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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on September 10, 2026 was received. Claims 21 and 25 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued October 24, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn because Applicant amended the claim to remove the new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Campbell (US 2016/0370264) in view of Dockrill et al. (US 2014/0315256) and Ford et al. (US 6,192,945) on claims 21-26 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 21: Campbell discloses a slide processing system (100) having a housing containing one or more reservoirs (709, 718) comprising one or more treatment fluids connected to a treatment system (703) having a frame secured within the housing above and apart from a plurality of jet nozzles (706) attached to the frame for supplying the treatment fluids to a slide (306) as well as a slide positioner (203) that places the slides (306) from a first position away from the slide treatment zone to a second position in the treatment zone (par. 17-19, 26, 44-47, figures 1-3, 8-9). Campbell fails to explicitly disclose that the treatment applicator has a first and second rail defining a treatment channel in place of the jet nozzles, or that the reservoirs are syringe reservoirs received through the face of the frame into a corresponding receptacle of a plurality of receptacles.
However, Dockrill et al. discloses a similar slide treatment system including a cover member (1000) having one or more fluid inlets (1012) that supply fluid through a constricting neck (1016) such that it enters a void region (1124) which is an application surface surrounded by walls (1122) which are opposing rails under which a slide (200) is arranged in order to supply a fluid reagent to the slide (200) via capillary action through the necks (1016) of the inlets through use of a supply device such as a syringe pump which uses syringes as the reservoir, the syringe pump being controlled by a controller (7060) (pars. 87, 127-132, 138, 158, 198, figures 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cover system and syringes of Dockrill et al. as part of the fluid treatment system of Campbell because Dockrill et al. teaches that this is an improvement over existing automated staining systems that does not lead to high costs and treatment failures (pars. 2-6).
Campbell discloses that the reservoirs (709) are attached to a frame above the nozzles (706) such that when replaced by syringe reservoirs, the syringes would be mounted to this frame as well (see figure 8A). Campbell and Dockrill et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the syringes are mounted into a plurality of receptacles in the frame. However, Ford et al. discloses a similar slide treatment system which includes a reagent tray (10) which is a frame that includes a plurality of fluid dispenser receptors (11), each configured to releasably receive a plurality of fluid dispensers (12) each of which can take the form of a syringe dispenser (col. 9 lines 8-32, col. 25 lines 42+, figures 2 and 15). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a reagent tray with receptacles for syringes as taught by Ford et al. for the reservoirs of Campbell and Dockrill et al. because Ford et al. teaches that this helps ensure precise and reliable dispensing by allowing for easy assembly and priming of the dispenser device (abstract, col. 2 lines 6-13, col. 6 lines 38-46).
Regarding claim 22: Campbell discloses that the slide treatment system (703) includes a pressurized supply line including pressure regulators (712) for supplying the treatment fluid in predefined bursts to the slide (306) (pars. 44-45, figure 8).
Regarding claim 23: Campbell and Dockrill et al. disclose the above combined device which includes a void region (1124) which is an application surface surrounded by walls (1122) which are opposing rails under which a slide (200) is arranged in order to supply a fluid reagent to the slide (200) via capillary action through the necks (1016) of the inlets when liquid is supplied to the inlets (Dockrill et al. pars. 87, 127-132, 138, 158, 198, figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 24: Campbell discloses that the pressure regulators (712) can pressurize the supply line by using pressure regulated air or other gas (par. 44) such that they comprise a pneumatic pump.
Regarding claim 25: Campbell, Dockrill et al. and Ford et al. disclose the above combination using syringe reservoirs which include plungers external to the syringe reservoirs (Ford et al. col. 2 lines 63+, col. 3 lines 1-15, col. 14 lines 14-36).
Regarding claim 26: Campbell and Dockrill et al. show multiple end walls extending between the walls (1122) which constitute the rails (see Dockrill et al. figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Ford et al. does not disclose or suggest receptacles for receiving syringes specifically, and that none of the cited art teaches the frame for the receptacles being above and apart from the treatment applicator because Ford et al. does not teach a treatment applicator.
In response:
Ford et al. teaches a device having a reagent carousel (8), where figure 2 shows how the carousel (8) is designed and operated, teaching that reagent fluid dispensers (12) are mounted into dispenser receptors (11) of the carousel (8) (col. 9 lines 8-32). Ford et al. then goes on to describe one embodiment of these dispensers (400) that mount to the same carousel (8) (col. 21 lines 3-17), further teaching that these dispensers (400) eject fluid by use of a downward force on the cap (404) pushing the barrel (408) down to compress the fluid in the dispense chamber (412) (col. 22 lines 15-44), which makes them- by definition- a type of syringe. Therefore the dispensers (12) fitted into the receptors (11) are syringes. And even if they are not, Dockrill et al. was cited to teach the claimed syringes, so the exact nature of the dispensers in the receptors of Ford et al. are immaterial to the combination presented above. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Similarly, both Campbell and Dockrill et al. teach the frame of the treatment portion being above and apart from the actual dispensers (see Campbell figure 8A, Dockrill et al. figure 24), so regardless of whether Ford et al. teaches the receptors being above a treatment applicator (which it does, see figure 2), the combination of references nevertheless teaches this limitation.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
9/23/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
