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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending for examination and are considered on the merits below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 14, 2022, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, 11-13, 17, and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the pipette tip” is recited. However, there is no prior recitation of a pipette tip. It appears that the limitation “the pipette tip” in claim 7 is referring to the glass or plastic pipette tip in independent claim 1. Thus, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation “the pipette tip” to the glass or plastic pipette tip to provide consistency in the claim terms throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “its base” is recited. The use of the term “it” can lead to a lack of clarity in the claim. It appears that the term “it” is referring to the tube. Thus, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation “its base” to a base of the tube.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “each tube holder” is recited. It appears that the limitation “each tube holder” is referring to the multiple tube holders in claim 10. Thus, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation “each tube holder” to each of the multiple tube holders to provide consistency in the claim terms throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “each tube holder” is recited. It appears that the limitation “each tube holder” is referring to the multiple tube holders in claim 10. Thus, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation “each tube holder” to each of the multiple tube holders to provide consistency in the claim terms throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the pipette tips” is recited. However, there is no prior recitation of pipette tips. It appears that the limitation “the pipette tips” in claim 12 is referring to the corresponding plurality of automated glass or plastic pipette tips in claim 10. Thus, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation “the pipette tips” to the corresponding plurality of automated glass or plastic pipette tips to provide consistency in the claim terms throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the tubes” is recited. However, there is no prior recitation of the tubes. It appears that the limitation “the tubes” is referring to the plurality of pathogen sample tubes in claim 10. Thus, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation “the tubes” to the plurality of pathogen sample tubes to provide consistency in the claim terms throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “delivers it” is recited. The use of the term “it” can lead to a lack of clarity in the claim. It appears that the term “it” is referring to the sample. Thus, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation “delivers it” to delivers the sample.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “each tube holder” is recited. It appears that the limitation “each tube holder” is referring to the multiple tube holders in claim 10. Thus, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation “each tube holder” to each of the multiple tube holders to provide consistency in the claim terms throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “delivers it” is recited. The use of the term “it” can lead to a lack of clarity in the claim. It appears that the term “it” is referring to the sample. Thus, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation “delivers it” to delivers the sample.
Appropriate correction is 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 2-3, 7-8, 14, 17, and 21 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the first and second pierceable protective film sections” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, claim 3 recites the limitation “UN3373 Category B, Packaging Requirements for Biological and Infectious Substances” which is an industry standard that may evolve over time. Consequently, the claim is considered indefinite because there is question or doubt as to the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the automated pipette” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “the automated pipette” is interpreted to mean the automated pipette sample withdrawal system.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the automated pipette” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “the automated pipette” is interpreted to mean the automated pipette sample withdrawal system.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “the automated pipette” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “the automated pipette” is interpreted to mean the automated pipette sample withdrawal system.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lentz et al. (WO 2012112505 A2, listed in an Information Disclosure Statement; hereinafter “Lentz”).
Regarding claim 1, Lentz discloses a method of automated aspiration of a sample in a pathogen sample tube (see ¶¶ [0079], [0132] and [0157]), the tube having an open end (vessel 21 comprises a top, open end; ¶ [0082]; Fig. 1G) and being capped with a cap (pierceable cap 211; ¶¶ [0101]-[0102]; Fig. 6C) configured to secure the open end of the tube to prevent spillage of the sample stored in the tube (see ¶¶ [0079] and [0156]);
in which the cap includes a lower pierceable protective rubber film (lower frangible layer 215; ¶¶ [0086], [0101]-[0103]; Fig. 6C) and an upper plastic film (upper frangible layer 216; ¶¶ [0086], [0101]-[0103]; Fig. 6C), the method comprising passing a glass or plastic pipette tip that is connected to an automated pipette sample withdrawal system (e.g., automated fluid transfer instrument or automated robot; ¶¶ [0110] and [0152]) through the upper and lower films and aspirating at least some of the sample (see ¶¶ [0078], [0108], and [0116]; Fig. 6E).
Regarding claim 2, Lentz discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Lentz further discloses wherein the lower pierceable protective rubber film and the upper plastic film are separated by an air gap (see ¶¶ [0106]-[0107]), such as an air gap that is approximately 2mm in depth (wherein the distance, i.e., the gap, between the lower frangible layer 215 and the upper frangible layer 216 is 0.085 inches which is interpreted as approximately 2mm in depth ; ¶ [0106]).
Regarding claim 19, Lentz discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Lentz further discloses wherein the upper plastic film is a pre-cut plastic film (pre-formed scores or slits are interpreted as pre-cut; ¶¶ [0086] and [0105]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz in view of Dodgson (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0029832).
Regarding claim 3, Lentz discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second pierceable protective film sections provide compliance with UN3373 Category B, Packaging Requirements for Biological and Infectious Substances.
Dodgson, in the analogous art of handling of biological materials, teaches a housing that comprises a liquid-tight seal (see ¶ [0139]). Dodgson further teaches that the housing is adapted to provide compliance with shipping regulations, for example UN3373 for biosamples and blood products (see ¶ [0140]).
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 and second pierceable protective film sections of Lentz to provide compliance with UN3373 as taught by Dodgson for the benefit of complying with shipping regulations (Dodgson, ¶ [0140]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz.
Regarding claim 4, Lentz discloses the method according to claim 1 as discussed above. Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the lower pierceable protective rubber film of pierceable cap 211, which is cited in claim 1, is a self-sealing film that, once the sample has been extracted or aspirated and the pipette tip removed, then re-seals in order to prevent leakage or escape of any pathogen from the tube. However, in a different embodiment, Lentz teaches a cap (pierceable cap 311; ¶ [0118]; Figs. 7A-7C) wherein the lower pierceable protective rubber film is a self-sealing film (V-shaped frangible layer 315 that reseals, which is interpreted as a self-sealing film; ¶¶ [0086], [0118]; Figs. 7A-7C) that, once the sample has been extracted or aspirated and the pipette tip removed, then re-seals in order to prevent leakage or escape of any pathogen from the tube (see ¶¶ [0009], [0079], and [0118]).
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 lower pierceable protective rubber film of pierceable cap 211 of Lentz with the self-sealing lower pierceable protective rubber film of pierceable cap 311 as taught by Lentz for the benefit of reducing the risk of sample contamination after insertion of a transfer device (Lentz, ¶ [0118]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz in view of Curry et al. (WO 2010020043 A1, listed on an Information Disclosure Statement; hereinafter “Curry”).
Regarding claim 5, Lentz discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Lentz further discloses wherein the cap includes an internal thread to engage with a corresponding thread on the outside of the tube (see ¶¶ [0110]-[0111]). However, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the cap includes a tapered deformable section that is configured to grip the internal surface of the tube as the cap is tightened to act as a bung for the tube.
Curry, in the analogous art of sample receiving devices, teaches a cap (lid 100; p. 9, ll. 16-18, Figs. 1A-1B) that includes a tapered deformable section (wall 104 that is tapered and formed of a deformable material; p. 10, ll. 18-22, p. 12, ll., 18-23, p. 13, ll. 7-12; Figs. 1A-1B) that is configured to grip the internal surface of the tube as the cap is tightened to act as a bung (see p. 13, ll. 7-12).
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 cap of Lentz to incorporate a tapered deformable section as taught by Curry for the benefit of providing an additional barrier to reduce the risk of leakage.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz in view of Goncalves Pereira Nobre et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0337439, listed on an Information Disclosure Statement; hereinafter “Goncalves”).
Regarding claim 6, Lentz discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the cap includes a socket into which a shaft of a swab can be fitted.
Goncalves, in the analogous art of portable devices for the collection of biological samples, teaches a cap that includes a socket into which a shaft of a swab can be fitted (wherein cover 2, i.e., cap, includes a socket into which a shaft of swab 6 can be fitted; ¶ [0020]; Fig. 2). 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 cap of Lentz to incorporate a socket as taught by Goncalves for the benefit of providing a larger gripping surface for sampling using the swab.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz in view of Mori et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0255725; hereinafter “Mori”).
Regarding claim 7, Lentz discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the cap or tube includes a location feature to enable an automatic pipette system to physically locate or register against the tube to enable the pipette tip to pass through the upper plastic film and the lower pierceable protective rubber film in the correct position, such as the central axis of the tube.
Mori, in the analogous art of analyzers configured to aspirate a specimen with a pipette, teaches a tube that includes a location feature (bar code 5; ¶ [0027]; Figs. 1 and 5) to enable an automatic pipette system to physically locate or register against the tube to enable a pipette tip to pass through a film in the correct position (see ¶ [0050]; Fig. 8).
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 tube of Lentz to incorporate a location feature as taught by Mori for the benefit of confirming the tube before it is pierced (Mori, ¶ [0050]). The combination of Lentz and Mori would therefore teach the location feature to enable an automatic pipette system to physically locate or register against the tube to enable the pipette tip to pass through the upper plastic film and the lower pierceable protective rubber film in the correct position.
Regarding claim 9, Lentz discloses the method according to claim 1 as discussed above. However, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein a visual pattern enables a machine vision system to accurately locate and/or orient the tube.
Mori, in the analogous art of analyzers configured to aspirate a specimen with a pipette, teaches a visual pattern (bar code 5; ¶ [0027]; Figs. 1 and 5) that enables a machine vision system (bar code reader; ¶ [0050]) to accurately locate and/or orient the tube (see ¶ [0050]; Fig. 8).
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 tube of Lentz to incorporate a visual pattern as taught by Mori for the benefit of confirming the tube before it is pierced (Mori, ¶ [0050]).
Claims 10, 14, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz in view of Williams et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0155123; hereinafter “Williams”).
Regarding claim 10, Lentz discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Lentz discloses automated aspiration of a pathogen sample tube by a plastic pipette tip (see ¶¶ [0078], [0108], and [0116]). However, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein a plurality of the pathogen sample tubes are retained in a rack that includes multiple tube holders and wherein the plurality of pathogen sample tubes are aspirated simultaneously by a corresponding plurality of automated glass or plastic pipette tips.
Williams, in the analogous art of automated pipetting systems, teaches a plurality of the pathogen sample tubes (sample tubes that can hold a pathogen; ¶¶ [0068] and [0080]) are retained in a rack that includes multiple tube holders (see ¶ [0080]) and wherein the plurality of pathogen sample tubes are aspirated simultaneously by a corresponding plurality of automated pipette tips (see ¶¶ [0097], [0120], [0175], [0184]-[0185], [0246]).
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 method of Lentz to simultaneously aspirate a plurality of pathogen sample tubes in a rack as taught by Williams for the benefit of processing multiple samples at one time.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lentz and Williams teaches the method of claim 10 as discussed above. Williams further teaches a multiple number of the racks that are grouped into a set and the set of multiple racks is then processed by the automated pipette (see ¶¶ [0040], [0084]-[0085], and [0249]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method (of Lentz and Williams) to incorporate multiple number of racks that are grouped and processed as taught by Williams in order process a plurality of samples in a shorter amount of time.
Regarding claim 17, Lentz discloses the method of claim 1 as disclosed above. However, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the automated pipette extracts the sample from the sample tube and delivers it to another tube or a well of a PCR thermal cycler or nucleic acid extraction platform.
Williams, in the analogous art of automated pipetting systems, teaches an automated pipette that extracts the sample from a sample tube and delivers it to another tube (a PCR tube; ¶ [0044]) or a well (inlet of a cartridge in which PCR is run; ¶¶ [0044], [0046], [0096], [0140], [0151]) of a PCR thermal cycler or nucleic acid extraction platform (see ¶¶ [0044]-[0046], [0096], [0140], [0151]).
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 method of Lentz to extract and deliver the sample as taught by Williams for the benefit of detecting a target within the sample.
Regarding claim 18, Lentz discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the sample is delivered to an automated test platform that performs a nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) extraction using magnetic beads followed by PCR thermal cycling to determine and quantify the presence of a pathogen.
Williams, in the analogous art of automated pipetting systems, teaches a sample is delivered to an automated test platform that performs a nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) extraction using magnetic beads followed by PCR thermal cycling to determine and quantify the presence of a pathogen (see ¶¶ [0068], [0085], and [0145]-[0154]).
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 method of Lentz to deliver the sample to an automated test platform as taught by Williams for the benefit of detecting a target within the sample.
Regarding claim 21, Lentz discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the automated pipette extracts the sample from the sample tube and delivers it to another tube or a well in a microtiter plate that is used in a PCR thermal cycler or to a tube used in a nucleic acid extraction platform.
Williams, in the analogous art of automated pipetting systems, teaches wherein the automated pipette extracts the sample from the sample tube and delivers it to another tube (a PCR tube; ¶ [0044]) or to a tube used in a nucleic acid extraction platform (inlet of a cartridge in which PCR is run; ¶¶ [0044], [0046], [0096], [0140], [0151]).
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 method of Lentz to extract and deliver the sample as taught by Williams for the benefit of detecting a target within the sample.
Claims 8 and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz in view of Williams as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Esser et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0035642; hereinafter “Esser”).
Regarding claim 8, Lentz discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the tube includes a QR code or other unique ID, such as on its base.
Esser, in the analogous art of automatic test systems, teaches a tube includes a unique ID, such as on its base (see ¶¶ [0020]-[0022] and [0042]).
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 tube of Lentz to incorporate a unique ID as taught by Esser for the benefit of identifying the tube and its content (Esser, ¶ [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lentz and Williams teaches the method of claim 10 as discussed above. However, Lentz in view of Williams does not explicitly teach wherein the rack includes an aperture below each tube holder so that a QR code or other unique ID on a tube can be read by an automated system viewing the unique ID through the aperture.
Esser, in the analogous art of automatic test systems, teaches a rack that includes an aperture below each tube holder so that a QR code or other unique ID on a tube can be read by an automated system viewing the unique ID through the aperture (see ¶¶ [0041]-[0042]).
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 rack of Lentz in view of Williams to incorporate apertures as taught by Esser for the benefit of scanning codes disposed below tubes retained by the rack (Esser, ¶ [0042]).
Claims 12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz in view of Williams as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Guzman et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0292829; hereinafter “Guzman”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lentz and Williams teaches the method of claim 10 as discussed above. However, Lentz in view of Williams does not explicitly teach wherein each tube holder retains a tube using an interference fit or a lid is secured over the tubes in the rack to ensure that the tube remains securely in the rack during the insertion and withdrawal of the pipette tips.
Guzman, in the analogous art of automated pipetting systems, teaches a lid (a retainer plate which is interpreted as the lid; ¶¶ [0039] and [0077]; Fig. 1) is secured over tubes in a rack to ensure that the tube remains securely in the rack during the insertion and withdrawal of the pipette tips (see ¶¶ [0039] and [0077]).
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 rack of Lentz in view of Williams to incorporate a lid as taught by Guzman for the benefit of precluding the test tubes from lifting out of the rack (Guzman, ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lentz and Williams teaches the method of claim 10 as discussed above. However, Lentz in view of Williams does not explicitly teach a lid is configured to be secured over the tubes in the rack to ensure that the tubes remain securely in the rack during the insertion and withdrawal of the pipette tips.
Guzman, in the analogous art of automated pipetting systems, teaches a lid (a retainer plate which is interpreted as the lid; ¶¶ [0039] and [0077]; Fig. 1) configured to be secured over tubes in a rack to ensure that the tube remains securely in the rack during the insertion and withdrawal of pipette tips (see ¶¶ [0039] and [0077]).
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 rack of Lentz in view of Williams to incorporate a lid as taught by Guzman for the benefit of precluding the test tubes from lifting out of the rack (Guzman, ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lentz and Williams teaches the method of claim 10 as discussed above. Lentz further teaches wherein the upper plastic film is a pre-cut plastic film (pre-formed scores or slits are interpreted as pre-cut; [0105]). However, Lentz in view of Williams does not explicitly teach wherein each tube holder retains a tube using a sheet with corresponding cut out openings secured over the tubes in the rack to ensure that the tube remains securely in the rack during the insertion and withdrawal of the pipette tips.
Guzman, in the analogous art of automated pipetting systems, wherein teaches each tube holder (holders/receptacles of the rack; ¶ [0038]; Fig. 1) retains a tube using a sheet (a retainer plate which is interpreted as the sheet; ¶¶ [0039] and [0077]; Fig. 1) with corresponding cut out openings (slots of the retainer plate; ¶¶ [0039] and [0077]; Fig. 1) secured over the tubes in the rack to ensure that the tube remains securely in the rack during the insertion and withdrawal of the pipette tips (see ¶¶ [0039] and [0077]).
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 rack of Lentz in view of Williams to incorporate a sheet as taught by Guzman for the benefit of precluding the test tubes from lifting out of the rack (Guzman, ¶ [0039]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz in view of Williams as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Esser.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lentz and Williams teaches the method according to claim 10 as discussed above. However, Lentz in view of Williams does not explicitly teach wherein the rack includes a QR code, bar code or other unique identifier.
Esser, in the analogous art of automatic test systems, teaches a rack includes a bar code or other unique identifier for identification of the rack (see ¶ [0047]). 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 rack of Lentz in view of Williams to incorporate a bar code or unique identifier as taught by Esser for the benefit of identifying a particular rack (Esser, ¶ [0047]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz in view of Williams as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lohan (WO 2020123437 A1; hereinafter “Lohan”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lentz and Williams teaches the method according to claim 10 as discussed above. However, Lentz in view of Williams does not explicitly teach wherein the rack is secured to a baseplate of an auto-pipette liquid handling platform and wherein the rack includes one or more locking features that secure the rack to the baseplate.
Lohan, in the analogous art of apparatus for holding sample tubes for sample preparation, teaches wherein the rack is secured to a baseplate (surface of diagnostic apparatus 300 on which one or more recesses 306 are disposed; [0134]; Fig. 18) of an auto-pipette liquid handling platform and wherein the rack includes one or more locking features (registration members 130; ¶ [0128]; Figs. 2-3) that secure the rack to the baseplate (see ¶¶ [0128] and [0134]).
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 rack of Lentz in view of Williams to incorporate one or more locking features that secure to a baseplate as taught by Lohan for the benefit of ensuring that the rack is inserted in a proper orientation (Lohan, ¶ [0128]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven R. Castaneda whose telephone number is (571)272-0998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10am - 6pm ET.
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.
/STEVEN RAY CASTANEDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797