DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 1/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the final Office Action mailed 12/3/2025.
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 (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 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, 3-8, 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2019/0368983, hereinafter Einsle.
Regarding claim 1, Einsle teaches a capillary processing module (item 1) comprising: a chamber (item 4) comprising a chamber floor (item 34) and one or more chamber sidewalls (the sides of item 4), a plurality of slide supports (item 36) positioned on the chamber floor (figure 6) and capable of forming a capillary gap between the chamber floor and a slide (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is taught in paragraph [0032]); and a rotatable crank (item 15) extending from one or more chamber sidewalls inside and outside the chamber (item 15 is considered to extend from one or more chamber sidewalls inside and outside of the chamber).
Regarding claim 3, Einsle teaches wherein the crank comprises an asymmetric portion (figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Einsle teaches further comprising a chamber lid (item 19) movably connected to the chamber (figures 2 and 3), wherein the chamber lid is movable between open and closed positions (figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Einsle teaches wherein the chamber lid (item 19) is attached to a frame (item 5) configured to move the chamber lid between open and closed positions (figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, Einsle teaches a heater on the chamber (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Einsle teaches wherein the capillary processing module comprises an inlet (item 35) in the one or more chamber sidewalls (figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, Einsle teaches wherein the chamber comprises one or more surfaces having an inert, corrosion resistant coating (paragraphs [0054]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 22, Einsle teaches wherein the chamber has first (item 35) and second (item 48) recesses separated by a processing area (figure 6).
Regarding claim 24, Einsle teaches wherein the capillary gap between the chamber floor and the slide has a height between about 0.01 mm and about 0.3 mm (paragraph [0119]).
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einsle in view of United States Application Publication No. 2001/0046700, hereinafter Custance.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Einsle teaches a fluid port on the chamber lid (item 12).
However, Einsle fails to teach a port plug with a plug arm configured to seal the port.
Custance teaches a device for holding slides in which a slide cover it utilized which covers the slides and an injection port with polyethylene plugs with the upper portion of the plug being considered a plug arm as it would allow for the slide to be covered and liquid to be added directly onto each slide and seal the ports when not in use (Custance, paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a port plug with a plug arm configured to seal the port because it would allow for the ports to be sealed when not in use (Custance, paragraph [0031]).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einsle in view of United States Application Publication No. 2006/0120925, hereinafter Takayama.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Einsle teaches all limitations of claim 6; however, Einsle fails to teach the heater comprises heater tracks made of a resistive heating material and heater tracks are positioned to defined one or more heated zones and one or more unheated zones.
Takayama teaches a slide treatment apparatus which has a heater adjacent to the tank surface with a temperature sensor so that a set temperature can be inputted by the user (Takayama, abstract) with heater tracks made of a resistive heating element and are positioned to defined one or more heated zones and one or more unheated zones (Takayama, figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the heater on the chamber with a temperature sensor described in Takayama as the heater in Einsle because it would allow for the user to set a temperature of the chamber (Takayama, abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Einsle teaches all limitations of 5; however, Einsle fails to teach the chamber lid is attached to the frame by a plurality of fasteners positioned along a long axis of the chamber lid.
Takayama teaches a slide treatment apparatus which has a chamber lid is attached to the frame by the plurality of fasteners (Takayama, item 23) positioned along a long axis of the chamber lid (Takayama, figure 4).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a lid connected with a plurality of fasters positioned along a long axis of the chamber lid) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a lid connected on the short end of the chamber lid) with other component(s) (i.e., a lid connected with a plurality of fasters positioned along a long axis of the chamber lid), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a lid connected on the short end of the chamber lid with a lid connected with a plurality of fasters positioned along a long axis of the chamber lid), and the results of the substitution (i.e., opening and closing the lid) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute a lid connected on the short end of the chamber lid of reference Einsle with a lid connected with a plurality of fasters positioned along a long axis of the chamber lid of reference Takayama, since the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einsle in view of United States Patent No. 4,152,390, hereinafter Nosco.
Regarding claim 21, Einsle teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Einsle fails to teach the crank further comprises a drive end that engages a gear, and one or more springs are positioned to apply a force from the gear to the drive end so that the chamber is sealed from a surrounding environment.
Nosco teaches a chemical analyzer which has a spring clutch which is connected to a gear so that the spring can tighten on the drive shaft which causes the gear to rotate and then releases the shaft (Nosco, columns 5-6, lines 63-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a drive end which engages a gear and one or more springs because it would allow the spring to tighten on the drive shaft which causes the gear to rotate and then releases the shaft (Nosco, columns 5-6, lines 63-7).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einsle.
Regarding claim 23, Einsle teaches the processing area is between 250 mm2 and 3000 mm2 (paragraphs [0057] and [0119], calculated based on the minimum and maximum areas using the specified volume and spacer gap).
However, Einsle does not teach the processing area is between 1000 mm2 and 1800 mm2. However, there is no established criticality or evidence showing an unexpectedly good result occurring form the claimed parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a processing area between 1000 mm2 and 1800 mm2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05.II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 1/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 7 and 22 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Einsle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights