of the payload to a UAV service) Therefore the reader on the UAV reads the container ID (sample identifier) and it is transmitted to the processors (processors within the UAV service and the flight control system) configured to navigate the remote sample delivery system (UAV) to the sample receiving station (UAV station).
Regarding Claim 3 Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 2 as above in addition to “a plurality of sample receiving stations” (Fig. 1, UAV station 140A-C); “a plurality of sample test tracks, each individual ones of the sample test tracks associated with one of the plurality of sample receiving stations” (Para [0053] and [0054], For example, UAV station 140 may include a delivery truck carrying multiple payloads to be delivered and carrying one or more UAVs 130 for transporting the payloads. In accordance with the information received from UAV service 120 (e.g., flight route, payload information, etc.), one or more UAVs 130 may be launched from a UAV station 140 to transport payloads to their destination locations (e.g., another UAV station 140, a residential address, or a business address. In some embodiments, landing platform 144 can be mounted, attached, or integrated to an exchange station 146, such as a transporting vehicle (e.g., delivery truck, a van) or a fixed facility (e.g., a distribution warehouse). Exchange station 146 can include a payload processing mechanism (e.g., a robot) to enable the receiving and exchanging of payload containers or payloads. In some embodiments, exchange station 146 can also include a battery exchanging mechanism for exchanging battery of a landed UAV 130. In some embodiments, the battery exchanging mechanism and the payload processing mechanism may be separate mechanisms or may be integrated to form a single mechanism. UAV station 140 is described in more detail below with FIG. 2A.). Therefore the sample test track is the flight route information which includes the information to transport to their destination locations (plurality of test stations). Each individual sample test track is associated with one of the plurality of the sample receiving stations as the information within the sample test track includes the location of the sample receiving station (UAV station/ exchange station). “and wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to deliver the container to a predetermined one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based, at least in part, on an associated one of the plurality of sample test tracks.” is capability of the system which is taught in as much as positively claimed. However also taught above within (Paras [0007], [0062], [0068], [0140], [0141], and [0192]) the processor controls the remote sample delivery system based on the sample ID information. Within this the sample ID information is the flight route, payload information which is part of the test track. Therefore the delivery is at least in part associated to one of the plurality of sample test tracks.
Regarding Claim 6 Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 3 as above and further teaches “wherein each of the plurality of sample test tracks has an availability status” (Para [0093], the status of the UAV stations, and any information associated with a particular flight route. The status of the UAV stations can include the number of UAVs landed on the landing platforms of the UAV stations, the number of remaining payloads of the UAV stations, and any other logistic information associated with the UAV stations. The information associated with a particular flight route includes, for example, the estimated time and distance for a flight route, the altitude information of the flight route, and whether a particular flight route is affected by a changing weather.); Therefore the status of the UAV station which includes the information about the flight route teaches to the sample test track availability status. The recitation “wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to navigate to the one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based on the availability status of the associated one of the plurality of sample tracks.” is capability of the delivery system. Raptopoulos discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the system as claimed, such system is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein.
Regarding Claim 7 Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 3 as above and the recitation “wherein each of the plurality of sample test tracks is configured to update its availability status based, at least in part, on an expected wait time for a sample to be tested.” is capability of the delivery system. Raptopoulos discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the system as claimed, such system is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein. In addition, within (Para [0093], the status of the UAV stations and information associated with a particular flight route includes, for example, the estimated time and distance for a flight route, the altitude information of the flight route, and whether a particular flight route is affected by a changing weather.).
Regarding Claim 8 Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 1 as above and the recitation “wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to navigate to a plurality of sample receipt locations and secure at least one container at each of the plurality of sample receipt locations.” is capability of the delivery system. However the navigation is taught within Paras [0007], [0062], [0068], [0140], [0141], [0192] above) and “a plurality of sample receipt locations and secure at least one container at each of the plurality of sample receipt locations” is taught within (Paras [0053], [0054], [0198], and [0203], landing platform 144 can include one or more openings, housings, compartments, or structures (sample receipt locations) for receiving payload containers.) Therefore, the landing platform is part of the UAV station taught above and so the processor is configured to control the remote sample delivery system to navigate to the sample receipt location and second at least one container.
