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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Remarks
This office action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks and claim amendments filed on 14 November 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are newly added.
Claims 1, 15, and 19-20 are amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a liquid-taking-device positioner...configured to position a liquid-taking device” as in Claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A socket and insertion hole thereof, as in para. [0089] of Applicant’s instant specification...and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " the sorting drawing ring". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may intend to instead recite “the liquid drawing ring” and provide the claim as depending from Claim 10 or Claim 11 wherein the “a liquid drawing ring” is introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 4-7, 9, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (CN 213 570 462 U – as seen through the machine translation available on Google Patents and attached herein), referred to hereinafter as “Zhou”.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou teaches a sperm sorting device (Fig. 1: “sperm sorter”) comprising:
a base 1 (Fig. 1: “outer tube 1”) comprising:
a bottom (“The bottom surface of the outer tube 1 is closed and is used for containing a semen sample.”); and an intermediate ring that connects to an external edge of the bottom via an inner wall surface (The cylindrical ring that couples to the circular base to form the open-topped enclosure for holding a sample.),
wherein the bottom and the inner wall surface together form a specimen space configured to receive a semen specimen (“The bottom surface of the outer tube 1 is closed and is used for containing a semen sample.”);
a sorting unit 2 (Fig. 1: “inner tube 2) comprising:
a sorting ring 9 situated at the bottom of the sorting unit 2 and including a central hole for a sorting filter 4 that spans the central hole and filters the semen specimen (Fig. 1 shows the sorting filter 4 spanning the central hole of ring 9.),
wherein a side of the sorting ring facing the sorting filter is beveled at an angle that increases a permeable surface of the sorting filter (Fig. 1 shows the ring 9 as having a bevel towards the filter 4 that increases the area of the filter seen by sample passing therethrough.);
and a protruding ring 7 on a periphery of the sorting unit 2 (Fig. 1: “protruding part 7”), the protruding ring 7 connecting to an outer portion of the sorting ring 9 via an inner sleeve surface of the protruding ring (Fig. 1 shows that the protrusion 7 has a bottom shaped complimentary to the ring 9, thus connecting to an outer portion of the ring surface.),
wherein the protruding ring is structurally adapted to sit on top of the base (Fig. 1 shows the protrusion 7 as adapted to sit on top of the base 1 via the retainer ring 6.),
wherein the sorting ring includes a position-limiting groove (Fig. 1 shows the ring 9 as having two position-limiting grooves complementary to the shape of the bottom of the inner tube 2.) having a groove bottom portion (The edge part of the groove as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 below.) and at least one communicating portion (The inner curved part of the groove as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 below.), wherein the groove bottom portion is laterally extended (The grooves extending from the inner sidewall of the ring towards the central hole. Further note that the presently claimed “lateral” orientation affords such a constitution within Zhou as discussed above, wherein Applicant may desired to further define such “lateral” orientation to better align with the sought embodiment) from the inner sleeve surface toward the central hole of the protruding ring toward the central hole, wherein the at least one communicating portion includes a sidewall (See the annotated Fig. 1 below.),
as in Claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
313
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhou teaches the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein the position-limiting groove is indented below a top plane of the sorting ring (Fig. 1 shows the ring 9 as having two position-limiting grooves complementary to the shape of the bottom of the inner tube 2. The grooves are indented below a top plane of the ring.), as in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Zhou teaches the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein the position-limiting groove extends inward from a bottom plane of the sorting ring to the top plane of the sorting ring (Fig. 1 shows the ridges of the position-limiting groove as extending inward from a bottom plane to a top plane of the sorting ring.), as in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Zhou teaches the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein a bottom portion of the position-limiting groove contacts the sorting filter (Fig. 1 shows a bottom part of the groove as contacting the sorting filter 4.), as in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Zhou teaches the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein an inside of the position-limiting groove opens to the central hole and a bottom plane of the position-limiting groove contacts
the sorting filter (Fig. 1 shows the inside of the position-limiting groove opens to the central hole and a bottom plane of the position-limiting groove contacts the sorting filter.), as in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhou teaches the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein the sorting filter 4 includes:
a permeable portion that bulges vertically (The central portion of the filter, which is flexible in the vertical direction given that it is taught as a thin membrane.); and
a fixed portion surrounding the permeable portion, wherein the fixed portion contacts the sorting ring 9 (The outer edges portion of the filter, which is fixed through contact with the sorting ring 9.),
as in Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhou teaches the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein the sorting filter 4 comprises a filtering material with a plurality of micropores (“Further, the pore diameter of the porous membrane is 0.5-15 μm.”), as in Claim 14.
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhou teaches the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein an outer bottom portion of the sorting (or sorting drawing) ring is vertically displaced by the sorting filter from a bottom of the intermediate ring when the sorting unit sits on top of the base (Fig. 1 shows the sorting ring as vertically disposed above the filter 4. When the device is assembled, the sorting filter will be displaced a specific distance from the bottom of the container 1: “the porous membrane 4 on the bottom surface of the inner tube 2 is spaced from the inner bottom surface of the outer tube 1 by a certain distance” – Examiner further notes that the claim is recited as a conditional, “when the sorting unit sits on top of the base” that is not necessitated by the claim. Thus, the claim does not hold particular patentable weight.), as in Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhou teaches the sperm sorting device discussed above further comprising:
a cover 3 configured to sit on top of the base 1 and to receive the sorting unit 2 (Fig. 1 shows the cover 3 for covering the sorting unit 2 and sitting on the base unit 1.), as in Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhou teaches the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein a diameter of the intermediate ring is larger than a diameter of the bottom (Fig. 1 shows the intermediate ring of the tube 1 as having a thickness. Thus, the intermediate ring has a diameter larger than the bottom, which is enclosed by the intermediate ring and does not include its surrounding thickness.), as in Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 20, Zhou teaches a sperm sorting device (Fig. 1: “sperm sorter”) comprising:
a base 1 (Fig. 1) comprising:
a bottom; and a surrounding wall including a coaxial cylinder connecting at a top portion to the bottom via an inner wall surface; wherein the bottom and the inner wall surface together form a specimen space configured to receive a semen specimen (Fig. 1 shows the claimed arrangement of the bottom and the coaxial cylinder to give the overall conical sperm sample container.);
a sorting unit 2 configured to sit on the base 1 (Fig. 1), comprising:
a sleeve 7 surrounding a same axis as the coaxial cylinder and configured to be placed in the coaxial cylinder (Fig. 1 and “The outer diameter of the inner tube 2 is smaller than the inner diameter of the outer tube 1 so that the inner tube 2 can be sleeved on the outer tube 1”),
the sleeve 7 having an inner sleeve surface that extends towards a bottom of the sorting unit 2 (Fig. 1 shows the sleeve of the sorting unit 2 as having an inner cylindrical surface.);
and a sorting filter 4 fixed to the sleeve (Fig. 1: “porous membrane 4”),
the sorting filter 4 and the inner sleeve surface of the sleeve 7 jointly defining a sorting chamber with an open top end (Fig. 1 shows the filter 4 which attaches to the bottom of the sorting unit 2; wherein this defines the sorting chamber with the inner surface of the protruding sleeve of the sorting unit, and the chamber has an open top end.),
a liquid-taking device positioner extended from the inner sleeve surface toward the same axis (Fig. 1 shows the ring 9 as having two position-limiting grooves complementary to the shape of the bottom of the inner tube 2. Therein, the corners of each groove, shown as the “groove bottom portion” in the annotated Fig. 1 above, serve as an equivalent to the socket and insertion hole thereof, given their identical capability of resting and stabilizing of a pipette tip, and their structural similarity as being a recess into which something may be inserted.), wherein the liquid-taking-device positioner is positioned to face upwardly and configured to position a liquid-taking device (Fig. 1 shows the positioner as facing upwardly where a pipette tip or other liquid taking device may be inserted downwardly therethrough. Further, the positioner being formed as a raised edge is fully capable of use to position/rest a liquid-taking device.),
wherein the sorting filter 4 contacts the specimen space when the sleeve of the sorting unit 2 is placed in the coaxial cylinder of the surrounding wall of the base 1 (Fig. 1 shows that when the device is assembled, the filter 4 contacts both the upper chamber and the lower chamber, wherein currently as claimed, either of which may be the specimen space.),
as in Claim 20.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Kane (US 2004/0149659 A1), referred to hereinafter as “Kane”.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhou does not specifically teach the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein the base further comprises a central protruding block including a truncated cone-shaped surface, the bottom includes a wall that surrounds the central protruding block, and the central protruding block includes a set of ribs uniformly spaced on the truncated cone-shaped surface, as in Claim 2.
However, Kane teaches a well containing a filter for processing a biochemical sample, wherein spacer blocks 81/84 projects upwardly from the bottom wall of the well to support the filter 20 (Fig. 5a and 5b). Further, Kane teaches a rib arrangement 5, comprising uniformly shaped ribs projecting upwardly from the bottom wall (Fig. 5a and [0057]); wherein this arrangement assists in tightly mating the fluid accepting container with the filter portion and further assists in supporting the filter (Fig. 5b and [0025]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the sperm sorter of Zhou so as to include a central protruding block and the central protruding block includes a set of ribs uniformly spaced on the truncated cone-shaped surface, such as suggested by Kane, so as to achieve the benefits discussed above; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Further, while Kane does not teach the protrusions of having a “truncated cone shape”, mere change in shape absent evidence to criticality, non-obviousness, or unexpected results associated with the claimed shape is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Additionally, while Kane does not teach the protrusion as being in the center of the base, mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would find that the protrusions of Kane sufficiently perform the same function of supporting the filter layer regardless of their shape or specific position.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Motadel et al. (US 2019/0344258 A1), referred to hereinafter as “Motadel”.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhou does not specifically teach the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein the inner wall surface includes a uniformly-spaced set of ribs disposed thereon, as in Claim 3.
However, Motadel teaches a pipette comprising an interior surface with interior ribs evenly spaced thereon (Fig. 5), wherein this arrangement promotes a tight but reversible fit with the tip of a pipette. Herein, such a reversible friction fitting would be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art for other disposable plasticware and plastic containers such as that of Zhou.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the sperm sorter of Zhou wherein the inner wall surface includes a uniformly-spaced set of ribs disposed thereon, such as suggested by Motadel, so as to provide a tight friction fit between the base and the sorting unit; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou. Zhou has been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhou does not specifically teach the sperm sorting device discussed above further comprising a second sorting unit, as in Claim 10.
However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Herein, it is noted that applicant’s second sorting unit, as claimed, appears to be identical to the first sorting unit, wherein both comprise a rigid ring, a filter, and a protruding ring for connecting to the rigid filter ring. Thus, merely providing an additional filtration layer would provide the obvious result of increased purity, which is not considered an unexpected result. While Applicant refers to the second ring as the liquid drawing ring, this distinction is merely nominal and does provide a different structure to the ring.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to duplicate the sorting unit of Zhou so as to provide additional filtration and provide a purer liquid filtrate; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, when duplicating the sorting unit of Zhou, the features of the first ring are duplicated. Thus, as Zhou teaches a position-limiting groove indented below a top plane of the filter ring (see the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 USC 102 above), one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide a position-limiting groove indented below a top plane of the newly duplicated liquid drawing ring, as in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 19, Zhou teaches a sperm sorting device comprising:
a base 1 (Fig. 1: “outer tube 1”) comprising:
a bottom (“The bottom surface of the outer tube 1 is closed and is used for containing a semen sample.”); and an intermediate ring that connects to an external edge of the bottom via an inner wall surface of the intermediate ring (The cylindrical ring that couples to the circular base to form the open-topped enclosure for holding a sample.),
a sorting unit 2 (Fig. 1: “inner tube 2) comprising:
a sorting ring 9 including a first central hole for a first sorting filter 4 that spans the first central hole and filters the semen specimen (Fig. 1 shows the sorting filter 4 spanning the central hole of ring 9.), wherein a side of the sorting ring 9 facing the sorting filter 4 is beveled at an angle (Fig. 1 shows the ring 9 as having a bevel towards the filter 4 that increases the area of the filter seen by sample passing therethrough.),
a position-limiting groove (Fig. 1 shows the ring 9 as having two position-limiting grooves complementary to the shape of the bottom of the inner tube 2.) having a groove bottom portion (The edge part of the groove as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 above.) and at least one communicating portion (The inner curved part of the groove as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 above.), wherein the groove bottom portion is laterally extended from the inner sleeve surface (The grooves extending from the inner sidewall of the ring towards the central hole coincident with the recited “lateral” orientation, and as discussed above in claim 1)toward the central hole of the protruding ring toward the central hole, wherein the at least one communicating portion includes a sidewall (See the annotated Fig. 1 above.),
as in Claim 19.
Further regarding Claim 19, Zhou does not specifically teach the sperm sorting device discussed above further comprising a second sorting unit, as in Claim 19.
However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Herein, it is noted that applicant’s second sorting unit, as claimed, appears to be identical to the first sorting unit, wherein both comprise a rigid ring, a filter, and a protruding ring for connecting to the rigid filter ring. Thus, merely providing an additional filtration layer would provide the obvious result of increased purity, which is not considered an unexpected result.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to duplicate the sorting unit of Zhou so as to provide additional filtration and provide a purer liquid filtrate; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Claims 8, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Williams et al. (US 2016/0341641 A1), referred to hereinafter as “Williams”.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhou does not specifically teach the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein the sorting ring further comprises: a set of vent holes separated by a position-limiting groove indented below a top plane of the sorting ring, as in Claim 8.
However, Williams teaches a respective collection and filtering apparatus wherein a sample is fed through a filter 20, and wherein a vent 22 allows for pressure equalization between the upper chamber and the lower chamber below the filter, thereby preventing clogging due to pressure differences ([0039]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the sperm sorter of Zhou to include a set of vent holes, such as suggested by Zhou, so as to allow for pressure equalization between chambers to permit flow through the filter; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Further, said vent holes being “separated by a position-limiting groove indented below a top plane of the sorting ring” is seen as an obvious matter of design choice -- mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the vents to function differently depending on their position.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 11 as discussed above. Further, Zhou does not specifically teach the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein the sorting ring of the sorting unit includes a set of vent holes that extend through the sorting ring, as in Claim 12.
However, Williams teaches a respective biological sample collection and filtering apparatus wherein a liquid sample is fed through a filter 20, and wherein a vent 22 allows for pressure equalization between the upper chamber and the lower chamber below the filter, thereby preventing clogging due to pressure differences (Fig. 3 and [0039]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the sperm sorter of Zhou to include a set of vent holes, such as suggested by Zhou, so as to allow for pressure equalization between chambers to permit flow through the filter; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Further, said vent holes “extend[ing] through the sorting ring” is seen as an obvious matter of design choice -- mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the vents to function differently depending on their position.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Zhou does not specifically teach the sperm sorting device discussed above wherein the inner wall surface is angled towards a center of the base, as in Claim 17.
However, Williams teaches a respective biological sample collection and filtering apparatus wherein a liquid sample is fed through a filter 20 and collected in a conical reservoir 13, wherein the inner wall surface is angled towards a center of the base (Fig. 3). Herein, this arrangement allows for small amounts of sample to drip down into the narrow part of the funnel-shape and be more easily collected by a user. Containers of this shape are well-known in the art of disposable laboratory plasticware – see “Falcon Tubes” for example.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the sperm sorter of Zhou such that the inner wall surface is angled towards a center of the base, such as suggested by Williams, so as to allow for small amounts of sample to drip down into the narrow part of the funnel-shape and be more easily collected by a user; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112
Applicant’s amendments sufficiently overcome those indefiniteness rejections of Claims 1-18 set forth by the previous office action. As such, those rejections of Claims 1-18 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
35 USC 102
Applicant’s arguments are on the grounds that Zhou allegedly fails to teach the “position-limiting groove having a groove bottom portion and at least one communicating portion, wherein the groove bottom portion is laterally extended from the inner sleeve surface of the protruding ring toward the central hole (the surface forming the groove bottom portion extends inwardly), wherein the at least one communicating portion includes a sidewall” as in the amendments to Claim 1, as well as the liquid-taking device positioner positioned to face upwardly as in the amendments to Claim 20.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the “position-limiting groove” are not persuasive because, as discussed above in the body of the action, Zhou teaches the sorting ring including a position-limiting groove (Fig. 1 shows the ring 9 as having two position-limiting grooves complementary to the shape of the bottom of the inner tube 2.) having a groove bottom portion (The edge part of the groove as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 below.) and at least one communicating portion (The inner curved part of the groove as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 below.), wherein the groove bottom portion is laterally extended from the inner sleeve surface toward the central hole of the protruding ring toward the central hole, wherein the at least one communicating portion includes a sidewall (See the annotated Fig. 1 below.),
PNG
media_image2.png
364
831
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, Applicant’s arguments regarding the “liquid-taking-device positioner” are not persuasive because, as discussed above in the body of the rejection, Zhou teaches a liquid-taking device positioner capable of positioning a liquid-taking device (the groove bottom portion where a user may rest a pipette tip thereon for stabilization). Fig. 1 shows the ring 9 as having two position-limiting grooves complementary to the shape of the bottom of the inner tube 2. Therein, the corners of each groove, shown as the “groove bottom portion” in the annotated Fig. 1 above, serve as an equivalent to the socket and insertion hole thereof (as in the 35 USC 112(f) Claim Interpretation section above in the body of the action), given their identical capability of resting and stabilizing of a pipette tip or similar, and their structural similarity as being a recess into which something may be inserted. Applicant may wish to claim the specific structure of a protrusion and through hole thereof so as to overcome the equivalents thereof provision of 35 USC 112(f).
Further, in as much as is claimed and required herein, the “liquid taking device positioner” of Zhou faces upwardly, as to accept a pipette tip or other liquid-taking device and provide stabilization thereto via bracing against the groove corner. Applicant has not provided a particular orientation or restriction on the “upwardly” dimension.
Thus, Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of Claims 1 4-7, 9, 13-16, 18, and 20 under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by Zhou.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments are on the grounds that none of the additionally cited references cure the alleged deficiencies in Zhou, and that Claim 19 is amended similarly as in Claim 1 allegedly overcoming Zhou.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because, as discussed in the response above, Zhou displays no such deficiencies relating to the position-limiting groove. Thus, applicant’s arguments are moot as none of the additionally cited references herein are relied on for curing the alleged deficiency in Zhou. Further, regarding Applicant’s assertion over Claim 19, as discussed in the response section above, Zhou teaches each and every aspect of the position-limiting groove of Claims 1 and 19.
Thus, Examiner respectfully maintains those rejections under 35 USC 103 set forth by the previous office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798