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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1-3, 5, 8-18, 20, and 22-24 are pending and under examination.
Claims 4, 6-7, 19 and 21 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Based on the amended claims and remarks received on 01/12/2026, the previous prior art rejection over Crees has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection set forth (see below).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.
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 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel et al. (WO 2020174466A1 where US 2022/0119147 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Eshel), in view of Williams et al. (US 2008/0012431; already of record – hereinafter “Williams”) and Thomas et al. (US 2010/0024915; already of record – hereinafter “Thomas”).
Regarding claim 1, Eshel disclose an automated sample fluid collection system (Eshel; figs. 7A-H, [0100]), comprising:
a housing defining an interior region to introduce a fluid sample to a sample vessel (Eshel; fig. 6A, #365, [0098]);
a support platform to hold the sample vessel and laterally position the sample vessel to a plurality of locations within the interior region (Eshel; figs. 7A-H, #315, [0099-0100, 0102]);
an uncapper positioned within the interior region and configured to automatically 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 automatically replace the cap to the vessel base subsequent to introduction of the fluid sample to the base (Eshel; figs. 7C-H, & 8, [0102-0106, 0108]);
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 (Eshel; fig. 7A, #353, 0103-0104, 0107]).
Eshel does not disclose 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-216d 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 horizontal stage of Eshel with the magnetic load compensation structure, as taught by Williams, because Williams teach the magnetic load compensation support allows the stage to accelerate and decelerate at high velocities that produce less vibration; [0010, 0060]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Eshel and Williams both teach a controlled platform for transporting an article.
Modified Eshel does not teach 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.
However, 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 automated sample fluid collection system of modified Eshel to comprise a 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 Eshel and Thomas both teach an automated sample fluid collection system configured to perform a dispensing operation for different chemicals.
Regarding claim 3, modified Eshel 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 (The modification of the horizontal stage of Eshel with the magnetic load compensation structure, as taught by Williams, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Williams teach the support platform comprise a motor configured to move the support platform between a plurality of locations; fig. 2, #216a-216d, #222, [0060-0065]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Eshel teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 1 above, wherein the scanner is configured to identify at least one of a barcode or an RFID tag (The modification of the automated sample fluid collection system of modified Eshel to comprise a 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, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Thomas teach the scanner is configured to identify an RFID tag; figs. 1 & 3, #47, [0043-0044]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Eshel teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 1 above, wherein the uncapper includes an uncapper head rotatably coupled to an uncapper housing (Eshel; figs. 7A-H, #330, #331, [0102]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Eshel 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 (Eshel; figs. 7A-H, #330, “capping device 330 of capping station 331 may latch on to a cap 110 of bottle 100 while bottle 100 is in a collapsed state, rotate cap 110 in a counter clockwise direction and remove cap 110 from bottle 100”).
Regarding claim 14, Eshel disclose an automated sample fluid collection system (Eshel; figs. 7A-H, [0100]), comprising:
a housing defining an interior region to introduce a fluid sample to a sample vessel (Eshel; fig. 6A, #365, [0098]);
a support platform to hold the sample vessel and laterally position the sample vessel to a plurality of locations within the interior region (Eshel; figs. 7A-H, #315, [0099-0100, 0102]);
an uncapper configured to automatically 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 automatically replace the cap to the vessel base subsequent to introduction of the fluid sample to the base (Eshel; figs. 7C-H, & 8, [0102-0106, 0108]);
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 (Eshel; fig. 7A, #353, 0103-0104, 0107]).
Eshel does not disclose 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-216d 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 horizontal stage of Eshel with the magnetic load compensation structure, as taught by Williams, because Williams teach the magnetic load compensation support allows the stage to accelerate and decelerate at high velocities that produce less vibration; [0010, 0060]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Eshel and Williams both teach a controlled platform for transporting an article.
Modified Eshel does not teach a database with information stored therein that is associated with an identifier positioned on the sample vessel, 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, a scanner configured to scan the identifier positioned on 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.
However, 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 automated sample fluid collection system of modified Eshel to comprise a 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 Eshel and Thomas both teach an automated sample fluid collection system configured to perform a dispensing operation for different chemicals.