Regarding claim 23, Raptopoulos teaches “A biological sample test system,” (Paras [0045], [0136] and [0159], and FIG 1., payload transportation system 100 using UAV, As illustrated in FIG. 5J, user interface 536 may provide a list of UAV stations including, for example, a “MCH Central Lab” station, a “MCH North” station, a “MCH East” station, and a “MCH Hamilton Pavilion” station, identifies a blood sample.); “comprising: a container for a biological sample, the container including a sample identifier;” (Para [0136] , [0140], and Fig. 4A number 3., Payload having an identification which can be a barcode, quick response code, or other identification in which scanning the barcode identifies the blood sample. The payload (e.g., the blood sample );”a remote sample delivery system” (Fig 9A, unmanned aerial vehicle), “configured to secure the container,” (Fig. 4A Step 3, Box is inserted in any vehicle). “the remote sample delivery system further comprising a processor,” (Fig. 9A and [0062], Flight control system (Host Processor(s)); processor); “and a sample identifier reader;” (Para [0139], The second identification can be readable by a reader (e.g., an RFID reader) of the UAV.); “a sample receiving station, configured to receive the container from the remote sample delivery system” (Fig. 1 and Para [0176], As described, in some embodiments, UAV station 140 can include a landing platform 144 and an exchange station 146. A landing platform facilitates landing and launching of UAV 130. An exchange station 146 receives a payload, a payload container, or a battery from UAV 130); “wherein the sample identifier reader reads and transmits information read from the sample identifier to the processor which is configured to control the remote sample delivery system to navigate to the sample receiving station upon the container being secured to the remote sample delivery system and the sample identifier being read;” (Paras [0007], [0062], [0068], [0140], [0141], [0192] UAV has a flight control system which has host processors which is for flying and navigating the UAV. Then a reader (e.g., an RFID reader) of the UAV can read info from the container unique ID and transmit it to UAV service and UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the payload container using the first identification of the payload container. As a result, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV that carries the payload container based on the second identification transmitted by the UAV. For example, if UAV service 120 receives an RFID identifying the payload container housing the blood sample from a particular UAV, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV based on the RFID of the blood sample. The method is performed at a portable electronic device including one or more processors and memory. The portable electronic device obtains an identification of the payload to be transported. The identification of the payload is associated with a destination location of the payload. The portable electronic device provides the identification of the payload to a UAV service) Therefore the reader on the UAV reads the container ID (sample identifier) and its transmitted to the processors (processors within the UAV service and the flight control system) configured to navigate the remote sample delivery system (UAV) to the sample receiving station (UAV station). Further taught is “a sample test track, comprising a plurality of test stations and a container conveyance system configured to sequentially deliver the container from the sample receiving station to individual ones of the plurality of test stations based, at least in part, on the sample identifier.” (Para [0008], [0053], [0054], [0059],and [0162],, For example, UAV station 140 may include a delivery truck carrying multiple payloads to be delivered and carrying one or more UAVs 130 for transporting the payloads. In accordance with the information received from UAV service 120 (e.g., flight route, payload information, etc.), one or more UAVs 130 may be launched from a UAV station 140 to transport payloads to their destination locations (e.g., another UAV station 140, a residential address, or a business address. In some embodiments, landing platform 144 can be mounted, attached, or integrated to an exchange station 146, such as a transporting vehicle (e.g., delivery truck, a van) or a fixed facility (e.g., a distribution warehouse). Exchange station 146 can include a payload processing mechanism (e.g., a robot) to enable the receiving and exchanging of payload containers or payloads. In some embodiments, exchange station 146 can also include a battery exchanging mechanism for exchanging battery of a landed UAV 130. In some embodiments, the battery exchanging mechanism and the payload processing mechanism may be separate mechanisms or may be integrated to form a single mechanism. UAV station 140 is described in more detail below with FIG. 2A. The UAV service can determine the destination location of the payload container using the destination location associated with the identification of the payload. The exchange station 146 can be a mobile station that are capable of travelling to any location, thereby significantly increases the range of payload transportation of the UAV. There is a need to integrate the UAVs with mobile exchange stations, such as package transporting vehicles, to provide flexibility and mobility for transporting packages to multiple neighborhoods.). Therefore the sample test track is the van route used to bring the payload container to the destination location. The plurality of test stations is taught within the multiple neighborhoods, residential address, or business address which can include hospitals and labs. The container conveyance system is the delivery truck or other transporting vehicle or robot.
Regarding claim 24, Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 23 as above in addition to “wherein the processor is configured to control the remote sample delivery system to navigate to the sample receiving station based, at least in part, on the sample identifier.” (Paras [0007], [0062], [0068], [0140], [0141], [0192] UAV has a flight control system which has host processors which is for flying and navigating the UAV. Then a reader (e.g., an RFID reader) of the UAV can read info from the container unique ID and transmit it to UAV service and UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the payload container using the first identification of the payload container. As a result, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV that carries the payload container based on the second identification transmitted by the UAV. For example, if UAV service 120 receives an RFID identifying the payload container housing the blood sample from a particular UAV, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV based on the RFID of the blood sample. The method is performed at a portable electronic device including one or more processors and memory. The portable electronic device obtains an identification of the payload to be transported. The identification of the payload is associated with a destination location of the payload. The portable electronic device provides the identification of the payload to a UAV service) Therefore the reader on the UAV reads the container ID (sample identifier) and it is transmitted to the processors (processors within the UAV service and the flight control system) configured to navigate the remote sample delivery system (UAV) to the sample receiving station (UAV station).
Regarding claim 30, Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 23 as above in addition to “wherein the processor is configured to control the remote sample delivery system to navigate” (taught above within Paras [0007], [0062], [0068], [0140], [0141], [0192]) ‘”to a plurality of sample receipt locations and secure at least one container at each of the plurality of sample receipt locations.” (Paras [0053], [0054], [0198], and [0203], landing platform 144 can include one or more openings, housings, compartments, or structures (sample receipt locations) for receiving payload containers.) Therefore, the landing platform is part of the UAV station taught above within claim 23 and so the processor is configured to control the remote sample delivery system to navigate to the sample receipt location and second at least one container.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptopoulos et. al. (US 20170129603 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 24 as above in addition to, “wherein the biological sample test system further comprises a plurality of sample receiving stations (Fig. 1, UAV station 140A-C); “and a plurality of sample test tracks, each individual ones of the sample test tracks associated with one of the plurality of sample receiving stations, and wherein none of the sample receiving stations is associated with more than one of the plurality of sample test tracks,” (Para [0053] and [0054], For example, UAV station 140 may include a delivery truck carrying multiple payloads to be delivered and carrying one or more UAVs 130 for transporting the payloads. In accordance with the information received from UAV service 120 (e.g., flight route, payload information, etc.), one or more UAVs 130 may be launched from a UAV station 140 to transport payloads to their destination locations (e.g., another UAV station 140, a residential address, or a business address. In some embodiments, landing platform 144 can be mounted, attached, or integrated to an exchange station 146, such as a transporting vehicle (e.g., delivery truck, a van) or a fixed facility (e.g., a distribution warehouse). Exchange station 146 can include a payload processing mechanism (e.g., a robot) to enable the receiving and exchanging of payload containers or payloads. In some embodiments, exchange station 146 can also include a battery exchanging mechanism for exchanging battery of a landed UAV 130. In some embodiments, the battery exchanging mechanism and the payload processing mechanism may be separate mechanisms or may be integrated to form a single mechanism. UAV station 140 is described in more detail below with FIG. 2A.). Therefore the sample test track is the flight route information which includes the information to transport to their destination locations (plurality of test stations). Each individual sample test track is associated with one of the plurality of the sample receiving stations as the information within the sample test track includes the location of the sample receiving station (UAV station/ exchange station. Which also teaches to none of the sample receiving stations is associated with more than one of the plurality of sample test tracks at one given time).
Raptopoulos does not explicitly teach “ and wherein each of the sample test tracks from the plurality of sample test tracks is an automated sample test track comprising a corresponding processor,” However, it would have been clearly within the ordinary skills of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Raptopoulos by having each of the sample test tracks from the plurality of sample test tracks is an automated sample test track comprising a corresponding processor, since Raptopoulos teaches a processor or one or more microprocessors interacting with additional devices of the subsystems within (Para [0062] and [0063] Portable electronic device 102 can include a controller comprising at least one processor 202 (such as a microprocessor), which controls the overall operation of portable electronic device 102. Processor 202 can be one or more microprocessors, field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), digital signal processors (DSPs), or any combination thereof capable of executing particular sets of instructions. Processor 202 can interact with device subsystems such as a communication subsystem 204 for exchanging radio frequency signals with a wireless network (e.g., network 110) to perform communication functions. Processor 202 can also interact with additional device subsystems including a communication subsystem.). Therefore it would have been a matter of an obvious engineering choice, to better adjust the sample test tracks to have a corresponding processor in order to control the sample track and ensure the samples are received to the desired location.
Further taught “ and wherein the processor is configured to control the remote sample delivery system to deliver the container to one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based, at least in part, on an associated one of the plurality of sample test tracks.” As taught above within (Paras [0007], [0062], [0068], [0140], [0141], and [0192]) the processor controls the remote sample delivery system based on the sample ID information. Within this the sample ID information is the flight route, payload information which is part of the test track. Therefore the delivery is at least in part associated to one of the plurality of sample test tracks.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et. al. (CN 106882363A), machine translation as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mellars et. al. (US 20150140668 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches all of claim 3, However Chen does not teach “wherein each of the plurality of sample test tracks comprise a mix of test stations” and “and wherein at least one of the plurality of sample test tracks has a different mix of test stations than another of the plurality of sample test tracks”.
Mellars teaches an automation system for an in vitro diagnostics environment including a plurality of intelligent carriers. In addition Mellars teaches “the plurality of sample test tracks comprise a mix of test stations” and “at least one of the plurality of sample test tracks has a different mix of test stations than another of the plurality of sample test tracks” (Paras [0051, [0055], and [0059] Track conveys samples in pucks or trays between various stations which can include the use of a sidecars which is a track section that are off the main portion of the track system. The stations may be modular and each module can include one or more stations). Therefore the sidecar of the track teach to the plurality of test tracks and the station being modular and comprising of one or more station teaches to the mix of test stations. The track having more than one sidecar, pullouts, or offshoot paths having modular stations teaches to at least one of the plurality of sample test tracks having different mix of test stations. The recitation “and wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to navigate to one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based, at least in part, on the mix of test stations of an associated one of the plurality of sample test tracks” is capability of the system and modified Chen teaches to the capability in as much as positively claimed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen to incorporate the teachings of Mellars wherein the plurality of sample test tracks comprise a mix of test stations” and “at least one of the plurality of sample test tracks has a different mix of test stations than another of the plurality of sample test tracks. Doing so increases the amount of test stations the sample can be delivered to which increases the usefulness and reduces the need for multiple biological sample test systems within a giving location.
The recitation “and wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to navigate to one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based, at least in part, on the mix of test stations of an associated one of the plurality of sample test tracks.” is capability of the remote sample delivery system. modified Chen discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the remote sample delivery system as claimed, such remote sample delivery system are said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein.
Regarding claim 5 modified Chen teaches all of claim 4 as above in addition to teaching the remainer of the claim in as much as is positively claimed. “wherein the sample identifier corresponds to a series of tests to be performed on the biological sample wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to navigate to the one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based on the mix of test stations of the associated one of the plurality of sample tracks being able to perform the series of tests.”.
Claims 4, 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptopoulos et. al. (US 20170129603 A1) as applied to claims 3 and 25, in view of Mellars et. al. (US 20150140668 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 3, however does not teach “wherein each of the plurality of sample test tracks comprise a mix of test stations” and “and wherein at least one of the plurality of sample test tracks has a different mix of test stations than another of the plurality of sample test tracks”.
Mellars teaches an automation system for an in vitro diagnostics environment including a plurality of intelligent carriers. In addition Mellars teaches “the plurality of sample test tracks comprise a mix of test stations” and “at least one of the plurality of sample test tracks has a different mix of test stations than another of the plurality of sample test tracks” (Paras [0051, [0055], and [0059] Track conveys samples in pucks or trays between various stations which can include the use of a sidecars which is a track section that are off the main portion of the track system. The stations may be modular and each module can include one or more stations). Therefore the sidecar of the track teach to the plurality of test tracks and the station being modular and comprising of one or more station teaches to the mix of test stations. The track having more than one sidecar, pullouts, or offshoot paths having modular stations teaches to at least one of the plurality of sample test tracks having different mix of test stations. The recitation “and wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to navigate to one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based, at least in part, on the mix of test stations of an associated one of the plurality of sample test tracks” is capability of the system and modified Chen teaches to the capability in as much as positively claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen to incorporate the teachings of Mellars wherein the plurality of sample test tracks comprise a mix of test stations” and “at least one of the plurality of sample test tracks has a different mix of test stations than another of the plurality of sample test tracks. Doing so increases the amount of test stations the sample can be delivered to which increases the usefulness and reduces the need for multiple biological sample test systems within a giving location.
The recitation “and wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to navigate to one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based, at least in part, on the mix of test stations of an associated one of the plurality of sample test tracks.” is capability of the remote sample delivery system. modified Raptopoulos discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the remote sample delivery system as claimed, such remote sample delivery system are said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein.
Regarding claim 26, modified Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 25 as above but does not teach “wherein each of the plurality of sample test tracks comprise a mix of test stations, and wherein at least one of the plurality of sample test tracks has a different mix of test stations than another of the plurality of sample test tracks, and wherein the processor is configured to control the remote sample delivery system to navigate to the one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based, at least in part, on the mix of test stations of the associated one of the plurality of sample test tracks.”.
Mellars teaches an automation system for an in vitro diagnostics environment including a plurality of intelligent carriers. In addition Mellars teaches “wherein each of the plurality of sample test tracks comprise a mix of test stations” and “and wherein at least one of the plurality of sample test tracks has a different mix of test stations than another of the plurality of sample test tracks” (Paras [0051, [0055], and [0059] Track conveys samples in pucks or trays between various stations which can include the use of a sidecars which is a track section that are off the main portion of the track system. The stations may be modular and each module can include one or more stations). Therefore the sidecar of the track teach to the plurality of test tracks and the station being modular and comprising of one or more station teaches to the mix of test stations. The track having more than one sidecar, pullouts, or offshoot paths having modular stations teaches to at least one of the plurality of sample test tracks having different mix of test stations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Raptopoulos to incorporate the teachings of Mellars wherein the plurality of sample test tracks comprise a mix of test stations and at least one of the plurality of sample test tracks has a different mix of test stations than another of the plurality of sample test tracks. Doing so increases the amount of test stations the sample can be delivered to which increases the usefulness and reduces the need for multiple biological sample test systems within a giving location.
The claims require the processor configured to control the remote sample deliver system to navigate to the receiving stations based on the mix of test stations of an associated one of the plurality of sample test tracks. Neither Raptopulos nor Mellars teach this exact configuration. However it would have been clearly within the ordinary skills of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Raptopulos in view of Mellars. Raptopulos teaches the processor controls the remote sample delivery system to navigation to a receiving station within (Paras [0007], [0062], [0068], [0140], [0141], [0192], UAV has a flight control system which has host processors which is for flying and navigating the UAV. Then a reader (e.g., an RFID reader) of the UAV can read info from the container unique ID and transmit it to UAV service and UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the payload container using the first identification of the payload container. As a result, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV that carries the payload container based on the second identification transmitted by the UAV. For example, if UAV service 120 receives an RFID identifying the payload container housing the blood sample from a particular UAV, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV based on the RFID of the blood sample. The method is performed at a portable electronic device including one or more processors and memory. The portable electronic device obtains an identification of the payload to be transported. The identification of the payload is associated with a destination location of the payload. The portable electronic device provides the identification of the payload to a UAV service). In addition Mellars teaches the mixing test stations associated with one of the plurality of sample test tracks within (Paras [0051, [0055], and [0059]) as above. Having the processor navigate the remote sample delivery system to other locations based on stations within a test track would be an obvious engineering choice and they are components of the system and the processor is taught to work as a system. In addition, having the processor navigate based in part on the mixing test stations of an associated one of the plurality of sample test tracks reliable workflow.
Regarding claim 28, modified Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 25 as above in addition to “wherein each of the plurality of sample test tracks has an availability status” (Para [0093], the status of the UAV stations, and any information associated with a particular flight route. The status of the UAV stations can include the number of UAVs landed on the landing platforms of the UAV stations, the number of remaining payloads of the UAV stations, and any other logistic information associated with the UAV stations. The information associated with a particular flight route includes, for example, the estimated time and distance for a flight route, the altitude information of the flight route, and whether a particular flight route is affected by a changing weather.); Therefore the status of the UAV station which includes the information about the flight route teaches to the sample test track availability status.
Raptopoulos does not teach “and wherein the processor is configured to control the remote sample delivery system to navigate to the one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based on the availability status of the associated one of the plurality of sample tracks.”.
Mellars teaches a processor using a status information of the carriers and track within (Para [0116], Central management processor 440 uses the status information of the carriers and track as well as the identity of samples or other payload carried by the carriers and the required assays to be performed by the system on these samples.).
The claims require the processor configured to control the remote sample deliver system to navigate to the receiving stations based on the availability status of the sample tracks. Neither Raptopulos nor Mellars teach this exact configuration however it would have been clearly within the ordinary skills of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Raptopulos in view of Mellars by having the processor that uses the status of the track taught by Mellars to control the remote sample delivery system to navigate to the receiving stations (taught by Raptopulos) based on the availability status as Mellars teaches a processor uses the status of the track in addition to the status of the carriers. It would have been a matter of obvious implementation choice, to decrease the wait time for a remote sample delivery system to be deployed in addition to reduces potential collisions in not deploying a remote sample delivery system to a sample receiving station when the sample track status is not available.
Regarding claim 29, modified Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 28 as above. The recitation “wherein for each of the plurality of sample test tracks, the corresponding processor comprised by that sample test track is configured to update its availability status based, at least in part, on an expected wait time for a sample to be tested” is capability of the delivery system. Raptopoulos discloses the positively claimed structural elements of the system as claimed, such system is said to be fully capable of the recited adaption in as much as recited and required herein. In addition, within (Para [0093], the status of the UAV stations and information associated with a particular flight route includes, for example, the estimated time and distance for a flight route, the altitude information of the flight route, and whether a particular flight route is affected by a changing weather.).
Claims 5 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptopoulos et. al. (US 20170129603 A1) in view of Mellars et. al. (US 20150140668 A1) as applied to claims 4 and 26 above, and further view of Vansickler et. al. (WO 2017143182 A2).
Regarding claim 5 modified Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 4 as above in addition to teaching the remainer of the claim in as much as is positively claimed. “wherein the sample identifier corresponds to a series of tests to be performed on the biological sample wherein the remote sample delivery system is configured to navigate to the one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based on the mix of test stations of the associated one of the plurality of sample tracks being able to perform the series of tests.”.
In addition, Raptopoulos does teach the identification information of the payload is associated with a destination location of a payload (sample) within Para [0006]. In addition, the recitation “wherein the sample identifier corresponds to a series of tests to be performed on the biological sample” is capability of the sample identifier.
Vansickler teaches an automated pre-analytical processing method and an apparatus for pre-analytical processing of samples to be forwarded to an adjacent analyzer for analysis in addition to “wherein the sample identifier corresponds to a series of tests to be performed on the biological sample” (Para [0324] and [0375], The user loads the samples without having to individually interact with each tube. The system individually scans each sample tube and looks up what tests have been ordered for that tube by interacting with computing system 800. Referring to FIGs. 22B and 26, when the accession number of the sample container is read and the pre-analytical system computing device 1350, on instructions from the workflow computing device 1330, has the accession number associated with two or more tests to be performed by the same or different analyzers, the sample is prepared and sent to the first analyzer as described herein.)
The claims have a remote sample delivery system configured to navigate to the receiving stations based on the mix of test stations of an associated one of the plurality of sample test tracks being able to perform the series of tests. Modified Raptopulos does not teach the exact configuration however it would have been clearly within the ordinary skills of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Raptopulos. Raptopulos teaches a processor controls the remote sample delivery system to navigation to a receiving station within (Paras [0007], [0062], [0068], [0140], [0141], [0192], UAV has a flight control system which has host processors which is for flying and navigating the UAV. Then a reader (e.g., an RFID reader) of the UAV can read info from the container unique ID and transmit it to UAV service and UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the payload container using the first identification of the payload container. As a result, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV that carries the payload container based on the second identification transmitted by the UAV. For example, if UAV service 120 receives an RFID identifying the payload container housing the blood sample from a particular UAV, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV based on the RFID of the blood sample. The method is performed at a portable electronic device including one or more processors and memory. The portable electronic device obtains an identification of the payload to be transported. The identification of the payload is associated with a destination location of the payload. The portable electronic device provides the identification of the payload to a UAV service). In addition, Mellars teaches the mixing test stations associated with one of the plurality of sample test tracks within (Paras [0051, [0055], and [0059]) as above and Vansickler teaches the sample identifier corresponds to a series of tests as above. Therefore it would be an obvious engineering choice to have remote sample delivery system configured to navigate based on the mix test stations associated with the sample tracks which are to perform a series of tests. In addition, this creates a more efficient system that navigates the sample container to its needed location to perform a given test without the intervention of a human interaction.
Regarding claim 27, modified Raptopoulos teaches all of claim 26 as above but does not teach “wherein the sample identifier corresponds to a series of tests to be performed on the biological sample and wherein the processor is configured to control the remote sample delivery system to navigate to the one of the plurality of sample receiving stations based on the mix of test stations of the associated one of the plurality of sample tracks being able to perform the series of tests.”. However, Raptopoulos does teach the identification information of the payload is associated with a destination location of a payload (sample) within Para [0006]. In addition, the recitation “wherein the sample identifier corresponds to a series of tests to be performed on the biological sample” is capability of the sample identifier.
Vansickler teaches an automated pre-analytical processing method and an apparatus for pre-analytical processing of samples to be forwarded to an adjacent analyzer for analysis in addition to “wherein the sample identifier corresponds to a series of tests to be performed on the biological sample” (Para [0324] and [0375], The user loads the samples without having to individually interact with each tube. The system individually scans each sample tube and looks up what tests have been ordered for that tube by interacting with computing system 800. Referring to FIGs. 22B and 26, when the accession number of the sample container is read and the pre-analytical system computing device 1350, on instructions from the workflow computing device 1330, has the accession number associated with two or more tests to be performed by the same or different analyzers, the sample is prepared and sent to the first analyzer as described herein.)
The claims require the processor configured to control the remote sample deliver system to navigate to the receiving stations based on the mix of test stations of an associated one of the plurality of sample test tracks being able to perform the series of tests. Modified Raptopulos does not teach the exact configuration however it would have been clearly within the ordinary skills of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Raptopulos. Raptopulos teaches the processor controls the remote sample delivery system to navigation to a receiving station within (Paras [0007], [0062], [0068], [0140], [0141], [0192], UAV has a flight control system which has host processors which is for flying and navigating the UAV. Then a reader (e.g., an RFID reader) of the UAV can read info from the container unique ID and transmit it to UAV service and UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the payload container using the first identification of the payload container. As a result, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV that carries the payload container based on the second identification transmitted by the UAV. For example, if UAV service 120 receives an RFID identifying the payload container housing the blood sample from a particular UAV, UAV service 120 can determine the destination location of the particular UAV based on the RFID of the blood sample. The method is performed at a portable electronic device including one or more processors and memory. The portable electronic device obtains an identification of the payload to be transported. The identification of the payload is associated with a destination location of the payload. The portable electronic device provides the identification of the payload to a UAV service). In addition Mellars teaches the mixing test stations associated with one of the plurality of sample test tracks within (Paras [0051, [0055], and [0059]) as above and Vansickler teaches the sample identifier corresponds to a series of tests as above. Therefore it would be an obvious engineering choice to have the processor control the navigation based on the mix test stations associated with the sample tracks which are to perform a series of tests. In addition, this creates a more efficient system that navigates the sample container to its needed location to perform a given test without the intervention of a human interaction.
Response to Amendments
Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 23 have overcome the objection. Applicants amendments to claims 25 and 29 preset new matter and therefore have been rejected to.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Chinese patent reference 106882363 ("Chen").
Additionally, claims 1-3, 6-8 23-25, and 30 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by U.S. published patent application 2017/0129603 ("Raptopoulos").
Applicant argues that the elements in the prior art do not reference the required elements within the claim in the claimed arrangement. Examiner disagrees and has maintained 102 rejections for 1-3, 6-8 23, 24, and 30 and made new 103 rejection for claim 25.
Applicant argues in regards to claim 1 that neither a flight plan for a UAV (described in Chen), nor a van route for transporting containers (described in Raptopoulos), is a track of any kind, whether a sample test track as recited in claim 1 or otherwise. Therefore the applicant argues that Chen or Raptopoulos does not anticipate the present claims. Examiner maintains the discloser of a sample text track is taught within Chen and Raptopoulos. Without further claimed features of the sample text track Chen and Raptopoulos disclosure of a flight plan of the UAV and a van route teach to a sample text track.
Applicant argues that claims 2-3 and 8 rejections be reconsidered and withdrawn based at least on the features they incorporate from claim 1. Examiner maintains these rejections based on sample reasons for claim 1.
Applicant argues within claim 6 even if they accept the discloser of the sample test track, the status disclosed “urgency of an emergency” is the status of the sample or test to be performed which is not the status of the sample test track as claimed within a flight plan. Examiner maintains the rejection what is claimed is that the plurality of sample test tracks has an availability status. The disclosure within Chen is the sample test track changes based on the urgency of an emergency. If the sample text track itself changes it has a status in addition if the sample text track receives the urgency of an emergency that is also a status which then the sample test track also has that availability status. The type of availability status is not claimed.
Applicant argues within claim 6 Raptopoulos disclosure of the “status” of the unmanned aerial vehicle station is not the same as the feature of the recerence treated within the van route. Therefore applicant argues that Raptopoulos cannot be used for the rejection claim 6 based on the status as disclosed. Examiner maintains the rejection the status as disclosed in the second non-final is also any information associated with a particular flight route which teaches to the status being the sample text track status. Examiner further points out that the sample test track disclosed within Raptopoulos is the flight route information which includes the information to transport to their destination locations (plurality of test stations).
Examiner maintains the rejections to claims 7 and 23, 24, 30 based on arguments presented within claims 1 and 6.
Applicant argues that within claim 25 that each of a plurality of sample test tracks comprises a corresponding processor. The applicant submits that this clearly cannot be treated as being covered by Raptopoulos, since the aspect of that reference mapped to the sample test tracks - i.e., a van route - is not something would, or even could, comprise a corresponding processor. Examiner has rejected this part of the claim based on new matter and no discloser we observed within the specifications. In addition, what is claimed is that the plurality of sample test tracks comprise a corresponding processor. It is not disclosed how the sample test track comprises a corresponding processor and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation has been used. Therefore a sample test track comprising a corresponding processor can be interpreted to one a processor in communication with the sample test track which is rejected within the final as a 103 rejection.
Accordingly, because an obviousness rejection requires a showing that it would have been obvious to assemble the various elements in the manner recited in the claim, the applicant submits that the rejections of claim 4 as obvious should be reconsidered and withdrawn. Examiner disagrees and maintains the rejections for claim 4 and the sample delivery system configured to navigate is capability of the sample delivery system and is taught in as much as claimed.
Applicant agues based on claim 5 "the remainder of the claim in as much as is positively recited." does not explain how Chen is seen as covering the features recited in claim 5, and therefore does not give the applicant enough information about the rejection to evaluate its merits or substantively respond. Examiner maintains the rejection and maintains enough information was provided within the rejection. Claim 5 states the sample identifier corresponds to a series of tests to be performed however within claim 1 the sample identifier is not positively claimed as it’s a feature on a container which is not positively claimed but rather the device is capable of holding. The remainder of claim 5 is capability of the remote sample delivery system and therefore Chen teaches the remote sample delivery system in as much as positively claimed.
Applicant agues based on claim 5 that Vansickler's disclosure of looking up what tests had been ordered would take place only after a sample had entered automation, and so the association between sample identifiers and tests from Vansickler could not reasonably be treated as covering “navigating to a sample receiving station based on the associated sample test track being able to perform the series of tests corresponding to the sample identifier.” Examiner restates that claim 5 is capability of the positively claimed features and therefore the prior art teaches to all of the positive claimed features and therefore capable of performing as claim 5 is stated. Examiner disagrees with applicants argument that looking up what tests had been ordered would take place only after a sample had entered automation is then not capable of navigating to a sample receiving station based on the associated sample test track being able to perform the series of tests corresponding to the sample identifier.
Applicant argues that rejection of claim 5 as obvious based on Raptopoulos, Mellars and Vansickler, like the rejection of claim 5 based on Chen and Mellars, is improper and should be reconsidered and withdrawn. Examiner maintains the rejection and stands that the rejection is proper.
Applicant argues that within claim 28 no reason was provided for why it would have been obvious to modify the cited art to include a plurality of sample test tracks having availability statuses, as claimed within claims 6 and 28. Applicant requests withdrawn of rejection within claim 28 based on the absence of a plurality of sample test tracks having availability statuses from the cited art. Examiner maintains the rejection and has addressed the cited art teaching the availability status.
Examiner maintains the rejections for claims 26, 27, and 29 based on reasons set forth within claims 4, 5, and 28.
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 VELVET E HERON whose telephone number is 571-272-1557. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am – 4:30 pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (571) 270-3638. 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.
/V.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798