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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-18, and 20-21 are pending and under examination.
Claims 4, 6-7, and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 21 was added by amendment.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, received 01/12/2026, are accepted and the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Based on the amended claims and remarks received on 01/12/2026, the previous prior art rejection over Crees has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection set forth (see below).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crees et al. (US 2008/0131961; already of record – hereinafter “Crees”) in view of Schacher (US 2012/0321516; already of record – hereinafter “Schacher”), or alternatively over Crees in view of Schacher and Thomas et al. (US 2010/0024915 – hereinafter “Thomas”).
Regarding claim 1, Crees disclose an automated sample fluid collection system (Crees; figs. 1-5, #10, [0031]), comprising:
a housing (Crees; fig. 1, #36, [0031]) defining an interior region (Crees disclose an interior region of housing 36 where platforms 12 are arranged; figs. 3-4) to introduce a fluid sample to a sample vessel (Crees disclose dispensing member 32 introduces liquid to a sample vessel 16; fig. 5, [0031-0032, 0039]);
a support platform (Crees; fig. 2, #12, [0013, 0015, 0031]) to hold the sample vessel (Crees; fig. 5, #14, #16, [0031]) and laterally position the sample vessel to a plurality of locations within the interior region (Crees disclose platform 12 is moved to 8 positions within the interior; [0035]);
remove a cap of the sample vessel from a base of the sample vessel prior to introduction of the fluid sample to the base and to replace the cap to the vessel base subsequent to introduction of the fluid sample to the base (Crees disclose a lid holding area 18 on the platform 12 that holds lid 20 while processing the vessel base 16; fig. 5, [0031]); and
a fluid sample probe configured to fluidically couple with a fluid sample source and to dispense fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base (Crees; figs. 4-5, #32, [0032-0033]);
a database with information stored therein that is associated with an identifier positioned on the sample vessel (Crees disclose the use of the identification means in addition to a sensor 44 for analyzing results will permit rapid and automated collection of data for a number of samples which can be printed off or linked to a sample database such as a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) for archiving and/or further data analysis; [0020]); and
a scanner configured to scan the identifier positioned on the sample vessel (Crees disclose a sensor 44 for identifying the sample; fig. 4, #44, [0019-0020, 0022, 0031, 0036, 0039]), the system configured to access a sample type suitable for the sample vessel through access of the information stored on the database associated with the identifier (Crees; [0019-0020]. Note: The type of information stored in the database relates to function/intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims),
wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe (Crees disclose dispensing various fluids according to a processing protocol which can be programmed into the control unit; [0023, 0035-0037, 0039. Note: “wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe” relates to function/intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims).
Crees does not teach an uncapper positioned within the interior region and configured to automatically remove the cap or automatically replace the cap.
However, Schacher teach the analogous art of an automated sample fluid collection system (Schacher; fig. 1a, 1b, #200, [0081]), comprising a support platform to hold the sample vessel and laterally position the sample vessel to a plurality of locations (Schacher; fig. 5, #90, [0091]) and an uncapper configured to automatically remove a cap of a base of the sample vessel and automatically replace the cap to the base of the sample vessel (Schacher; figs. 1a, 1b, #100, [0039, 0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the interior region of the housing of the automated sample fluid collection system of Crees to comprise an uncapper configured to automatically remove the cap or automatically replace the cap, as taught by Schacher, because Schacher teach automatic uncapping and recapping increases processing throughput of samples and decreases processing costs (Schacher; [0010]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Crees and Schacher both teach devices for transporting and dispensing fluids in sample containers.
If it is deemed that modified Crees does is not capable of performing the functional limitations of the system configured to access a sample type suitable for the sample vessel through access of the information stored on the database associated with the identifier, wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe.
Thomas teach the analogous art an automated sample fluid collection system (Thomas; fig. 1, #10, [0032]) comprising a housing defining an interior region to introduce a fluid sample to a sample vessel (Thomas; fig. 1, interior region where platform 22 is located, #56, [0032, 0038]), a support platform to hold the sample vessel and laterally position the sample vessel to a plurality of locations within the interior region (Thomas; fig. 1, #22, [0032]), a fluid sample probe configured to fluidically couple with a fluid sample source and to dispense fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base (Thomas; fig. 2, #30, “DILUTED CHEMICAL DISCHARGE”, #14, #16, #18, #20, [0032-0033, 0038]), a database with information stored therein that is associated with an identifier positioned on the sample vessel (Thomas; figs. 1 & 3, #57, #66, [0044]), a scanner configured to scan the identifier positioned on the sample vessel, the system configured to access a sample type suitable for the sample vessel through access of the information stored on the database associated with the identifier (Thomas; figs. 1 & 3, #47, [0043-0044]), wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe (Thomas disclose the control 66 compares the chemical data from the RFID tag 61 on the chemical container to the stored data of approved chemicals. As well, controller 66 compares data from RFID tag 57 on container 56 to confirm the container’s compatibility for receiving the diluted chemical selected; [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system, database, scanner, and identifier of modified Crees with the system, database, scanner, and identifier configured to access a sample type suitable for the sample vessel through access of the information stored on the database associated with the identifier, wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe, as taught by Thomas, because Thomas teach the database configured to check the database confirms the container’s chemical compatibility for receiving the diluted chemical selected (Thomas; [0044]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Crees and Thomas both teach an automated sample fluid collection system configured to perform a dispensing operation based on information scanned from a container identifier.
Regarding claim 3, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 1, further comprising a motor coupled with the support platform and configured to move the support platform between the plurality of locations within the interior region (Crees; [0031-0032, 0039]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 1, wherein the scanner is configured to identify at least one of a barcode or an RFID tag (Crees; [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 1 above, wherein the uncapper includes an uncapper head rotatably coupled to an uncapper housing (The modification of the interior region of the housing of the automated sample fluid collection system of Crees to comprise an uncapper configured to automatically remove the cap or automatically replace the cap, as taught by Schacher, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Schacher further disclose a closure holder, a sample tube gripper, and drive means that transfers rotational force to the closure gripper; [0040-0041, 0044]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 8 above, wherein the uncapper housing supports a motor configured to rotate the uncapper head relative to the uncapper housing (The modification of the interior region of the housing of the automated sample fluid collection system of Crees to comprise an uncapper configured to automatically remove the cap or automatically replace the cap, as taught by Schacher, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Schacher further disclose a closure holder, a sample tube gripper, and drive means that transfers rotational force to the closure gripper; fig. 5, [0040-0041, 0044]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 1 above, further comprising a door coupled to the housing, the door configured to transition between an open configuration and a closed configuration, the open configuration permitting passage of the support platform into the interior region, the closed configuration isolating the interior region from an environment exterior to the housing (Crees; figs. 1-4, #38, [0031]).
Regarding claim 14, Crees teach an automated sample fluid collection system (Crees; figs. 1-5, #10, [0031]), comprising:
a housing (Crees; fig. 1, #36, [0031]) defining an interior region (Crees disclose an interior region of housing 36 where platforms 12 are arranged; figs. 3-4) to introduce a fluid sample to a sample vessel (Crees disclose dispensing member 32 introduces liquid to a sample vessel 16; fig. 5, [0031-0032, 0039]);
a support platform (Crees; fig. 2, #12, [0013, 0015, 0031]) to hold the sample vessel (Crees; fig. 5, #14, #16, [0031]) and laterally position the sample vessel to a plurality of locations within the interior region (Crees disclose platform 12 is moved to 8 positions within the interior; [0035]);
a database with information stored therein that is associated with an identifier positioned on the sample vessel (Crees disclose the use of the identification means in addition to a sensor 44 for analyzing results will permit rapid and automated collection of data for a number of samples which can be printed off or linked to a sample database such as a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) for archiving and/or further data analysis; [0020]), the information including one or more of a material from which the sample vessel is constructed, a type of sample suitable for use with the sample vessel, a type of sample unsuitable for use with the sample vessel (Crees; [0019-0020]. Note: The type of information stored in the database relates to function/intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims),
a scanner configured to scan the identifier positioned on the sample vessel (Crees disclose a sensor 44 for identifying the sample; fig. 4, #44, [0019-0020, 0022, 0031, 0036, 0039]);
remove a cap of the sample vessel from a base of the sample vessel prior to introduction of the fluid sample to the base and to replace the cap to the vessel base subsequent to introduction of the fluid sample to the base (Crees disclose a lid holding area 18 on the platform 12 that holds lid 20 while processing the vessel base 16; fig. 5, [0031]); and
a fluid sample probe configured to fluidically couple with a fluid sample source and to dispense fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base (Crees; figs. 4-5, #32, [0032-0033]),
wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe (Crees disclose dispensing various fluids according to a processing protocol which can be programmed into the control unit; [0023, 0035-0037, 0039. Note: “wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe” relates to function/intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims).
Crees does not teach an uncapper positioned within the interior region and configured to automatically remove the cap or automatically replace the cap.
However, Schacher teach the analogous art of an automated sample fluid collection system (Schacher; fig. 1a, 1b, #200, [0081]), comprising a support platform to hold the sample vessel and laterally position the sample vessel to a plurality of locations (Schacher; fig. 5, #90, [0091]) and an uncapper configured to automatically remove a cap of a base of the sample vessel and automatically replace the cap to the base of the sample vessel (Schacher; figs. 1a, 1b, #100, [0039, 0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the interior region of the housing of the automated sample fluid collection system of Crees to comprise an uncapper configured to automatically remove the cap or automatically replace the cap, as taught by Schacher, because Schacher teach automatic uncapping and recapping increases processing throughput of samples and decreases processing costs (Schacher; [0010]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Crees and Schacher both teach devices for transporting and dispensing fluids in sample containers.
If it is deemed that modified Crees is not capable of performing the functional limitations of the information including one or more of a material from which the sample vessel is constructed, a type of sample suitable for use with the sample vessel, a type of sample unsuitable for use with the sample vessel, wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe.
Thomas teach the analogous art an automated sample fluid collection system (Thomas; fig. 1, #10, [0032]) comprising a housing defining an interior region to introduce a fluid sample to a sample vessel (Thomas; fig. 1, interior region where platform 22 is located, #56, [0032, 0038]), a support platform to hold the sample vessel and laterally position the sample vessel to a plurality of locations within the interior region (Thomas; fig. 1, #22, [0032]), a fluid sample probe configured to fluidically couple with a fluid sample source and to dispense fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base (Thomas; fig. 2, #30, “DILUTED CHEMICAL DISCHARGE”, #14, #16, #18, #20, [0032-0033, 0038]), a database with information stored therein that is associated with an identifier positioned on the sample vessel (Thomas; figs. 1 & 3, #57, #66, [0044]), a scanner configured to scan the identifier positioned on the sample vessel (Thomas; figs. 1 & 3, #47, [0043-0044]), and a database with information including one or more of a material from which the sample vessel is constructed, a type of sample suitable for use with the sample vessel, a type of sample unsuitable for use with the sample vessel, wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe (Thomas disclose the control 66 compares the chemical data from the RFID tag 61 on the chemical container to the stored data of approved chemicals. As well, controller 66 compares data from RFID tag 57 on container 56 to confirm the container’s compatibility for receiving the diluted chemical selected; [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system, database, scanner, and identifier of modified Crees with the system, database, scanner, and identifier configured to access a sample type suitable for the sample vessel through access of the information stored on the database associated with the identifier, wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe, as taught by Thomas, because Thomas teach the database configured to check the database confirms the container’s chemical compatibility for receiving the diluted chemical selected (Thomas; [0044]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Crees and Thomas both teach an automated sample fluid collection system configured to perform a dispensing operation based on information scanned from a container identifier.
Regarding claim 16, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 14 above, further comprising a motor coupled with the support platform and configured to move the support platform between the plurality of locations within the interior region (Crees; [0031-0032, 0039]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 14, wherein the scanner is configured to identify at least one of a barcode or an RFID tag (Crees; [0020]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 14 above, wherein the information stored in the database further includes a cleanliness status of the sample vessel (Crees disclose the sensor may be a reflective optical sensor or a scanning laser sensor; [0019-0020]).
Note: The type of information stored in the database relates to function/intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 20, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 14, further comprising a door coupled to the housing, the door configured to transition between an open configuration and a closed configuration, the open configuration permitting passage of the support platform into the interior region, the closed configuration isolating the interior region from an environment exterior to the housing, wherein the sample probe is configured to dispense fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base when the door is in the closed configuration (Crees; figs. 1-4, #38, [0031]).
Claims 2 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crees, in view of Schacher and Thomas, and further in view of David et al. (US 2013/0220371; already of record – hereinafter “David”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 1, comprising the interior region and an external surface of the sample vessel.
Modified Crees does not teach the automated sample fluid collection system further comprising a rinse nozzle within the interior region, the rinse nozzle configured to dispense a rinse fluid onto an external surface of the sample vessel.
However, Davis teach the analogous art of a system (Davis; fig. 1, #100, [0022]), comprising a housing (Davis; fig. 2, #101, [0022]) defining an interior region (Davis; fig. 2, #104, [0022]), wherein the interior region of the housing comprise a rinse nozzle configured to dispense a rinse fluid onto an external surface of a sample (Davis; fig. 2, #114, [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the interior region of the housing of modified Crees to comprise a rinse nozzle configured to dispense a rinse fluid onto an external surface of a sample, as taught by Davis, because Davis teach the spray nozzle makes it possible to rinse off the sample in the chamber to achieve good cleaning of the sample (Davis; [0022-0023]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Crees and Davis teach enclosures for processing within an enclosed area.
Regarding claim 15, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 14 above, comprising the interior region and an external surface of the sample vessel.
Modified Crees does not teach the automated sample fluid collection system further comprising a rinse nozzle within the interior region, the rinse nozzle configured to dispense a rinse fluid onto an external surface of the sample vessel.
However, Davis teach the analogous art of a system (Davis; fig. 1, #100, [0022]), comprising a housing (Davis; fig. 2, #101, [0022]) defining an interior region (Davis; fig. 2, #104, [0022]), wherein the interior region of the housing comprise a rinse nozzle configured to dispense a rinse fluid onto an external surface of a sample (Davis; fig. 2, #114, [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the interior region of the housing of modified Crees to comprise a rinse nozzle configured to dispense a rinse fluid onto an external surface of a sample, as taught by Davis, because Davis teach the spray nozzle makes it possible to rinse off the sample in the chamber to achieve good cleaning of the sample (Davis; [0022-0023]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Crees and Davis teach enclosures for processing within an enclosed area.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crees, in view of Schacher and Thomas, and further in view of Lapham et al. (US 2017/0190056; already of record – hereinafter “Lapham”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 8 above, comprising the uncapper head (The modification of the interior region of the housing of the automated sample fluid collection system of Crees to comprise an uncapper configured to automatically remove the cap or automatically replace the cap, as taught by Schacher, has previously been discussed in claims 1 and 8 above).
Modified Crees does not teach wherein the uncapper head includes a vacuum structure configured to draw a vacuum against the cap to hold the cap within the uncapper head.
However, Lapham teach the analogous art of a head assembly comprising a vacuum structure configured to draw a vacuum against a cap to hold the cap within the head assembly (Lapham; figs. 4-5, [0073-0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the uncapper head of modified Crees to additionally include a vacuum structure configured to draw a vacuum against the cap to hold the cap within the uncapper head, as taught by Lapham, because Lapham teach the vacuum structure reduces wear on sample tubes and provides simplified construction and control mechanisms (Lapham; [0003]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Cree and Lapham both teach devices for holding and manipulating lids on a sample.
Regarding claim 11, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 10 above, wherein the uncapper includes a vacuum sensor configured to register at least one of a presence or an absence of the cap relative to the uncapper head and generate a signal in response thereto (The modification of the uncapper head of modified Crees to additionally include a vacuum structure configured to draw a vacuum against the cap to hold the cap within the uncapper head, as taught by Lapham, has previously been discussed in claim 10 above. Lapham additionally teach a sensor configured to sense whether a cap has been picked up and retained by the head; [0073]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 11 above, wherein the fluid sample probe is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the signal from the vacuum sensor is indicative of an absence of the cap (The modification of the uncapper head of modified Crees to additionally include a vacuum structure configured to draw a vacuum against the cap to hold the cap within the uncapper head, as taught by Lapham, has previously been discussed in claim 10 above. Lapham additionally teach a sensor configured to sense whether a cap has been picked up and retained by the head, and to convey this information to a control system; [0073]. Accordingly, modified Crees would be configured to detect when a cap is absent from the vacuum sensor and prevent dispensing).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crees, in view of Schacher and Thomas, and further in view of Williams et al. (US 2008/0012431 – hereinafter “Williams”).
Regarding claim 21, modified Crees teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 1 above.
Modified Crees does not teach the system further comprising a magnetic load compensation structure including rails having opposing magnetic fields positioned on each of the support platform and the housing to provide support to the support platform when handling a filled sample vessel.
However, Williams teach the analogous art of a support platform (Williams; figs. 1-4, #200, [0060]) comprising a magnetic load compensation structure including rails having opposing magnetic fields positioned on each of the support platforms and the housing to provide support to the support platform when handling a carrier (Williams teach guide members 210a-210d as a base for which a carrier 206 moves along, linear motor 216a-216 are configured to move the carrier 206 in any resultant direction of the Y and Z orthogonal directions using respective coil assemblies 218a-218d and a respective permanent-magnet array 220a-220d mounted on the carrier 206 to produce motion in the Y-direction and Z-direction; figs. 1-4, [0060-0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the support platform of modified Crees to further comprise a magnetic load compensation structure, as taught by Williams, because Williams teach the magnetic load compensation support allows better through-put and imaging resolution for larger reticles and substrates, and also provides faster acceleration and deceleration while producing less vibration (Williams; [0010]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Crees and Williams both teach a controlled platform for transporting an article.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9 of their remarks, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-9, 13, 14, and 16-20 under U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Crees does not teach the amended limitations “a database with information stored therein that is associated with an identifier positioned on the sample vessel; and a scanner configured to scan the identifier positioned on the sample vessel, the system configured to access a sample type suitable for the sample vessel through access of the information stored on the database associated with the identifier, wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe”. The examiner respectfully disagree.
Crees disclose the use of the identification means in addition to a sensor 44 for analyzing results will permit rapid and automated collection of data for a number of samples which can be printed off or linked to a sample database such as a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) for archiving and/or further data analysis; [0020], a sensor 44 for identifying the sample; fig. 4, #44, [0019-0020, 0022, 0031, 0036, 0039]) and dispensing various fluids according to a processing protocol which can be programmed into the control unit; [0023, 0035-0037, 0039. The examiner notes that the type of information stored in the database and the system configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe are limitations that relate to function/intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Further, if it is deemed that Crees is not capable of performing the functional limitations, Thomas teach the analogous art an automated sample fluid collection system (Thomas; fig. 1, #10, [0032]) comprising a housing defining an interior region to introduce a fluid sample to a sample vessel (Thomas; fig. 1, interior region where platform 22 is located, #56, [0032, 0038]), a support platform to hold the sample vessel and laterally position the sample vessel to a plurality of locations within the interior region (Thomas; fig. 1, #22, [0032]), a fluid sample probe configured to fluidically couple with a fluid sample source and to dispense fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base (Thomas; fig. 2, #30, “DILUTED CHEMICAL DISCHARGE”, #14, #16, #18, #20, [0032-0033, 0038]), a database with information stored therein that is associated with an identifier positioned on the sample vessel (Thomas; figs. 1 & 3, #57, #66, [0044]), a scanner configured to scan the identifier positioned on the sample vessel (Thomas; figs. 1 & 3, #47, [0043-0044]), and a database with information including one or more of a material from which the sample vessel is constructed, a type of sample suitable for use with the sample vessel, a type of sample unsuitable for use with the sample vessel, wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe (Thomas disclose the control 66 compares the chemical data from the RFID tag 61 on the chemical container to the stored data of approved chemicals. As well, controller 66 compares data from RFID tag 57 on container 56 to confirm the container’s compatibility for receiving the diluted chemical selected; [0044]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system, database, scanner, and identifier of modified Crees with the system, database, scanner, and identifier configured to access a sample type suitable for the sample vessel through access of the information stored on the database associated with the identifier, wherein the system is configured to prevent dispensing of fluid from the fluid sample source into the vessel base if the identifier does not correspond to a sample type available to the fluid sample probe, as taught by Thomas, because Thomas teach the database configured to check the database confirms the container’s chemical compatibility for receiving the diluted chemical selected (Thomas; [0044]).
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798 f