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 AI
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 6-16 are pending with claims 1 and 6-14 being examined and claims 15-16 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendments and remarks, filed on 7/13/2026, have been entered. The claim amendments overcome the previous prior art rejection, and a new prior art rejection is applied to address the claim amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Einsle (DE 102016225885 A1; hereinafter “Einsle”; already of record on IDS filed 1/30/2023; English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Einsle teaches a device for wetting biological material with at least one liquid (Einsle; Abstract), the device comprising:
at least one retaining device (Einsle; Fig. 1; page 8, para 1; The device according to the invention may be an incubation chamber for slides; the Examiner interprets that the device as the retaining device) has a bottom (Einsle; Fig. 1; page 17, para [2]; a one-piece body 4 with a platform; The examiner interprets the bottom as ) and at least suction device (Einsle; Fig. 1, 2; page 17, para [4]; The lid 5 further comprises an outlet 12 that works as a suction nozzle 12), wherein the retaining device serves to receive a specimen slide in a support plane (Einsle; Fig. 1; page 17, para [2]; a one-piece body 4 with a platform for receiving the slide 2 and a lid 5), and wherein the suction device serves to suction off liquid from a capillary gap between specimen slide and the bottom (Einsle; Fig. 1, 2; page 6, para [6]; a capillary gap can be formed between the slide and the platform in the operative position; page 22, para [7]; both the suction opening 57 as well as the suction channel 54 of the extraction nozzle 12 ' be brought into fluid communication with the liquid located in the capillary gap), and wherein a front side of the suction device does not extend parallel to the support plane, wherein the front side as a whole extends in a single plane or the front side has a convex or concave configuration (Einsle; Fig. 1, 2; Examiner interprets the suction nozzle 12 which is interpreted as the suction device and the front side is interpreted as end 13 which is perpendicular to the support plane and extends in the vertical plane from the lid).
Regarding claim 6, Einsle teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the front side of the suction device extends at an angle in the range from 5° to 45°, with respect to the support plane (Einsle; Fig. 2, 3). The Examiner notes that the suction device is at an angle with respect to the support plane during the opening and closing of the lid. Specifically, Einsle teaches the limitation when the lid pivots between the open configuration and closed configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Einsle teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the front side of the suction device is in contact with the specimen slide and a side wall of the retaining device and a back wall of the retaining device at least during a suction process (Einsle; Fig. 1, 2, 6; page 13, para [2]; The suction nozzle can be anchored in the lid so that it can be brought to a predetermined position of the incubation chamber when closing the lid, which is assigned to the corner region of the slide). Examiner notes that the suction nozzle is positioned within the extraction point 35, thus contacting the back wall and side walls.
Regarding claim 8, Einsle teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein a free end of the suction device, is in contact with the specimen slide and with a rounded corner of the retaining device at least during a suction process (Einsle; Fig. 6; page 13, para [2]; the suction nozzle can be arranged in the incubation chamber so that the suction opening encloses the corner of the not in the collecting position or only slightly raised corner region of the slide… the corner of the slide can protrude into the suction opening of the suction nozzle, so that by closing the lid of the incubation on the one hand, a fluid connection between the located in the capillary liquid and the suction opening), wherein the rounded corner connects a back wall and a side wall of the retaining device to one another (Einsle; Fig. 6; examiner notes that the back wall is interpreted as 40 and side wall interpreted as 37).
Regarding claim 9, Einsle teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the suction device is formed at least in regions as a hose or tube (Einsle; page 14, para [6]; the suction channel leads through the lid of the incubation chamber and can be connected to a suction tube). The Examiner notes that the tube is part of the suction device.
Regarding claim 10, Einsle teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the bottom of the retaining device has at least two planes, such that an upper bottom surface and a lower bottom surface are realized (Einsle; page 19, para [4]; The main body 4 includes the platform or bottom plate 34). The Examiner notes that the planes are not structurally described. Thus, the Examiner interprets the “upper bottom surface” as the bottom surface side with the extraction point, and the “lower bottom surface as the side towards the front.
Regarding claim 11, Einsle teaches the device according to claim 10, wherein a support is formed on the lower bottom surface, and wherein the support projects at least substantially up to the height of the upper bottom surface (Einsle; Fig. 7; page 20, para [2]; The spacers 36 can relative to the platform or floor plate 34 in particular have a height of 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm).
Regarding claim 12, Einsle teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the support is formed spaced apart from further elements of the retaining device wherein it projects freely from the lower bottom surface (Einsle; Fig. 7; page 20, para [2]; The spacers 36 can relative to the platform or floor plate 34 in particular have a height of0.05 mm to 0.2 mm).
Regarding claim 13, Einsle teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein at least one support surface is formed on a bottom of the retaining device, and wherein the support surface extends from a side wall to a back wall of the retaining device (Einsle; Fig. 6; page 20, para [2]; the base body 4 comprises boundary elements 37, 38, and 39 which the lateral movement or the slipping of the slide 2 in the incubation chamber 1' can limit).
Regarding claim 14, Einsle teaches the device according to claim 10, wherein a heating device with at least one heating element is arranged for heating the at least one retaining device, wherein the heating element is dimensioned in such a way that the entire bottom of the retaining device and/or, if appropriate, the entire upper bottom surface of the retaining device is sufficiently heated, irrespective of its size (Einsle; page 22, para [3]; an efficient and rapid temperature transfer from one below the platform or bottom plate34 lying temperature element, such as a heat source, on the platform or bottom plate34 into the incubation chamber 1' remains possible).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered and some of the arguments are found to be persuasive. However, those arguments are directed towards the claim amendments. The examiner notes that the previous prior art rejection is withdrawn and a new prior art rejection is applied to address the claim amendments. Further, the argument not found to be persuasive is addressed below.
The Examiner relies on Einsle (DE 102016225885 A1) to teaches the claim amendments. The Applicant argues that Einsle fails to teaches the claim amendment limitation of a “front side”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Einsle teaches the suction nozzle as discussed above, and as seen in Figures 1 and 2. Specifically, the suction nozzle 12 which is interpreted as the suction device and the front side is interpreted as end 13 which is perpendicular to the support plane and extends in the vertical plane from the lid.
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 Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/A.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights