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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 8, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-22 are pending wherein claims 13-19 remain withdrawn. Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 20, and added new claims 21 and 22.
Response to Arguments
While the amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth below, some of Applicant’s arguments with respect to the patentability of the claims remain pertinent. That said, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitation “a support tray configured to support tubes” in claim 1 limits the claimed device in a manner that is more than merely conveying a support tray that is “capable of” supporting tubes. Remarks 18. The argument is not persuasive.
Contrary to Applicant’s remarks, the limitation “configured to” is not directed to a mechanical feature of the claimed invention. Rather, the limitation “configured to” refers to a plate comprising holes and what the plate comprising the holes is “configured to” support. The examiner maintains that in this instance, the limitation “configured to” merely conveys ability given that a plate comprising holes is “configured to” support anything and everything that can fit in the holes. That said, even though the support tray taught by Gomes is intended to support pipette tips, it can also support tubes having the same dimensions as said pipette tips. Consequently, the support tray taught by Gomes is ”configured to” support tubes. Applicant has not provided evidence the limitation “configured to support tubes” limits the structure of the claimed support tray in a manner that distinguishes the claimed support tray from a conventional tray comprising holes.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At the end of claim 7, the limitation “thereof” seems superfluous.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 is indefinite because it recites contradictory subject matter. Claim 21 recites that the chimneys protrude from the upper face of the plate. Yet, the claim also recites that each chimney delimits an opening that opens out onto the upper face. It is unclear how each chimney protrudes from the upper face, yet the chimney also delimits an opening that opens out onto the upper face. Based on the structure conveyed by the claim, the opening should open out above the upper face. Further explanation regarding the relationships between the upper face, the lower face, the chimneys, the openings of the chimneys, and the frustoconical sections of the chimneys is requested.
Claims not explicitly rejected are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gomes Cavaco (“Gomes”) (US 2019/0201908 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Gomes teaches a device comprising (see Figs. 2 and 6):
a support tray (bottom casing 1 illustrated in Fig. 6) configured to support tubes receiving samples to be analyzed and into which the tip of a pipette is intended to be introduced*, the tray including a plate 10 having an upper face and a lower face and holes 12 arranged according to a determined distribution by opening out into the upper face and the lower face (see Fig. 2), the holes 12 being adapted to each receive a tube bearing on the upper surface and with a tube bottom protruding from the lower face of the tray*, the plate 10 of the tray being delimited by flanged edges including two longitudinal flanged edges 16a and 16b parallel to each other and connected to each other by two transverse flanged edges 14a and 14b (see Fig. 2);
a lid (upper casing 1 illustrated in Fig. 6) including a plate having an upper face and a lower face, the lid provided with chimneys 12 arranged according to a distribution identical to the distribution of the holes 12 of the tray and provided with abutments (rim surrounding each chimney 12) configured to limit the depression for pipette tips*, the plate of the lid being delimited by flanged edges (flanged relative to the chimneys 12) including two longitudinal flanged edges 16a and 16b parallel to each other and connected to each other by two transverse flanged edges 14a and 14b parallel to each other (see Fig. 2);
the tray and the lid including a removable assembly system configured to fasten the lid and the tray together to form a unitary assembly in which the lid occupies a position of superposition above the tray (see Fig. 6), the removable assembly system including two elastically deformable legs 30 arranged in two flanged edges 14a and 14b of the lid (see Fig. 2) and each configured to cooperate with a complementary housing 18 arranged in two of the flanged edges 14a and 14b of the tray to achieve an elastic interlocking (see Figs. 6 and 7c);
the unitary assembly being configured to hold the tubes and to position the chimneys 12 above the tubes in order to guide the pipette tips penetrating inside the tubes and to stop the tips by the abutments so that a distal end of each pipette tip substantially reaches an inner wall of the bottom of a respective tube*; and
the flanged edges of the lid and the flanged edges of the tray include nesting parts (scalloped edges of plate 10 that define the flanged edges, see Fig. 2) intended to be nested together so that, when the lid is assembled with the tray while being above the tray, the footprint of the lid delimited by the flanged edges thereof is equal to the footprint of the tray delimited by the flanged edges thereof (see Fig. 6).
