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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 28 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20-26, 33 and 34 are being examined on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the flat parallelepiped shape of the test plate as recited in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 26, 33 and 34 are 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 1, line 16-17 recites a second reaction zone “if applicable” render unclear if this limitation is present.
Claim 9 recites “the rinse liquids” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 does not recite rinse liquids.
Claim 15 recites “preferably in a thermal reaction zone of at most 4 cm2”. The term “preferably” renders the limitation indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 recites “the main face” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 16 previously recites “two main faces”. The limitation will be interpreted as “one of the two main faces” for clarity.
Claim 20 recites “a collection container”. It is unclear whether this limitation is referring to the collection container previously recited in claim 12, upon which it depends, or a different collection container. The limitation will be interpreted as “the collection container” for clarity.
Claim 20 recites “tightly closed lid”. The term “tightly” renders the limitation indefinite since it is a term of degree related to the fit or sealing property of the lid that is not described in the specification in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain a standard for measuring the degree of sealing intended. See MPEP 2173.05(b). For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “closed lid".
Claim 22 recites “the air inlet and/or the air outlet” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 22 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites “at least one air inlet” and “at least one air outlet”. The limitations will be interpreted as “the at least one air inlet” and “the at least one air outlet” for clarity.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0130262 to Battrell et al. (cited by applicant) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0125882 to Bornheimer et al. (cited by applicant).
Battrell et al discloses a cartridge 100 (“test plate”) for use in detecting the presence of one or more pathogenic species.
The cartridge includes one or more channels or chambers and reagent reservoirs (“housings”) which are isolated from the external environment. [0014], [0106].
The cartridge includes an inlet port 104 for addition of sample. [0102]
Battrell et al. teaches a solid phase matrix that is briefly dried under a stream of air to remove residual solvent, which necessitates an air inlet and outlet.
Battrell et al. teaches a disk 409 is a glass solid phase adsorbent used in the extraction of nucleic acids from the sample, that reads on an extraction membrane in a first housing. [0107]
Battrell et al. teaches a first reaction zone in which amplification and detection is conducted [0108], containing a first test reaction mixture in lyophilised form [0109] including (paragraph [0106]: dry reagents [0106], the first reaction mixture enabling the amplification and the detection of at least one nucleic acid sequence of interest.
Battrell et al. teaches an adsorbent pad for sequestering liquid wastes generated in the assay, which reads on a recovery reservoir. [0106].
Battrell et al. teaches a detection window [0108] or reading zone that comprises the first reaction zone, and the second reaction zone. The test plate is configured to bring the biological sample to be tested into the extraction membrane. Then after rinsing, drying and elution of said extraction membrane, bring the resulting eluate into the reaction zones, to, after reaction, deduce a result therefrom through the detection/reading zone (paragraphs [0133]-[0135]; fig. 11-13).
Battrell et al does not teach that the first reaction zone contains a porous media arranged in a second housing.
Bornheimer et al. teaches microfluidic devices that include a porous frit in which assay reagents and samples are reacted. [0005], [0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Battrell et al. to include a porous media in the first reaction zone in view of Bornheimer et al teaching the use of a porous media in which to conduct assay reactions in microfluid devices.
I.) As noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites at least a first volume of first rinse liquid, and a volume of eluent, contained directly in the housings of the body or contained in pouches arranged in the housings of the body.
Battrell et al. teaches that the liquid reagents function as buffers, diluents, solvents, eluants, wash reagents, and as rehydrating reagents. In these capacities, the liquids are dispensed as required from their sealed reservoirs into the hydraulics of the device by pneumatic actuation. [0024]
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 2 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites a second volume of a second rinse liquid, the first and second volumes of rinse liquid having a volume of between 100 microliters and 300 microliters.
Battrell et al teaches washing with multiple aliquots of wash buffer [0109] which encompasses multiples wash volumes; however, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. does not specifically teach first and second volumes of rinse liquid having a volume of between 100 microliters and 300 microliters.
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any suitable amount of the multiple wash volumes based on the amount of sample to be analyzed, including volume between 100 microliters and 300 microliters.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 4 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites at least two valves, for directing a flow of fluid from the extraction membrane selectively to the recovery reservoir or to the first reaction zone and, if applicable, the second reaction zone.
As noted above, Battrell et al. teaches an adsorbent pad for sequestering liquid wastes generated in the assay, which reads on a recovery reservoir. [0106].
Battrell et al. further teaches that the fluidly intercommunicating aspects of the device for driving liquids through the hydraulic network is controlled by numerous valves. [0016]
It would have been obvious to modify Barrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. to include at least two valves, for directing a flow of fluid from the extraction membrane selectively to the recovery reservoir or to the first reaction zone.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites a membrane or vent valve, arranged on at least one of the at least one air outlet
Battrell et a. teaches that the cartridge is sealed to prevent loss of biohazardous waste [ 0106] and teaches a vent 803 shown in Fig. 8A and a vent 847 shown in Fig. 8c.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. to include a membrane or vent valve on vent 803 and/or 847 for purposes of being able to prevent any biohazardous material to inadvertently escape though vent 803 and/or 847.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 8 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 10 recites test plate having a generally flat parallelepiped shape, with two main faces with the at least one air inlet and the sample inlet for receiving a biological sample to be teste are arranged on one main face.
As noted above, Battrell et al. teaches at least one air inlet and a sample inlet and the cartridge having a portion that has a generally flat parallelepiped shape with the sample inlet on an upper surface.
Battrell et al. does not teach the location of the at least one air inlet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. to provide the at least one air inlet on the same surface as the sample inlet as a matter of design choice.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that the first housing and the second housing are arranged in proximity to each other.
In Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. the first and second housings are arrange proximity to each other in the limited area of the cartridge.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 15 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the test plate comprises two main faces, opposite each other, and all functional interfaces for testing are located on only one of the two main faces.
Battrell et al. illustrates an embodiment in Fig. 16 that shows functional interfaces on one of the faces of microfluidic cards and teaches that the functional interfaces can be integrated into the cartridge.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 16 obvious.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites a rigid support on which the test plate is mounted, the rigid support integrally covering the main face not having the functional interfaces.
Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. does not teach a rigid support on which the test plate is mounted, the rigid support integrally covering the main face not having the functional interfaces.
In would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. to include rigid support on the face that is opposite to the face having the functional interfaces for purposes of add structural strength to the cartridge.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 18 obvious.
X.) Regarding applicant’s claim 33, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 33 depends.
Claim 33 recites the second reaction zone containing a porous media arranged in a third housing and containing a second control reaction mixture in lyophilized form.
As noted above, Battrell et al. teaches a first reaction zone in which amplification and detection is conducted [0108], and Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. teaches porous media in the first reaction zone.
It would have been obvious to modify Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. to include a third housing and containing a second control reaction mixture in lyophilized form for purposes of provide a control reaction mixture for comparative purposes.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 33 obvious.
2. Claims 3, 9 and 34 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. as applied to claims 1, 2 and 5 and further in view of Chen et al. (“An integrated, self-contained microfluidic cassette for isolation, amplification, and detection of nucleic acids,” Biomed Microdevices. 2010 Aug;12(4):705-19.) (cited by applicant).
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 2 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the eluent contained in the eluent volume is distilled water free of RNAase and/or DNAase and the eluent volume has a volume between 30 microliters and 50 microliters.
Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. does not teach that the eluent is distilled water free of RNAase and/or DNAase and has a volume between 30 microliters and 50 microliters.
Chen et al. teaches pouch P4 discharges elution buffer (low molarity Tris buffer solution or nuclease-free water). (page 6, first full paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. to use nuclease-free distilled water as an eluent in view of Chen et al. teaching the use of nuclease-free water as an eluent.
It would further have been obvious to provide any suitable amount of nuclease-free distilled water based on the amount of sample to be analyzed, including volume between 30 microliters and 50 microliters.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view Bornheimer et al. and Chen et al. renders claim 3 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites an intermediate air outlet is provided arranged near an inlet of the recovery reservoir, to facilitate drying of the membrane after the passage of the rinse liquids.
Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. does not teach an intermediate air outlet is provided arranged near an inlet of the recovery reservoir, to facilitate drying of the membrane after the passage of the rinse liquids.
Chen et al. teaches drying after a washing step. (page 15, first full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. to include an intermediate air outlet provided arranged near an inlet of the recovery reservoir to facilitate drying of the membrane after the passage of the rinse liquids in view of Chen et al. teaching air drying after washing.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. and Chen et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 34, as noted above, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 5 obvious from which claim 34 depends.
Claim 34 recites that each valve of the at least two valves is of the membrane type.
Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. teaches valves, but not membrane valves.
Chen et al. teaches membrane valves in Fig. 4(b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. to include membrane valves as taught by Chen et al. as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (MPEP2143(I))
3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0113221 to Hoffman et al. (cited by applicant).
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites an auxiliary reservoir arranged adjacent to the first reaction zone so as to be able to supply eluate to the first reaction zone by capillary pumping.
Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. does not teach an auxiliary reservoir arranged adjacent to the first reaction zone so as to be able to supply eluate to the first reaction zone by capillary pumping.
Hoffman et al. teaches the use of capillary flow in a microfluidic device that analyzes nucleic acids. [0092]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. to provide for capillary flow of eluate by providing a reservoir of eluate near the first reaction zone as taught by Hoffman et al.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. and Hoffman et al. renders claim 6 obvious.
4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0217293 to Alonzo et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted able Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that the test plate is configured to receive, by plugging in, a collection container containing a biological sample to be tested.
Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. does not teach that the test plate is configured to receive, by plugging in, a collection container containing a biological sample to be tested.
Alonzo et al. teaches a microfluidic device having a sample inlet port that includes an attached Luer lock that permits a syringe filter or cup containing sample fluid to be interfaced with microfluidic device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer at al. to includes a luer lock on the sample inlet so as to permit a cup/container containing a sample to be fed into the sample inlet as taught by Alonzo et al.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. and Alonzo et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
5. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hoffman et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 22, claim 22 recites an analysis station and one or more test plates
As noted above, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. teaches/renders obvious the test plate of claim 1.
Further, Battrell et al. teaches a host instrument 200, shown in Fig. 2 in which a test cartridge is inserted for testing.
Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. does not specifically teach the details of the host instrument.
Hoffman et al. teaches a host instrument 5000 shown in Fig. 1 and shows a block diagram in Fig. 2 that providing an overview of the functional units of the host instrument assay apparatus.
In Fig. 2 Hoffman et al. shows that the host instrument includes a pneumatic valve manifold and a pneumatic control PCB connected to a host controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the host instrument of Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. with the functional units of the host instrument of Hoffman et al., including the pneumatic elements of Hoffman et al. and a pneumatic connector configured to be coupled to the air inlet and/or the air outlet of the cartridge.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. and Hoffman et al. renders claim 22 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 23, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer and Hoffman et al. renders claim 22 obvious from which 23 depends.
Claim 23 recites that the analysis station comprises at least one of the following:
a control unit,
an air pump
one or more actuators to push on volumes and/or activate
an optical analysis device to determine the result,
a heating device
a wireless communication system ,
an identifier reader, and
a cover locking system and a Hall effect sensor for detecting the closing of the cover.
As noted in Fig. 2 of Hoffman et al. the functional units of the host instrument includes a pneumatic control PCB and host controller.
Therefore, Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. and Hoffman et al. renders claim 23 obvious.
6. Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over
Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. and Hoffman et al. as applied to claim 23 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0131327 to Van Dam et al. (cited by applicant).
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 24, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. and Hoffman et al. renders claim 23 obvious from which claim 24 depends.
Claim 24 recites that the analysis station comprises a base configured to receive the test plate, wherein the base comprises a cavity complementary in shape to a main face of the test plate, such that the test plate is snappable into the cavity and removed by exerting a force in an opposite direction to the cavity, wherein the cavity comprises an interface area for the air pump, the one or more actuators, the optical analysis device and the heating device, the interface area being configured to cooperate with a functional interface of the main face of the cartridge.
Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. and Hoffman et al, does not teach that the analysis station comprises a base configured to receive the test plate, wherein the base comprises a cavity complementary in shape to a main face of the test plate, such that the test plate is snappable into the cavity and removed by exerting a force in the opposite direction to the cavity, wherein the cavity comprises an interface area for the air pump, the one or more actuators, the optical analysis device and the heating device, the interface area being configured to cooperate with a functional interface of the main face of the cartridge.
Van Dam et al. teaches an analysis system in which a microfluidic device 50 is loaded in to a cavity of an adaptor 40 that provides a functional interface between the microfluidic device and the adaptor as shown in Fig. 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. and Hoffer et al. to configure the cartridge to be received in the cavity of a base that provides a functional interface between the cartridge and the functional units of Hoffman et al. as taught by Van Dam, as an alternative configuration of the cartridge.
The inclusion of each of an air pump, one or more actuators, an optical analysis device and heating device would have been obvious in view of Hoffman et al. teaching a compact fluorescence detection instrument with optical, thermal, mechanical and pneumohydraulic systems for use in diagnostic assays. [0002].
Therefore, Battrell et al., Bornheimer et al. Hoffman et al. and Van Dam et al. renders claim 24 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 25, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al., Hoffman et al. and Van Dam et al. renders claim 24 obvious from which claim 25 depends.
Claim 25 recites that the optical analysis device and the heating device are arranged in an area of the cavity close to each other.
In Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. Hoffman et al. and Van Dam et al. the heating device and optical analysis device would be close to each other due to the size of the overall device.
Therefore, In Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. Hoffman et al. and Van Dam et al. renders claim 25 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 26, as noted above Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al., Hoffman et al. and Van Dam et al. renders claim 24 obvious from which claim 26 depends.
Claim 26 recites a cover, rotatably mounted with respect to the baseplate and configured to, in an open position, allow an operator to engage and disengage the test plate in the cavity and, in a closed position, to plate the plate in the cavity.
In Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. Hoffman et al. and Van Dam et al. does not teach a cover, rotatably mounted with respect to the baseplate and configured to, in an open position, allow an operator to engage and disengage the test plate in the cavity and, in a closed position, to plate the plate in the cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify In Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. Hoffman et al. and Van Dam et al. to include a cover, rotatably mounted with respect to the baseplate and configured to, in an open position, allow an operator to engage and disengage the test plate in the cavity and, in a closed position, to plate the plate in the cavity, for purposes of preventing inadvertent disruption of analysis and blocking light that would adversely interfere with optical analysis.
Therefore, In Battrell et al. in view of Bornheimer et al. Hoffman et al. and Van Dam et al. renders claim 26 obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 21 (as being dependent on claim 20) would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The cited prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in the context of claims 1, 12, and 20, a collection container that is plugged into the claimed test plate and comprises a sealed inlet and a sealed outlet both arranged at a bottom of the collection container, and a closing lid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 571-272-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798