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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 10, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10-12, 15-18, and 20, 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new interpretation of Miyahara (US5362445).
The applicant argues that Miyahara does not teach or suggest at least one holding element affixed to an upper side of the elongate flexible support that at least partially covers the respective IRE or IRE slide and comprises a barrier between the plurality of receiving portions (see remarks page 10). The examiner notes that the interpretation of “holding element” in the previous rejection corresponded to a film or tape slide which has a different scope than the new claim language of a “barrier”. Both structures are supported by the applicant’s specification. The term is no longer interpreted under 112f since the claim provides a structure.
Miyahara teaches support structure 30 that affixed on the upper side of carrying system 32 and partially covers the ATR 8 and creates a physical barrier between each ATR (Fig. 4; col 4 lines 29-45). In the previous rejection, the support member 30 corresponded to the receiving portion, however, after further consideration, the receiving portion of Miyahara is considered to be the recess created by support member 30, not the support member itself. This is consistent with the 112f interpretation of “receiving portion.” Thus, Miyahara teaches at least one holding element affixed to an upper side of the elongate flexible support that at least partially covers the respective IRE or IRE slide and comprises a barrier between the plurality of receiving portions.
As for the dependent claims, US20160139007A1 by Hayworth is further relied upon to teach limitations related to the holding element being in the form of a film or tape which teaches that this type of sample support similar to movie projector film is well-known in the art.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 1, "receving portions" should read "receiving portions" to fix the typographical error.
Regarding claim 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 22, the claims recite “IRE” instead of “IRE or IRE slide”. The examiner suggests evaluating if “or IRE slide” is necessary for the claims and removing the term from all claims if possible. Otherwise, the above claims should read “IRE or IRE slide” for consistency.
Regarding claim 7, “each respective IRE, or IRE slide” should read “each of the respective IRE, or IRE slide”.
Regarding claim 12, “the sample side” in line 5 should read “a sample side”. Further, “ a respective IRE” should read “the respective IRE or IRE slide” in lines 5 and 7.
Regarding claim 22, "said holding element" should read "the holding element" for consistency. Further, “at least one IRE” should read “the at least one IRE or IRE slide”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“receiving portion” in claims 1, 5-8, 10-12, 16, 18, 19
“storing device” in claim 23
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 18, the claims recite “receiving portion” which uses the generic placeholder “portion” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, the limitation on “receiving portion” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a recess to hold an IRE or IRE slide according to the applicant’s specification page 6 line 12.
The examiner notes that the limitations “sample-receiving portion” and “beam-receiving portion” in claims 1, 7, 12, 16, 18, 24 and 15 refer to portions of the IRE or IRE slide and are separate from the “receiving portion”.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites “storing device” which uses the generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, the limitation on “storing device” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a reel or spool according to the applicant’s specification page 4 line 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12, 16, 17, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Miyahara (US5362445; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Miyahara teaches a sample support apparatus comprising (at least Fig. 4, 5, and 6):
an elongate flexible support (carrying system 32; col 4 lines 40-42 “flexible belt”) comprising a plurality of receiving portions (support member 30 creates a recess that is a receiving portion; col 4 lines 29-31; Fig. 4 shows support 30 which includes step 31 which is recessed, further shown in Fig. 5; this corresponds with the interpretation of receiving portion as a recess) each configured with a respective internal reflection element (IRE) or IRE slide (ATR prism 8; col 4 lines 33-45),
and at least one holding element (support member 30) affixed to an upper side of the elongate flexible support that at least partially covers the respective IRE or IRE slide and comprises a barrier between the plurality of receiving portions (Fig. 4 support member 30 with step 31 is affixed on the upper side of carrying system 32 and partially covers the ATR 8 and creates a physical barrier between each ATR; col 4 lines 29-45 "The prism 8 is firmly held by the support member 30 which has the step formed like a frame to constitute the ATR prism cell 52 that holds the sample solution on the upper surface of the ATR prism 8."; "support member 30 is firmly supported on a carrying system 32").
Regarding claim 5, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of receiving portions are aligned longitudinally along the elongate flexible support (col 4 lines 43-45; Fig. 5 shows a plurality of prisms 8 aligned longitudinally in recesses of supports 30 and carrying system 32).
Regarding claim 6, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of receiving portions are spaced apart at regular intervals on the elongate flexible support (col 4 lines 43-45; Fig. 5 or 6 shows prisms 8 spaced at regular intervals in recesses of supports 30 and carrying system 32).
Regarding claim 7, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein each respective IRE or IRE slide (ATR prism 8; col 4 lines 33-45) has one sample-receiving portion provided on a sample side of the IRE (Fig. 4 top side of prism 8; Fig. 6 shows sample porting port 22 on top side of prism; col 4 48-57), and one beam-receiving portion provided on a beam side of the IRE (Fig. 4; Fig. 6 lower side of prism 8, infrared beam 2; col 4 lines 55-57).
Regarding claim 10, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein each of the plurality of receiving portion comprise a recess on a sample side of the elongate flexible support (col 4 lines 29-31; Fig. 4 shows support 30 which includes step 31 which is recessed, further shown in Fig. 5; the recess is the receiving portion), and the recess is configured to receive the respective IRE (prism 8 is located within recess of support 30 below step 31).
Regarding claim 12, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one holding element comprises at least one aperture (col 4 lines 29-38; the opening on the top side of support member 30 constitutes an aperture) configured to expose a portion of a sample side of a respective IRE (Fig. 4 top side of prism 8; Fig. 6 shows sample porting port 22 on top side of prism; col 4 48-57) and wherein the at least one aperture has a size equal to or less than the size of a sample-receiving portion of a respective IRE (Fig. 4 show support member 30 covers at least part of ATR prism 8 on the top side which is the sample-receiving portion).
Regarding claim 16, Miyahara teaches a kit of parts comprising (at least Fig. 4, 5, and 6):
an elongate flexible support (carrying system 32; col 4 lines 40-42 “flexible belt”) comprising a plurality of receiving portions (support member 30 creates a recess that is a receiving portion; col 4 lines 29-31; Fig. 4 shows support 30 which includes step 31 which is recessed, further shown in Fig. 5; this corresponds with the interpretation of receiving portion as a recess);
and a plurality of IREs or IRE slides configured to be provided at the plurality of receiving portions (ATR prism 8; col 4 lines 33-45), wherein each of the plurality of IREs or IRE slides have at least one sample-receiving portion(Fig. 4 top side of prism 8; Fig. 6 shows sample porting port 22 on top side of prism; col 4 48-57) and at least one beam-receiving portion (Fig. 4; Fig. 6 lower side of prism 8, infrared beam 2; col 4 lines 55-57) ; and
at least one holding element (support member 30 and step 31) configured to be affixed to an upper side of the elongate flexible support to provide a barrier between the plurality of receiving portions (Fig. 4 support member 30 with step 31 is affixed on the upper side of carrying system 32 and creates a physical barrier between each ATR; col 4 lines 29-45 "The prism 8 is firmly held by the support member 30 which has the step formed like a frame to constitute the ATR prism cell 52 that holds the sample solution on the upper surface of the ATR prism 8."; "support member 30 is firmly supported on a carrying system 32").
Regarding claim 17, wherein the at least one holding element comprises an aperture (col 4 lines 29-38; the opening on the top side of support member 30 constitutes an aperture) and is configured to cover at least a portion of at least one IRE (Fig. 4 show support member 30 covers at least part of ATR prism 8 on the top side which is the sample-receiving portion).
Regarding claim 24, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1 (at least Fig. 4, 5, and 6), and further teaches a system for measuring a sample, the system comprising (at least Fig. 3; col 4 lines 8-28): a dispenser configured to supply a sample support apparatus according to claim 1 (col 4 lines 10-14; Fig. 3 ATR carrier is contained in portion 23 of housing and carries ATR prism cells of the support members, thus acting as a dispenser; for further detail Fig. 6 shows a cross sectional view of an analyzer with a carrying system; col 4 lines 39-47);
a sample dispenser configured to apply a sample on a sample-receiving portion of the sample support apparatus (col 4 line 11; Fig. 3 sample pouring port 22; Fig. 4 top side of prism 8 is the sample receiving portion; Fig. 6 shows cross sectional view with sample porting port 22 on top side of prism; col 4 48-57); and
a spectrometer (col 4 lines 15-16; Fig. 3 spectrometer 13 is used to measure absorption spectra).
Regarding claim 25, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches a method for measuring a sample (at least Fig. 3, 4, 5, and 6), the method comprising:
supplying a sample support apparatus according to claim 1 (at least Fig. 4, 5, and 6);
applying a sample on a sample-receiving portion of the sample support apparatus (col 4 line 11; Fig. 3 sample pouring port 22; Fig. 4 top side of prism 8 is the sample receiving portion; Fig. 6 shows cross sectional view with sample porting port 22 on top side of prism; col 4 48-57); and
moving the sample support apparatus to a spectrometer so as to measure the sample (col 4 lines 53-57 prism cell is moved from position a to b then infrared ray 2 is used to cause absorption; col 4 lines 15-16; Fig. 3 spectrometer 13 is used to measure absorption spectra).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara (US5362445; previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein each of the plurality receiving portions comprises one or more openings on a beam side of the elongate flexible support (Fig. 4 shows opening in support 30 recess for prism 8 on the side of beam 2; col 4 lines 29-38).
This embodiment of Miyahara is silent as to wherein the one or more openings have a size less than the size of the respective IRE.
However, Miyahara does teach this limitation in a separate embodiment.
Miyahara teaches a second embodiment (at least Fig. 13) wherein the receiving portions each comprises one or more openings on a beam side of the elongate support (col 8 lines 14-16; 30-39; Fig. 13 shows prism support members 222 and 221 which create openings for beam 2), wherein the one or more openings have a size less than the size of the respective IRE (Fig. 13 shows that support 221 covers a section of prism 171 thus making the openings smaller than the prism 171).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an opening which has a size less than the size of the IRE in order to support the IRE while allowing a beam to interact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first embodiment of Miyahara to incorporate one or more openings on a beam side of the elongate support wherein the one or more openings have a size less than the size of the respective IRE as suggested by the second embodiment of Miyahara in order to fully support the prism and decrease measurement error from stray light.
Regarding claim 11, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the elongate flexible support comprises at least 8 receiving portions (Fig. 6 shows at least eight ATR prism cells 52 which are located in the receiving portions) and/or wherein the sample support apparatus comprises at least 8 IREs (Fig. 6 shows at least eight ATR prism cells 52 which include ATR prisms 8; col 5 lines 8-10 the number of analyses can be increased by providing more than one ATR prism cell 52; 8 is approximately between 10-5000).
Although Miyahara does not explicitly teach approximately between 10 and 5000 of the plurality of receiving portions and/or IREs, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyahara to incorporate at least two more prism cells to have approximately between 10 and 5000 receiving portions and/or IREs in order to increase the number of analyses as suggested by Miyahara (col 5 lines 8-10) thus improving efficiently.
Claims 4, 15, 18, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara (US5362445; previously cited) in view of US20160139007A1 by Hayworth (newly cited).
Regarding claim 4, although Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the elongate support comprises or is provided in the form of a belt or chain (col 4 lines 40-42 “flexible belt or chain”), Miyahara is silent as to wherein the elongate support comprises or is provided in the form of a ribbon or tape.
However, Hayworth does address this limitation. Hayworth and Miyahara are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of sample preparation.
Hayworth teaches wherein the elongate support comprises or is provided in the form of a ribbon or tape (bottom base tape 410; Fig. 6A,B [0153]-[0154]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ribbon or tape as a flexible support. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Miyahara to replace the belt or chain with the tape or ribbon taught by Hayworth since the tape can be efficiently reeled without damage and can protect both sides of the sample slide ([0154]).
Regarding claim 15, Miyahara teaches the apparatus of claim 1 but is silent as to wherein the at least one holding element is provided in the form of a film or a tape.
However, Hayworth does address this limitation. Hayworth and Miyahara are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of sample preparation.
Hayworth teaches wherein the at least one holding element is provided in the form of a film or a tape (top tape 408; Fig. 6A,B [0153]-[0154]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a film or tape as a holding element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Miyahara to replace the support member with the film or tape taught by Hayworth since the tape can be efficiently reeled without damage and can protect both sides of the sample slide ([0154]).
Regarding claim 18, a method of providing a sample support apparatus (at least Fig. 4, 5, and 6), the method comprising:
providing an elongate flexible support (carrying system 32; col 4 lines 40-42 “flexible belt”) comprising a plurality of receiving portions (support member 30 creates a recess that is a receiving portion; col 4 lines 29-31; Fig. 4 shows support 30 which includes step 31 which is recessed, further shown in Fig. 5; this corresponds with the interpretation of receiving portion as a recess);
disposing at least one IRE or IRE slide in each of the plurality of receiving portions (ATR prism 8; col 4 lines 33-45); wherein the at least one IRE or IRE slide has at least one sample-receiving portion provided on a sample side thereof (Fig. 4 top side of prism 8; Fig. 6 shows sample porting port 22 on top side of prism; col 4 48-57), and at least one beam-receiving portion (Fig. 4; Fig. 6 lower side of prism 8, infrared beam 2; col 4 lines 55-57);
providing a holding element (support member 30) to an upper side of the elongate flexible support comprising a barrier between the plurality of receiving portions (Fig. 4 support member 30 is affixed on the upper side of carrying system 32 and creates a physical barrier between each ATR; col 4 lines 29-45 "The prism 8 is firmly held by the support member 30 which has the step formed like a frame to constitute the ATR prism cell 52 that holds the sample solution on the upper surface of the ATR prism 8."; "support member 30 is firmly supported on a carrying system 32").
Miyahara does not explicitly teach a method of making a sample support apparatus, comprising applying the holding element because the sample support apparatus used in Miyahara is already constructed.
However, Hayworth does address this limitation. Hayworth and Miyahara are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of sample preparation.
Hayworth teaches a method of making a sample support apparatus (Fig. 4A,B and 5A,B show apparatus for making sample support apparatus; Fig. 6A,B show sample support apparatus), the method comprising:
providing an elongate flexible support (bottom base tape 410) comprising a plurality of receiving portions (tissue ribbon 402; [0153]);
disposing at least one sample slide in each of the plurality of receiving portions (microtomed tissue slices 400 are seen to be embedded in the ribbon 402; [0153]); wherein the at least one sample slide has at least one sample-receiving portion provided on a sample side thereof, and at least one beam-receiving portion (Fig. 6A shows top of sample support with holes 409 and Fig. 6B shows bottom of sample support with holes 411; [0153]);
applying a holding element (top tape 408) to an upper side of the elongate flexible support comprising a barrier between the plurality of receiving portions (bottom base tape 410) that and comprises a barrier between the sample slides ([153-154]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a method of making a sample support apparatus that includes steps of providing and applying known elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Miyahara to include a method of making a sample support apparatus comprising applying the holding element as suggested by Hayworth in order to provide an automated, efficient method of sample preparation ([0162])
Regarding claim 20, Miyahara modified by Hayworth teaches the method of claim 18, and further teaches comprising moving the elongate flexible support in a linear direction (col 4 lines 53-57; Fig. 6 shows movement between positions a and b is linear).
Regarding claim 22, Miyahara modified by Hayworth teaches the method of claim 18, and further teaches wherein said holding element comprises an aperture (col 4 lines 29-38; the opening on the top side of support member 30 constitutes an aperture) and covers at least a portion of at least one IRE (Fig. 4 show support member 30 covers at least part of ATR prism 8 on the top side which is the sample-receiving portion).
Regarding claim 23, Miyahara modified by Hayworth teaches the method of claim 18, and although Miyahara does not explicitly teach further comprising stowing the sample support apparatus such that it is: i) wound or spooled on or around a storing device; or ii) folded with a foldable connection, Miyahara does teach that the support apparatus includes a carrying system which supports the receiving portions while both in use and not in use (Fig. 6; col 4 lines 39-45; col 5 lines 7-10).
Further, Hayworth does address this limitation.
Hayworth teaches stowing the sample support apparatus such that it is: i) wound or spooled on or around a storing device; or ii) folded with a foldable connection ([0154] reels of tissue-tape can be handled and stored efficiently; [0155])
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a flexible support can be stowed by on a spool or in a folded configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Miyahara to include stowing the sample support apparatus such that it is: i) wound or spooled on or around a storing device; or ii) folded with a foldable connection as suggested by Hayworth in order to efficiently store and handle the samples ([0154]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US5746855 by Bolles teaches a method and apparatus for the archival storage of tissue sections which have been cut from a sample block by a microtome blade includes a tape bearing serially-spaced areas of adhesive material, generally the same size as the surface of the tissue sample block. The tape may be delivered from a feed reel by a feed roller mechanism. Between each cut, the tape is advanced to align the adhesive area on the tape with the tissue sample. An application roller presses the adhesive against the sample, the section is cut, and a takeup roller lifts the tape and section away from the blade. The tape may then be wound onto a takeup reel for archival storage. The entire process may be automated, including the operation of a transport mechanism to move the apparatus away from the tissue sample during microscopic imaging (Abstract)
US20130230428A1 by Seelig teaches a diagnostic tape unit with a test tape that can be wound onto a spool which comprises a transport tape and a plurality of test elements mounted thereon (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877