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 March 13, 2026 was received. Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 12 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 December 19, 2025.
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 (US 2014/0315256) on claims 1-15 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1 to require releasable syringe reservoirs and a frame with receptacles to releasably secure the reservoirs therein.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Dockrill et al. and Ford et al. (US 6,192,945).
Regarding claim 1: Campbell discloses a slide processing system (100) having a housing containing one or more reservoirs (709, 718) comprising one or more treatment fluids, a treatment system (703) including one or more jet nozzles (706) applying the fluids from the reservoirs under pressure via supply lines which, together with a pressurization actuator form a supply channel, the fluids being applied to a slide (306) (pars. 17-19, 44-47, figures 1-2, 8-9) 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. 26, figure 3), but fails to explicitly disclose that the applicator has opposing rails around an application surface where the slide positioned places the slide in contact with the rails to define a treatment channel.
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 releasably 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 2: Campbell and Dockrill et al. disclose the above combination in which the inlet opening (1014) leads to a void space (1124) between the rails (1122) and comprises the constricting neck (1016) modulating the flow of the reagent (Dockrill et al. pars. 127-132, figures 1-2). Campbell, Dockrill et al. and Ford et al. show that the dispensers (12) are arranged orthogonally to the reagent tray (Ford et al. figure 2).
Regarding claim 3: Campbell and Dockrill et al. disclose the above combination in which the inlet opening (1014) has a larger cross section than the neck (1016) near the top, which can be considered an attachment point (Dockrill et al. figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 4: Campbell discloses that the fluid is supplied through a pressurized supply line from the reservoirs (709) to the nozzles (706) (par. 44), which would correspond to the cover (1000) inlet (1014) of Dockrill et al. in the combination. Campbell discloses that the supply device can pressurize the fluids via air or other gas (par. 44) which means the pressurizing device is a pneumatic pump, and Dockrill et al. discloses that the use of syringe reservoirs allows for predetermined aliquots of liquid to be supplied (par. 138). A syringe is a type of collapsible container, and in the combination above would be positioned in the frame.
Regarding claim 5: Campbell discloses pressure regulators (712) for pressurizing the fluid in the supply line (par. 44) and Dockrill et al. discloses pumps for supplying the reagent into the inlet (1014) (par. 50).
Regarding claim 6: Campbell discloses that the slide positioner (203) has a number of motors (321a, 321b, 330) which move the slide while fluid is on it (pars. 19-22), which would naturally cause agitation.
Regarding claim 7: Campbell and Dockrill et al. disclose that capillary action causes the fluid to be distributed along the slide (200) (Dockrill et al. pars. 87, 158) and that a clamp is provided to prevent leakage of excess fluid (Dockrill et al. par. 27).
Regarding claim 8: Campbell discloses that the fluids in the reservoirs (709) can include a stain and a fixative (pars. 44-45) and that the fixative and then the stain is applied by the treatment system (703) after the sample on the slide (306) has been smeared and desiccated (pars. 39-44), the treatment system (703) further including a water wash spray, requiring a water wash source or reservoir, to be applied after the chemical treatment, and before a vacuum application to dry the sample, removing excess fluid (pars. 45-46).
Regarding claim 9: Campbell discloses that there can be a plurality of reservoirs (709) and corresponding nozzles (706) each corresponding to a different type of fluid (par. 45) and Dockrill et al. discloses that multiple inlets can be provided in the cover (1000) (par. 198).
Regarding claim 10: Campbell and Dockrill et al. disclose the above inlets (1014) which each include the constricting neck (1016) sections (Dockrill et al. par. 131 figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 11: Campbell and Dockrill et al. disclose the above combination and Dockrill et al. further discloses a similar embodiment with a cover (2000) that has shoulders (2600) extending laterally outward of the void walls of the treatment surface (Dockrill et al. par. 160, figure 8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use shoulders likes that of the embodiment in figure 8 because Dockrill et al. teaches that this works with a torsion spring of a treatment module to ensure the correct tilt angle of the cover member and thus correct alignment with the slide (par. 160).
Regarding claim 12: Campbell discloses that the fluid is supplied through a pressurized supply line from the reservoirs (709) to the nozzles (706) (par. 44), which would correspond to the cover (1000) inlet (1014) of Dockrill et al. in the combination. Campbell also teaches that the nozzles (703) are jet nozzles (par. 44) which can be considered “weeping jet nozzles” as that phrase is not defined by the specification nor is it a known phrase in the art.
Regarding claim 13: Campbell teaches that the slide positioner (203) is further configured to move the slide (200) to a third position under a digital microscope after being stained by the fluid treatment system (pars. 31-32, figure 3G).
Regarding claim 14: Campbell discloses a slide dispenser unit (603) that can be used to dispense smearing slides (503) onto the upper surface of the sample slide (306) by moving it down a slide sled (609) (par. 35, figure 6), where it is then moved to a desiccation position (par. 38), and after that is moved to the above treatment area where it contacts the walls (1122) of Dockrill et al. (Campbell par. 30, 44).
Regarding claim 15: Campbell discloses that the slide (306) is treated by the slide treatment system (703) at the second position after being moved there from the desiccation position (pars. 43-44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Campbell and Dockrill et al. do not disclose releasably mounted syringes, and also that there is no motivation to combine the two references because Dockrill et al. does not solve any problem of Campbell’s.
In response:
Regarding the syringe limitations, Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not refer to the newly cited Ford et al. reference which does teach the claimed frame with syringes and syringe receptacles, as well as proper motivation to combine.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Dockrill et al. clearly teaches that its design provides a number of benefits over existing systems, including improvements in cost and treatment failures (pars. 2-6).
Applicant does not appear to be disputing this motivation, but rather arguing that this motivation would not sufficiently persuade one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Campbell specifically, as Dockrill et al. has not identified an advantage specifically over the explicit disclosure of Campbell itself, particularly because Dockrill et al. has an earlier date than Campbell. However, this is not and has never been the test for obviousness. A prior art reference does not need to explicitly name the art being modified, nor does it need to come after the art being modified, for a proper obviousness rejection. An obviousness rejection merely requires there to be some teaching in any prior art suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art that modifying an invention in some way may yield improvements or benefits. Dockrill et al. quite certainly provides such a teaching and motivation, which is indeed extremely relevant to the device of Campbell- for example- in that it reduces bubble formation which can lead to uneven stains (Dockrill et al. par. 3), which is not something the device of Campbell contemplates. This even by itself is more than sufficient motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Campbell.
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
3/31/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717