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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 106 and 153 – 172 in the reply filed on 28 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 29 November 2023, 07 July 2025, and 21 November 2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: groove 1814; image system 1017; door face 1015; optics 140; ejection bar 910; pins 2322; undulating springs 1930b, 1930c, 1930d; rail member 310a; pair of two latch members 310b; rail member 312a; pair of latch members 312b; connector 2110.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 33, 35, 3230, 702, 904.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the following reference characters have been used to designate multiple parts;
“100” has been used to designate both “instrument” and “computer system” (see [0052])
“300” has been used to designate both “block assembly” and “sample blocks” (see [0084])
“302” has been used to designate both “sample block” and “thermal blocks” (see [0069])
“1018” has been used to designate both “voice system” and “microphones” (see [0098])
“1900” has been used to designate both “sample block” and “sample holder” (see [0133])
“1924” has been used to designate both “pin” and “cross member” (see [0131])
“2000” has been used to designate “sample carriage”, “microtiter plate”, and “sample holder” (see [0133])
“1202a” and “1202b” have been used to designate both “devices” and “RFID readers/writers” (see [0105]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 153 – 155, 157, 165, 166, and 171 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 153 recites the limitation "at least one of the blocks" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 153 to mean, “at least one of the first block or the second block.”
Claim 154 recites the limitation “at least one of the blocks” in lines 1, 2, and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 154 to mean “at least one of the first block or the second block.”
Claim 155 recites the limitation “one or more of the connector elements” in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 155 to mean “one or more of the first block connector element, a first cover connector element, a second block connector element, or the second block connector element.”
Claim 157 recites the limitation “at least one of the projecting portions” in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 157 to mean “at least one of the first projecting portion or the second projecting portion.”
Claim 165 recites the limitation “at least one of the projecting portions” in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 165 to mean “at least one of the first projecting portion or the second projecting portion.”
Claim 166 recites the limitation “at least one of the projecting portions” in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 166 to mean “at least one of the first projecting portion or the second projecting portion.”
Claim 171 recites the limitation “the first cover cavity” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 171 to mean “the first block cavity.”
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.
Claims 106, 153, and 155 – 172 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boo et al (US 20200241023 A1, cited on the IDS provided 7 July 2022; effectively filed 30 January 2019) in view of Amphenol Industrial (Amphenol Industrial, “So, You Want to Know Connectors… REFERENCE GUIDE to Cylindrical Connectors,” 2017).
With regards to claim 106, Boo et al teaches;
The claimed “a biological analysis system” has been read on the taught (Abstract, “A system for biological analysis…”);
The claimed “a first block configured to receive a sample holder comprising a biological sample” has been read on the taught ([0046], “…the sample block 302 may be configured to receive a sample holder 316. The sample holder 316 […] comprises a microtiter plate including a plurality of reaction sites 317…” );
The claimed “the first block comprising a first block connector” has been read on the taught (Claim 1, “the sample block comprising a first connector…”);
The claimed first block connector “including a first block connector element in electrical communication with a first block electrical conductor” has been read on the taught (Claim 2, “The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the connectors are electrical connectors configured to provide electrical power and/or communication between the system and the sample block and between the system and the cover.”; Boo et al teaches that mated connectors are known, as read on the taught [0052], “…a first connector member 504 (e.g. a female connector)…”. A female connector contains sockets and implies a mated male connector containing pins. The sockets and/or pins reads on a first block connector element; [0026], “The communication may be achieved via a physical connection between (e.g., an electrical wire, an electrical cable […])…”; An electrical cable reads on a first block electrical conductor);
The claimed “a first cover configured to cover the first block” has been read on the taught ([0046], “… the block assembly 300 may also include a cover 800…”);
The claimed “the first cover comprising a first cover connector” has been read on the taught (Claim 1, “…the cover comprising a third connector…”);
The claimed first cover connector “including a first cover connector element in electrical communication with a first cover electrical conductor” has been read on the taught (Claim 2, “The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the connectors are electrical connectors configured to provide electrical power and/or communication between the system and the sample block and between the system and the cover.”; Boo et al teaches that mated connectors are known, as read on the taught [0052], “…a first connector member 504 (e.g. a female connector)…”. A female connector contains sockets and implies a mated male connector containing pins. The sockets and/or pins reads on a first cover connector element; [0026], “The communication may be achieved via a physical connection between (e.g., an electrical wire, an electrical cable […])…”; An electrical cable reads on a first cover electrical conductor);
The claimed “the first cover connector is configured to engage the first block connector to provide electrical continuity between the first block electrical conductor and the first cover electrical conductor” has been read on the taught (Claim 2, “The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the connectors are electrical connectors configured to provide electrical power and/or communication between the system and the sample block and between the system and the cover.”).
In the preferred embodiment taught by Boo et al, the electrical wiring is arranged such that the sample block is electrically connected to a supportive base (see [0052] and claim 1) and such that the cover is electrically connected to an automated cover holder (see [0056] and claim 1). In light of this, the limitation “wherein the first cover connector is configured to engage the first block connector to provide electrical continuity between the first block electrical conductor and the first cover electrical conductor” is held to be mere rearrangement of parts. According to MPEP2144.04(VI)(C), the rearrangement of parts may be an obvious matter of design choice—please see In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As such, it would have been as obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connectors as taught by Boo et al to connect the block and the cover, for the predictable result of allowing electrical communication between the block and cover when joined together.
Boo et al does not explicitly disclose the second block, second block connector, second block connector element, second block electrical conductor, second cover, second cover connector, second cover connector element, or second cover electrical conductor—however, the second block and cover are arranged identically to the first block and cover. As such, this is held to be mere duplication of parts. According to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”—see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, the limitations regarding the second block and cover configuration would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, Boo et al does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of (1) the first block connector is configured to prevent electrical continuity between the first block electrical conductor and the second cover electrical conductor, or (2) the second block connector is configured to prevent electrical continuity between the second block electrical conductor and the first cover electrical conductor.
In the analogous art of electrical conductors, Amphenol Industrial teaches; The claimed “wherein at least one of the (1) the first block connector is configured to prevent electrical continuity between the first block electrical conductor and the second cover electrical conductor, or (2) the second block connector is configured to prevent electrical continuity between the second block electrical conductor and the first cover electrical conductor” has been read on the taught (Page 16, Potting, “Potting - Sealing of a component (for example the cable end of a multiple contact connector) with a plastic compound or material to exclude moisture, prevent short circuits and provide strain relief.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first block connector as taught by Boo et al with the insulating potting as taught by Amphenol Industrial, for the benefit of preventing short circuits between components of the device (Page 16, Potting, “Potting - Sealing of a component (for example the cable end of a multiple contact connector) with a plastic compound or material to exclude moisture, prevent short circuits and provide strain relief.”).
With regards to claim 153, the system of claim 106 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
Boo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “a sample holder disposed on or in at least one of the blocks” has been read on the taught ([0046], “…the sample block 302 may be configured to receive a sample holder 316. The sample holder 316 […] comprises a microtiter plate including a plurality of reaction sites 317…”).
With regards to claim 155, the system of claim 106 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
Boo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein one or more of the connector elements is an electrically conductive pin, electrically conductive boss, electrically conductive wire or cable end, or connector element” has been read on the taught ([0026], “As used herein, the terms “communication”, “electrical communication”, or “electronic communication” generally means communication between two or more electronic components (e.g., electronic devices or electronic systems). The communication may be achieved via a physical connection between (e.g., an electrical wire, an electrical cable […])…”; an electrical wire or electrical cable reads on a wire or cable end.).
With regards to claim 172, the system of claim 106 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
Boo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the system comprises a system configured to perform one or more of a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, experiment, or test; a real-time PCR assay, experiment, or test; a digital PCR assay, experiment, or test; a flow cytometry assay, experiment, or test; or a capillary electrophoresis assay, experiment, or test” has been read on the taught ([0001], “The present disclosure relates broadly, but not exclusively, to biological analysis systems and related methods, including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) systems.”).
Regarding claims 156 – 172, these limitations describe well-known structural features of pin and cylindrical pin and socket electrical connectors. For clarity, an annotated figure is provided below, taken from Amphenol Industrial;
PNG
media_image1.png
331
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 156, the system of claim 106 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
Boo et al does not explicitly disclose any details of the connectors.
Amphenol Industrial teaches;
“A first block connector” reads on a pin insert connector;
“The first block connector comprising a first block cavity” reads on the space around the pins;
“A first cover connector” reads on the mated socket insert connector;
“The first cover connector comprising a first projecting portion configured to fit at least partially inside the first block cavity” reads on the portion of the socket insert connector housing the sockets.
Please see annotated diagram on page 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biological analysis system including a connector with the details of the connectors as taught by Amphenol Industrial. According to MPEP 2143(I)(B), simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Boo et al contains a device which differs from the claimed device only by substitution of a generic connector with the specific connectors claimed. The substituted components and their functions are known in the art of Amphenol Industrial. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the known connectors in place of the generic connectors, for the predictable result of creating a device with a reliable electrical connection.
With regards to claim 157, the system of claim 156 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
Boo et al does not explicitly disclose details of the connectors.