Regarding claim 16, modified Eshel 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 (The modification of the horizontal stage of Eshel with the magnetic load compensation structure, as taught by Williams, has previously been discussed in claim 14 above. Williams teach the support platform comprise a motor configured to move the support platform between a plurality of locations; fig. 2, #216a-216d, #222, [0060-0065]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Eshel teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 14 above, wherein the scanner is configured to identify at least one of a barcode or an RFID tag (The modification of the automated sample fluid collection system of modified Eshel to comprise a 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, has previously been discussed in claim 14 above. Thomas teach the scanner is configured to identify an RFID tag; figs. 1 & 3, #47, [0043-0044]).
Claims 2 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel, in view of Williams and Thomas, and further in view of David et al. (US 2013/0220371; already of record – hereinafter “David”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Eshel teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 1 above.
Modified Eshel does not teach the 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 Eshel 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 Eshel teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 14 above.
Modified Eshel does not teach the 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 Eshel 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 Eshel, in view of Williams and Thomas, and further in view of Lapham et al. (US 2017/0190056; already of record – hereinafter “Lapham”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Eshel teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 8 above, comprising the uncapper head (Eshel; figs. 7A-H, #330, #331, [0102]).
Modified Eshel 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 Eshel 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 containers 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 Eshel and Lapham both teach devices for holding and manipulating lids on a container.
Regarding claim 11, modified Eshel 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 Eshel 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 Eshel 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 Eshel 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 Eshel would be configured to detect when a cap is absent from the vacuum sensor and prevent dispensing).
Claims 13, 20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel, in view of Williams and Thomas, and further in view of Fechtner et al. (US 2006/0159587 – hereinafter “Fechtner”)
Regarding claim 13, modified Eshel 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 (Eshel; fig. 6A, [0098]).
Modified Eshel does not teach 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.
However, Fechtner teach the analogous art of an automated sample fluid system (Fechtner; figs. 1-3, #10, [0033]), comprising a door coupled to a housing (Fechtner; figs. 2-3, #182, #12, [0034-0035]), wherein the door is configured to transition between an open configuration permitting passage of a support platform into the interior region of the housing (Fechtner; fig. 8C, #184, #186, [0041, 0082]), the closed configuration isolating the interior region from an environment exterior to the housing (Fechtner; figs. 2-3, [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the door and platform of modified Eshel with the stage and platform configured to transition between an open configuration permitting passage of the support platform into the interior and the closed configuration isolating the interior region from an outside environment, as taught by Fechtner, because Fechtner teach the platform configured to move between an interior position via the door allows easy loading and unloading operations of container into and out of the automated sample fluid system (Fechtner; [0082]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Eshel and Fechtner both teach platforms for laterally transporting a container with fluid.
Regarding claim 20, modified Eshel teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 14 above, further comprising a door coupled to the housing, the door configured to transition between an open configuration and a closed configuration, 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 (Eshel; fig. 6A, [0098, 0102-0106]).
Modified Eshel does not teach 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.
However, Fechtner teach the analogous art of an automated sample fluid system (Fechtner; figs. 1-3, #10, [0033]), comprising a door coupled to a housing (Fechtner; figs. 2-3, #182, #12, [0034-0035]), wherein the door is configured to transition between an open configuration permitting passage of a support platform into the interior region of the housing (Fechtner; fig. 8C, #184, #186, [0041, 0082]), the closed configuration isolating the interior region from an environment exterior to the housing (Fechtner; figs. 2-3, [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the door and platform of modified Eshel with the stage and platform configured to transition between an open configuration permitting passage of the support platform into the interior and the closed configuration isolating the interior region from an outside environment, as taught by Fechtner, because Fechtner teach the platform configured to move between an interior position via the door allows easy loading and unloading operations of container into and out of the automated sample fluid system (Fechtner; [0082]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Eshel and Fechtner both teach platforms for laterally transporting a container with fluid.
Regarding claim 22, modified Eshel teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 1 above, further comprising a motor coupled with the support platform and configured to move the support platform (The modification of the horizontal stage of Eshel with the magnetic load compensation structure, as taught by Williams, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Williams teach the support platform comprise a motor configured to move the support platform between a plurality of locations; fig. 2, #216a-216d, #222, [0060-0065]).
Modified Eshel does not teach the support platform configured to move beyond the housing to receive the sample vessel onto the support platform.
However, Fechtner teach the analogous art of an automated sample fluid system (Fechtner; figs. 1-3, #10, [0033]), comprising a door coupled to a housing (Fechtner; figs. 2-3, #182, #12, [0034-0035]), and a platform configured to move beyond the housing to receive a vessel onto the platform (Fechtner; fig. 8C, #184, #186, [0041, 0082]),.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the housing and platform of modified Eshel with the platform configured to move beyond the housing to receive a vessel onto the platform, as taught by Fechtner, because Fechtner teach the platform configured to move between an interior position via the door allows easy loading and unloading operations of container into and out of the automated sample fluid system (Fechtner; [0082]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Eshel and Fechtner both teach platforms for laterally transporting a container with fluid.
Regarding claim 23, modified Eshel teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 22 above, wherein the support platform includes support arms configured to hold the sample vessel on the sample platform, the support arms rotatably coupled with the support platform via support posts, wherein the support arms are configured to rotate about the support posts upon extension of the support platform beyond the housing by the motor (Eshel disclose claws 310 may enclose a bottle to secure the bottle in place during transport to each station, and release the bottle at dispensing window 320 to allow a customer to remove the bottle from the window; [0102, 0106]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel, in view of Williams and Thomas, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 2019/0343358 – hereinafter “Davis”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Eshel teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 14 above, comprising the database
Modified Eshel does not teach wherein the information stored in the database further includes a cleanliness status of the sample vessel.
However, Davis teach the analogous art of a database and container (Davis; figs. 1-2, #130, #215, [0033, 0043]), wherein the information stored in the database further include a cleanliness status of the container (Davis; fig. 7, [0005, 0087-0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the database of modified Eshel to further store information including a cleanliness status of the sample vessel, as taught by Davis, because Davis teach the status provides programming instructions whether the device should continue or pause operations based on the cleanliness status (Davis; [0005, 0087-0092]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Eshel and Davis both teach storing container information within a memory.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel, in view of Williams, Thomas, Fechtner, and further in view of Buehr (US 2015/0233956 – hereinafter “Buehr”).
Regarding claim 24, modified Eshel teach the automated sample fluid collection system of claim 23 above, wherein the support platform bias the support arms in a closed position which bring the support arms together to hold the sample vessel on the sample platform when the support platform is positioned within the housing (Eshel disclose claws 310 may enclose a bottle to secure the bottle in place during transport to each station, and release the bottle at dispensing window 320 to allow a customer to remove the bottle from the window; [0102, 0106].
Modified Eshel does not teach the support platform includes a tensioned coupler.
However, Buehr teach the analogous art of a support platform (Buehr; figs. 3-5, #200, [0047]) comprising support arms rotatably coupled with the support platform (Buehr; figs. 4-5, #226, [0047, 0050]) wherein the support platform includes a tensioned coupler (Buehr; figs. 4-5, #230,#235, [0047, 0051-0053]).
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 Eshel to further include a tensioned coupler, as taught by Buehr, because Buehr teach the tensioned coupler can fixedly secures the container to the platform during transport (Buehr; [0053]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Eshel and Buehr both teach transporting a sample container in an automated sample fluid system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14, have been fully considered. Applicant argues towards the combination of Crees in view of Walker, that the principle of operation of Crees would be changed. Although the examiner does not necessarily agree with applicant’s remarks, in an effort to expedite compact prosecution the examiner has withdrawn the previous prior art rejection over Crees and set forth a new prior art rejection over Eshel. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Crees for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure include:
Morren et al. (US 2011/0101190) disclose a base and support arms configured with a tensioning spring.
Marino (US Patent No. 4,070,854) disclose a bottle conveyance device for filling a bottle.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights