DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
As to the amended claims and remarks, filed on 8/13/26, the previous prior art rejections are withdrawn, and new modified rejections have been applied.
Based on the remarks, the previous 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-14, 16-17, 20-21, 31, 35-49 are pending with claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-14, 44-49 being examined and claims 16-17, 20-21, 31, 35-43 deemed withdrawn.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-14, 44-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Johansen et al (US 20130260410; hereinafter “Johansen”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Johansen teaches a device configured to overlay a multi-well plate (Johansen; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76]), the device comprising a substrate panel having a top surface and a bottom surface and including an array of openings (Johansen; Fig. 1-3); an array of dispensing stations, each dispensing station corresponding to one of the array of openings and including: at least one support rib extending from the substrate panel, a dispensing surface supported by and integral to the at least one support rib, the dispensing surface including a solid portion bounded by a simple closed curve and configured for receiving and retaining a liquid droplet, the solid portion having a droplet receiving surface that faces an opening of the array of openings, the droplet receiving surface being convex (Johansen teaches dispensing stations as the portions shown in figure 2 below, which are have a continuous closed curve and where there is a convex portion such that the convex portion faces the top array; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76]. In this embodiment, there is a protruding downward finger/rib that supports cutout, and there is a gaps on the sides through which fluid can flow; [26]. The materials of Fig. 1-3 of Johansen are one continuous material that is integral; Fig. 1-3, [26-28]. The examiner notes that the function of what the surface is configured for is a matter of intended use and that the surface of Johansen is capable of receiving and retaining a droplet. The examiner notes that a viscous fluid or high surface tension or small quantity of fluid would be retained by the surface, and that the fluid is not claimed).
PNG
media_image2.png
10
35
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Johnson showing convex portion.
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the array of openings and the array of dispensing stations are configured to correspond to at least a portion of an array of wells in the multi-well plate (Johansen; 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76], and see claim 1 above. How the dispensing stations are configured to correspond to an array of wells in a plate is a matter of intended use and/or function as the array of wells in the plate have not been positively recited as part of the overlay device, and any array of wells could be configured accordingly to match the stations in the prior art).
As to claim 3, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one support rib is configured to support the dispensing surface above a bottom of a well in the multi-well plate when at least a portion of the bottom surface of the substrate panel contacts a multi-well plate top surface (Johansen; 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76], and see claim 1 above. How the dispensing stations are configured in relation to an array of wells in a plate is a matter of intended use and/or function as the array of wells in the plate have not been positively recited as part of the overlay device, and any array of wells could be configured accordingly to match the stations in the prior art).
As to claim 8, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the dispensing surface is substantially parallel to the bottom surface of the substrate panel (Johansen teaches that dispensing surface has perimeter edges at the bottom which are substantially parallel to bottom of the lid/substrate; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76], and see claim 1 above).
As to claim 9, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the dispensing surface is disposed at a substantially non-parallel angle with respect to the bottom surface of the substrate panel (Johansen teaches that dispensing surface, which is convex in the middle, has edges that are not parallel to the bottom; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76], and see claim 1 above).
As to claim 12, Johansen teaches the device of claim 11, wherein a surface texture of the dispensing surface is configured to retain a liquid droplet placed thereon via surface tension, preventing the liquid droplet from exiting the dispensing surface via the side portions (Johansen teaches the surface made of plastics which would have a texture; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76], and see claim 1 above. The examiner notes that a viscous fluid or high surface tension or small quantity of fluid would be retained by the surface, and that the fluid is not claimed).
As to claim 13, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the substrate panel is configured to overlay the multi-well plate with the array of dispensing stations extending into respective wells of the multi-well plate (Johansen; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76], and see claim 1 above. How the dispensing stations are configured to overlay a plate is a matter of intended use and/or function as the array of wells in the plate have not been positively recited as part of the overlay device, and any array of wells could be configured accordingly to match the stations in the prior art. The examiner notes that the function of what the surface is configured for is a matter of intended use and that the surface of Johansen is capable of receiving and retaining a droplet. The examiner notes that a viscous fluid or high surface tension or small quantity of fluid would be retained by the surface, and that the fluid is not claimed).
As to claim 14, Johansen teaches the device of claim 13, wherein the array of dispensing stations is configured, when liquid droplets are placed on respective dispensing surfaces of the array of dispensing stations, to release the liquid droplets into the respective wells when a mechanical force is applied to the multi-well plate (Johansen; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76], and see claim 1 above. How the dispensing stations are configured to correspond to an array of wells in a plate is a matter of intended use and/or function as the array of wells in the plate have not been positively recited as part of the overlay device, and any array of wells could be configured accordingly to match the stations in the prior art. The examiner notes that the function of what the surface is configured for is a matter of intended use and that the surface of Johansen is capable of receiving and retaining a droplet. The examiner notes that a viscous fluid or high surface tension or small quantity of fluid would be retained by the surface, and that the fluid is not claimed).
As to claim 44, Johansen teaches a device configured to overlay a multi-well plate (Johansen; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76]), the device comprising a substrate panel having a top surface and a bottom surface and including an array of openings(Johansen; Fig. 1-3); an array of dispensing stations, each dispensing station corresponding to one of the array of openings and including: at least one support rib extending from the substrate panel, a dispensing surface supported by the at least one support rib, the dispensing surface including circular a solid portion bounded by a closed curve and configured for receiving and retaining a liquid droplet, the solid portion having a major surface that is at a substantially non-parallel angle with respect to the bottom surface of the substrate panel, wherein the array of dispensing stations is configured, when liquid droplets are placed on respective dispensing surfaces of the array of dispensing stations, to retain the liquid droplets until a mechanical force is applied to the multi-well plate and to release the liquid droplets only if such mechanical force is applied to the multi-well plate (Johansen teaches dispensing stations as the portions shown in figure 2 below, which are have a continuous closed curve and where there is a convex portion such that the convex portion faces the top array; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76]. The dispensing surface of Johansen being circular can be seen in figure 2 below. The convex portion shown below in figure 2 is considered the major surface, and the curves show that it is substantially non-parallel with respect to the bottom substrate. In this embodiment, there is a protruding downward finger/rib that supports cutout, and there is a gaps on the sides through which fluid can flow; [26]. The materials of Fig. 1-3 of Johansen are one continuous material that is integral; Fig. 1-3, [26-28]. The examiner notes that the function of what the surface is configured for is a matter of intended use and that the surface of Johansen is capable of receiving and retaining a droplet. The examiner notes that a viscous fluid or high surface tension or small quantity of fluid would be retained by the surface, and that the fluid is not claimed).
PNG
media_image2.png
10
35
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
30
36
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Johnson showing convex portion and also circular cross section.
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 45, Johansen teaches the device of claim 44, wherein the dispensing surface is integral to the at least one support rib (Johansen; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76], and see claim 44 above. The materials of Fig. 1-3 of Johansen are one continuous material that is integral; Fig. 1-3, [26-28].).
As to claim 46, Johansen teaches the device of claim 44, and wherein the major surface of the solid portion is convex (Johansen discloses a convex portion; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76], and see claim 44 above).
As to claim 47, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the array of dispensing stations is configured, when liquid droplets are placed on respective dispensing surfaces of the array of dispensing stations, to retain the liquid droplets until a mechanical force is applied to the multi-well plate and to release the liquid droplets only if such mechanical force is applied to the multi-well plate (Johansen; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76], and see claim 1 above The examiner notes that the function of what the surface is configured for is a matter of intended use and that the surface of Johansen is capable of receiving and retaining a droplet. The examiner notes that a viscous fluid or high surface tension or small quantity of fluid would be retained by the surface, and that the fluid is not claimed).
As to claim 48, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a perimeter of the dispensing surface is substantially parallel to the bottom surface of the substrate panel (Johansen teaches that dispensing surface has perimeter edges at the bottom which are substantially parallel to bottom of the lid/substrate; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76], and see claim 1 above).
As to claim 49, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a perimeter of the dispensing surface is disposed at a substantially non-parallel angle with respect to the bottom surface of the substrate panel (Johansen teaches that dispensing surface has perimeter edges at the joining of the fingers, whereby the portions which meet the fingers are not parallel to the bottom of the substrate panel; Figs. 1-3, [26-28, 49, 74, 76], and see claim 1 above. Alternatively, the dispensing surface, as only the inner portion that is convex would be non-parallel to the bottom of the substrate panel).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/26 have been fully considered but they are moot as they are towards the claim amendments and not the current ground of rejection, which was modified to address the amended claims.
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 BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights