DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communication received on 04/08/2025. The response presented amendment to claim 1and cancelled claim 5. No new matter has been introduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Himmelsbach et al. (US 20100043572 A1) in view of KNIGHT et al., necessitated by scope change of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmelsbach et al. hereinafter Himmelsbach et al. hereinafter Himmelsbach (US 20100043572 A1) in view of KNIGHT et al. hereinafter KNIGHT (US 20140260118 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Himmelsbach discloses sampling housing for biological samples, solid or liquid (30;81), comprising a device (31) supporting an assembly (1, 2, 4) consisting of a 96-well plate (96-well plat, see Para. [0052), a cap adapter (3) comprising as many orifices as there are wells and arranged on said well plate (see Fig. 1c), and caps (1), each cap cooperating with a single well of the plate (see Fig. 1a).
Himmelsbach discloses all the claimed subject matter except the device supporting the assembly is a drawer, further characterized in that the drawer is composed of two parts: a base making it possible to receive the assembly, and a removable element making it possible to hold said plate on said base, and the drawer is adapted to receive the 96-well plate.
KNIGHT discloses all the claimed subject matter except the device supporting the assembly is a drawer (cartridge rack 600), further characterized in that the drawer is composed of two parts: a base making it possible to receive the assembly (chassis 610, Fig. ), and a removable element making it possible to hold said plate on said base (FIG. 11B shows that two locking members 625 are provided for each multi-well tray 400, para. [0124]), and the drawer is adapted to receive the 96-well plate (Fig. 11A and 11B illustrate the cartridge rack with and without cartridge).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the teaching of Himmelsbach with the teaching of Knight so that Himmelsbach sample housing is mounted into a drawer like cartridge of Knight. Such a modification would have been obvious because it merely represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions: KNIGHT teaches a drawer structure with a removable element for supporting a multi-well plate, While Himmelsbach provides a cartridge-based housing for biological samples. Combining these references yields the predictable result of a cartridge rack with a drawer structure capable of securely holding a 96-well plate. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that incorporating the drawer structure into the cartridge rack would facilitate modularity, ease of access, and improved handling of biological samples, without requiring undue experimentation.
With respect to claim 2, Himmelsbach and Knight disclose sampling housing according to claim 1 above. KNIGHT further discloses sampling housing comprises means for sliding the drawer in and out of said sampling housing that are coordinated with means for removing and replacing one cap of a well at a time (see Figs. 11A-11D that illustrate drawer like cartridge sliding the drawer in and out).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Himmelsbach’ s drawer structure with KNIGHT’s coordinated sliding and cap removal features. Both references solve the same problem of handling multi-well plates and combining them would predictably allow the drawer to slide in and out while also removing and replacing caps. This is simply using known parts in a known way to get the expected result.
With respect to claim 3, Himmelsbach and Knight disclose sampling housing according to claim 2 above. KNIGHT further discloses the drawer is movable and is configured to slide between a position internal to said sampling housing in which a cap is removed or replaced, and a second position external to said sampling housing in which a sample to be analyzed is introduced into the well whose cap has been removed (With reference now to FIGS. 11A-11D, the cartridge rack 600 includes a chassis 610 and a handle 620. A top surface 615 of the chassis 610 is configured for releasable attachment of one or more multi-well trays 400 thereto, and therefore may include a plurality of locking members 625 for releasably engaging the locking fingers 422 of the multi-well tray 400 (see FIG. 6A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Himmelsbach’s drawer structure with KNIGHT’s coordinated sliding and cap removal features. Both references solve the same problem of handling multi-well plates and combining them would predictably allow the drawer to slide in and out while also removing and replacing caps. This is simply using known parts in a known way to get the expected result.
With respect to claim 4, Himmelsbach and Knight disclose sampling housing according to claim 2 above. Himmelsbach further discloses said means for removing and replacing a cap from one well at a time comprise a harpoon (The clamping between cover and frame top part is fundamentally removable, to make access to the sample vessels possible when the cover is removed (taken off), para. [0022]).
With respect to claim 6, Himmelsbach and Knight disclose sampling housing according to claim 1 above. Himmelsbach further discloses sampling housing has a small footprint and is configured to be installed in a biosafety cabinet or a mobile laboratory (see Fig. 3a that shows the biological sample frame).
With respect to claim 7, Himmelsbach and Knight disclose sampling housing according to claim 6 above. However, the combination of the references is silent about each side of said sampling housing has a dimension of less than 40 cm. Nonetheless, the examiner takes official notice that it is well known and common knowledge in the field of laboratory equipment design to minimize the size of devices for use in compact or space-constrained environments, such as biosafety cabinets or mobile laboratories. In the laboratory equipment industry, it is standard practice to design housings that fit within limited spaces while maintaining functionality. Devices with dimensions under 40 cm are routinely employed to ensure compatibility with various laboratory environments where space efficiency is critical. These dimensional constraints are widely recognized as necessary to optimize placement and operability within confined spaces.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct a sampling housing with dimensions of less than 40 cm on each side to meet the spatial requirements typically encountered in laboratory settings. Limiting the housing size in this way represents a predictable design choice that aligns with established industry practices and does not involve an inventive step.
With respect to claim 8, Himmelsbach and Knight disclose sampling housing according to claim 1 above. Himmelsbach further discloses sampling housing is configured to be connected to a control station (see paras. [0030], [0047], [0049]- [0050]).
With respect to claim 9, Himmelsbach and Knight disclose a control station configured to be connected to a sampling housing, as described in claim 1. It is further disclosed in Himmelsbach that the sampling housing includes components characterized as a computer part and an electronic part necessary for its operation (see paras. [0030], [0047], [0049]- [0050]). It is officially noted, as a matter of common knowledge in the field of laboratory automation, that control stations for automated systems generally include computer and electronic parts to facilitate the control, monitoring, and data processing functions necessary for such systems. This arrangement is commonly employed in various laboratory and industrial settings, where automated equipment relies on integrated control systems composed of computational and electronic elements to ensure efficient and accurate operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the control station connected to the sampling housing with a computer and electronic part, as described by Himmelsbach, to fulfill the operational requirements of such systems. This configuration aligns with standard industry practices and represents a predictable application of known technology. The integration of these components into the control station reflects established design principles in automated sampling and data management, rendering the claimed subject matter an obvious application of existing knowledge.
With respect to claim 10, Himmelsbach and Knight disclose modular controller above. Himmelsbach further discloses a control station according to claim 9 that incorporates a sampling housing according to claim 1 (see Figs. 1a-1d, 2, 3a-3b, and 4 to 8).
With respect to claim 11, Himmelsbach and Knight disclose modular controller, characterized in that it comprises a sampling housing according to claim 1 above. Himmelsbach further discloses the sample housing which form two distinct assemblies in said modular controller (see Figs. 1a to 1d).
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to claims 12-13, See previous Office action for examiners reason of allowance.
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 GEDEON M KIDANU whose telephone number is (571)270-0591. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/GEDEON M KIDANU/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855