The claimed “wherein at least one of the projecting portions is a boss” is held to be prima facie obvious, as one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that a boss is defined as a projecting portion. See also the plastic projection marked “first projecting portion,” in the annotated figure taken from Amphenol Industrial, which reads on a boss.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biological analysis system including a connector with the details of the connectors as taught by Amphenol Industrial. According to MPEP 2143(I)(B), simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Boo et al contains a device which differs from the claimed device only by substitution of a generic connector with the specific connectors claimed. The substituted components and their functions are known in the art of Amphenol Industrial. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the known connectors in place of the generic connectors, for the predictable result of creating a device with a reliable electrical connection.
With regards to claim 158, the system of claim 156 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
Boo et al does not explicitly disclose details of the connectors.
Amphenol Industrial additionally teaches;
“The first projecting portion comprising a first annulus having a first inner volume containing the first cover connector element” reads on the sockets being disposed within the projecting portion;
“The first block cavity comprising the first block connector element” reads on the pins being disposed within the connector;
Amphenol Industrial further teaches that slots, grooves, and crossmembers are well known in the art, as read on the taught (Page 16, keying, “Keying - Mechanical arrangement of guide pins and sockets, keying plugs, contacts, bosses, slots, keyways, inserts or grooves in a connector housing, shell or insert that allows connectors of the same size and type to be lined up without the danger of making a wrong connection.”).
The claimed “slotted, grooved, and/or cutout wall portion” reads on a keyway or groove.
The claimed “crossmember” reads on an insert.
Please see annotated diagram on page 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device including connectors as taught by Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial, for the benefit of allowing the connectors to be lined up without the danger of making a wrong connection, as taught by Amphenol Industrial (Page 16, keying, “Keying - Mechanical arrangement of guide pins and sockets, keying plugs, contacts, bosses, slots, keyways, inserts or grooves in a connector housing, shell or insert that allows connectors of the same size and type to be lined up without the danger of making a wrong connection.”).
With regards to claim 159, the system of claim 158 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
According to MPEP 2144.04(V)(B), making pieces integral may be prima facie obvious—please see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). As such, the limitation “wherein the crossmember and the second block connector element form a single piece” is held to be a matter of obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, claim 159 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
With regards to claim 160, the system of claim 158 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
According to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), duplication of parts may be prima facie obvious—please see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Likewise, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious—please see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). As such, the limitation of “wherein the second annulus includes two slotted, grooved, and/or cutout wall portions located about 180 degrees apart about a circumference of the second annulus” is held to be a matter of obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, claim 160 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
With regards to claim 161, the system of claim 158 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
According to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious—please see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). As such, the limitation of “wherein the first cover connector element is recessed within the first annulus of the first projecting portion by a first distance; and the second block connector element protrude away from the crossmember by a second distance that is less than the first distance” is held to be a matter of obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, for the predictable result of preventing an undesired connection between the first cover connector element and the second block connector element. Therefore, claim 161 is obvious over Boo et al in view Amphenol Industrial.
With regards to claim 162, the system of claim 158 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
According to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious—please see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). As such, the limitation of “wherein the second cover connector element is recessed within the second annulus of the first projecting portion by a third distance; and the first block connector element protrude away from a floor of the first block cavity by a fourth distance that is less than the third distance” is held to be a matter of obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, for the predictable result of preventing an undesired connection between the first cover connector element and the second block connector element. Therefore, claim 162 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
With regards to claim 163, the system of claim 158 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
Amphenol Industrial teaches that slots, grooves, and crossmembers disposed in connectors are well known in the art, as read on the taught (Page 16, keying, “Keying - Mechanical arrangement of guide pins and sockets, keying plugs, contacts, bosses, slots, keyways, inserts or grooves in a connector housing, shell or insert that allows connectors of the same size and type to be lined up without the danger of making a wrong connection.”).
The claimed “slotted, grooved, and/or cutout wall portion” reads on a keyway or groove.
The claimed “crossmember” reads on an insert.
Please see annotated diagram on page 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device including connectors as taught by Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial, for the benefit of allowing the connectors to be lined up without the danger of making a wrong connection, as taught by Amphenol Industrial (Page 16, keying, “Keying - Mechanical arrangement of guide pins and sockets, keying plugs, contacts, bosses, slots, keyways, inserts or grooves in a connector housing, shell or insert that allows connectors of the same size and type to be lined up without the danger of making a wrong connection.”).
With regards to claim 164, the system of claim 106 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
Boo et al does not explicitly disclose any details of the connectors.
Amphenol Industrial teaches details of connectors.
The limitations of this claim are identical to those of claim 156 excepting that the structures previous identified for the block connector are now applied to the cover connector, and vice versa. As these structures are outlined in the annotated diagram on page 11 and as rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), claim 164 is rejected as obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial, following the analysis of claim 156.
With regards to claim 165, the system of claim 164 is obvious over Boo et al in view Amphenol Industrial.
The limitations of this claim are identical to those of claim 157 excepting that the structures previous identified for the block connector are now applied to the cover connector, and vice versa. As these structures are outlined in the annotated diagram on page 11, and as rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), claim 165 is rejected as obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial, following the analysis of claim 157.
With regards to claim 166, the system of claim 164 is obvious over Boo et al in view Amphenol Industrial.
The limitations of this claim are identical to those of claim 158 excepting that the structures previous identified for the block connector are now applied to the cover connector, and vice versa. As these structures are outlined in the annotated diagram on page 11, and as rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), claim 166 is rejected as obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial, following the analysis of claim 158.
With regards to claim 167, the system of claim 166 is obvious over Boo et al in view Amphenol Industrial.
The limitations of this claim are identical to those of claim 159 excepting that the structures previous identified for the block connector are now applied to the cover connector, and vice versa. As these structures are outlined in the annotated diagram on page 11, and as rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), claim 167 is rejected as obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial, following the analysis of claim 159.
With regards to claim 167, the system of claim 166 is obvious over Boo et al in view Amphenol Industrial.
The limitations of this claim are identical to those of claim 159 excepting that the structures previous identified for the block connector are now applied to the cover connector, and vice versa. As these structures are outlined in the annotated diagram on page 11, and as rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), claim 167 is rejected as obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial, following the analysis of claim 159.
With regards to claim 168, the system of claim 158 is obvious over Boo et al in view Amphenol Industrial.
The limitations of this claim are identical to those of claim 160 excepting that the structures previous identified for the block connector are now applied to the cover connector, and vice versa. As these structures are outlined in the annotated diagram on page 11, and as rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), claim 168 is rejected as obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial, following the analysis of claim 160.
With regards to claim 169, the system of claim 158 is obvious over Boo et al in view Amphenol Industrial.
The limitations of this claim are identical to those of claim 161 excepting that the structures previous identified for the block connector are now applied to the cover connector, and vice versa. As these structures are outlined in the annotated diagram on page 11, and as rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), claim 169 is rejected as obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial, following the analysis of claim 161.
With regards to claim 170, the system of claim 158 is obvious over Boo et al in view Amphenol Industrial.
The limitations of this claim are identical to those of claim 162, excepting that the structures previous identified for the block connector are now applied to the cover connector, and vice versa. As these structures are outlined in the annotated diagram on page 11, and as rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), claim 170 is rejected as obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial, following the analysis of claim 162.
With regards to claim 171, the system of claim 158 is obvious over Boo et al in view Amphenol Industrial.
The limitations of this claim are identical to those of claim 163, excepting that the structures previous identified for the block connector are now applied to the cover connector, and vice versa. As these structures are outlined in the annotated diagram on page 11, and as rearrangement of parts may be prima facie obvious (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), claim 171 is rejected as obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial, following the analysis of claim 163.
Claim 154 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boo et al (US 20200241023 A1, cited on the IDS provided 7 July 2022; effectively filed 30 January 2019) in view of Amphenol Industrial (Amphenol Industrial, “So, You Want to Know Connectors… REFERENCE GUIDE to Cylindrical Connectors,” 2017) as applied to claim 106 above, and further in view of Andrews et al (US 7449090 B2).
With regards to claim 154, the system of claim 106 is obvious over Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial.
Boo et al additionally teaches a member configure disposed on a surface of at least one of the blocks and configured to apply a force to the sample holder in a direction away from the at least one of the blocks, as read on the taught ([0079], “…the block assembly 300 further includes at least one ejector member 600 configured to at least partially raise the sample holder 316 away from the sample block 302 when in the open position.”).
However, Boo et al in view of Amphenol Industrial does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the blocks comprises a wavy spring.
In the analogous art of chemical devices including biasing members, Andrews et al teaches;
A wavy spring disposed on a lower surface and configured to apply a force in a direction away from the lower surface, as read on the taught (Column 12, line 58, “…an alternative single electrochemical cell 30 having a separation spring 32, such as a wave spring or wavy washer, to retract the anode substrate/electrocatalyst 12, 14 away from the ion exchange membrane 16 when the compression is relaxed, such as when the nut 24 is threaded away from the head of the bolt 22.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device including an ejector member to raise the sample holder away from the block as taught by Boo et al with the wavy spring as taught by Andrews et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(B), simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Boo et al contains a device which differs from the claimed device only by substitution of a generic ejector member with the wavy springs claimed. The substituted components and their functions are known in the art of Andrews et al. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the known wavy spring in place of the generic ejector member, for the predictable result of providing a force perpendicular to the spring.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30pm EST.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797 Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797/LYLE ALEXANDER/