*Because the tubes and the pipette tips are not part of the claimed device, the limitations merely convey intended uses, meaning the prior art need only be capable of performing the claimed intended uses to anticipate the limitations. In this instance, the support tray allows accommodation of tubes having the same outer dimensions as holes 12 such that the tubes protrude from the lower face of the plate of the support tray. Moreover, the tubes can be held by the device in the claimed manners such that pipette tips can be inserted into the tubes as claimed.
With respect to claim 2, because the support tray and the lid are structurally identical and stackable (see Fig. 1), the lid is designed to occupy (i.e. capable of occupying) a position of superposition below the tray so that the chimneys 12 hold the bottoms of the tubes protruding from the lower face of the tray (see Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 4, the flanged edges of the lid delimit a border that bears on the tray when the lid occupies a position of superposition above the tray (see Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 6, due to the rectangular shape of the nesting parts and the scalloped edges (see Fig. 2), the nesting parts are arranged as a foolproof system to ensure a direction of mounting of the lid on the tray.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, the lid includes, from the upper face, a centering system (scalloped edges) configured to center the tray on the lid when the lid occupies the position of superposition below the tray (see Figs. 1 and 6), the height of the flanged edges of the tray being adapted to ensure the engagement of the chimneys 12 on part of a height of the tubes from their bottoms*, wherein the centering system is set laterally back from the flanged edges 14a, 14b, 16a, 16b of the lid (see Fig. 2) to receive the flanged edges of the tray (see Fig. 6) so that the footprint of the lid delimited by its flanged edges is equal to the footprint of the tray delimited by its flanged edges (see Fig. 6).
*As indicated above, because the tubes are not part of the claimed device, the limitations merely convey intended use. In this instance, if tubes having an appropriate length are received in the tray, then the bottoms of the tubes would engage the chimneys 12 of the lid.
With respect to claim 10, the chimneys 12 protrude from the plate of the lid (see annotation below). Under this mapping, the flanged edges 14a, 14b, 16a and 16b of the lid are flanged with respect to the chimneys 12.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, the tray includes bearing ribs (scalloped edges) protruding laterally from the upper face of the tray to serve as a bearing for a bearing element of an analysis device (see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 20, because the lid and the tray are identical (either can be considered the lid or the tray) and they are stackable, they are configured to be fastened together in a manner in which the lid occupies a position of superposition below the tray, and the tray bears on the upper face of the lid through a rim of the flanged edges of the tray (see Fig. 6); and
the chimneys 12 protrude from the upper face of the lid (see annotation above) and are configured to receive the bottom of the tubes* when the lid and the tray are fastened together with the lid occupying the position of superposition below the tray.
*As discussed above, the limitations directed to the tubes constitute recitation of intended use. Depending on the lengths of the tubes, the chimneys of the lid can receive the bottoms of the tubes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomes in view of Hovatter (US 2006/0045815 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Gomes does not disclose the material(s) from which the device is made. However, it is evident that the device must be made from a material that is pliable to enable the elastic locking discussed above (see also Figs. 7b and 7c). That said, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the tray and the lid from a thermoplastic such as glass-filled polypropylene, as taught by Hovatter (see [0041]). Hovatter discloses an analogous device that also employs a flexible locking mechanism integrated into the body of the device (see Fig. 11). In addition to meeting the physical properties, Hovatter discloses that polypropylene allows the contents of the device (pipette tips) to be readily seen, and further discloses that polypropylene is inexpensive and does not significantly outgas or shed particles (see [0041]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In addition, claims 21 and 22 would be allowable if they are rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As discussed above, Gomes discloses a device capable of holding tubes, the device comprising a support tray and a lid that are fastened to one another via elastically deformable legs. However, Gomes does not disclose chimneys comprising frustoconical-shaped openings as recited in claims 11 and 21. Moreover, based on the disclosure of Gomes, there is no motivation to modify the device so as to arrive at the respective claimed inventions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights