DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on12/19/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
As to the amended drawings, received on 4/20/26, the previous drawing objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the amended claims, received on 4/20/26, the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Based on the claim amendments, the previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, new claim rejections are entered due to the amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1-28 are pending with claims 1-21 being examined and claims 22-28 deemed withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, a singular “the receptacle” and “the support” does not have sufficient antecedent basis since no singular receptacle or support has been previously recited. Therefore, it is unclear if “the receptacle” of line 8 is attempting to refer to a specific singular receptacle or each of the plurality of receptacles that are previously recited. Similarly, it is unclear if “the support” of line 8 is attempting to refer to a specific singular support or each of the plurality of supports that are previously recited.
Claims 2-21 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-8, 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleefstra et al (US 20150299639; hereinafter “Kleefstra”; already of record) in view of Triva, D (US 20160083686; hereinafter “Triva”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Kleefstra teaches a system for capturing an image of a plated culture dish (Kleefstra; Fig. 11-16, [109]), comprising:
an imaging device having a image sensor camera with a lens adapted to capture an image of a plated culture dish (Kleefstra teaches an imaging device 230 which includes various imaging sensors and lenses; [109-111, 121-124, 128], Fig. 12, 15, 16);
an indexing disc with a plurality of receptacles, each receptacle having a support for a plated culture dish, the indexing disc receiving the plated culture dish from a conveyor and rotating the plated culture dish into a field of view of the lens (Kleefstra teaches carousel disc 255 that rotates the dish to camera 230; [109-114, 117-120, 122-123, 128], Fig. 12, 14, 15, 16. Kleefstra teaches multiple receptacles/supports where the support is the structure of the disc forming the receptacle; [117, 119], Fig. 12, 14); and
at least one light system for illuminating the plated culture dish for image capture (Kleefstra; [121, 124, 126-128]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “for…”, “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Kleefstra does teach that the imaging device can be configured in various ways (Kleefstra; [121-123]) and that there can also be reflection that is imaged (Kleefstra; [128]). Kleefstra does not specifically teach that the imaging device is a camera with a telecentric lens, or a mirror positioned adjacent to a support for the plated culture dish, the mirror adapted to provide a reflection of a label on a side of the plated culture dish within the field of view of the telecentric lens. However, Triva teaches the analogous art of imaging a petri dish, where the imaging device is a camera with a telecentric lens (Triva teaches a camera 6 with a telecentric lens 7; [57, 58, 88], Figs. 1-7), and a mirror positioned adjacent to a support for the plated culture dish, the mirror adapted to provide a reflection of a label on a side of the plated culture dish within the field of view of the telecentric lens (Triva teaches a mirror 17 to provide a reflection of a bar code to the imaging device; [38, 74], Figs. 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the imaging device for imaging petri dishes and the supports that supported a plurality of culture dishes of Kleefstra to have included a camera with a telecentric lens and a mirror as in Triva because Triva teaches that using the mirror helps to determine exact angular positioning of the petri dish to enable image comparison (Triva; [38, 74]) and because Triva teaches that cameras with telecentric lenses are known imaging sensors for petri dishes (Triva; [57, 58, 88]).
As to claim 2, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the mirror is adjacent to the side of the plated culture dish, the plated culture dish having a bottom, wherein at least a portion of the mirror is placed such that at least a portion of the mirror extends at least partially beneath the bottom of the plated culture dish at the side of the plated culture dish or no portion of the mirror extends at least partially beneath the bottom of the plated culture dish at the side of the plated culture dish (The examiner notes that the culture dish is not positively recited and that the relationship of features to the unclaimed culture dish do not further limit the system beyond that of a capability, where modified Kleefstra is capable of holding any culture dish. The modification of the imaging system of Kleefstra to include the imaging system with the mirror of Triva has already been discussed above. Triva teaches the mirror 17 adjacent to the dish; Fig. 3-4).
As to claim 3, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 2, wherein at least a portion of the mirror extends outward beyond a perimeter of the plated culture dish (The examiner notes that the culture dish is not positively recited and that the relationship of features to the unclaimed culture dish do not further limit the system beyond that of a capability, where modified Kleefstra is capable of holding any culture dish. The modification of the imaging system of Kleefstra to include the imaging system with the mirror of Triva has already been discussed above. Triva teaches the mirror 17 extending outward beyond the dish; Fig. 3-4).
As to claim 4, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the plated culture dish has a diameter and where the system receives plated culture dishes of different diameters (The examiner notes that the culture dish is not positively recited and that the relationship of features to the unclaimed culture dish do not further limit the system beyond that of a capability, where modified Kleefstra is capable of holding any culture dish. Kleefstra is capable of holding various diameter dishes. Kleefstra also teaches that various size containers can be used; [118]. The modification of the imaging system for imaging dishes of Kleefstra to include the imaging system for imaging dishes of Triva has already been discussed above. Triva teaches that various diameter culture dishes can be imaged; [22, 56, 61]).
As to claim 5, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a telecentric lens module that is adapted to align and fix a position of the telecentric lens and the camera of the imaging device with respect to the plated culture dish (The modification of the imaging system of Kleefstra to include the imaging system with the telecentric lens of Triva has already been discussed above. Kleefstra teaches the imaging device aligning and fixing with respect to the dish so that an image can be taken; [111, 122, 124, 128], Fig. 15. Also, the disc that holds the and secures the dish of Kleefstra would be a support that helps align; Fig. 15. Triva also teaches aligning the camera and dish with respect to each other; [38, 57, 58, 65, 74, 88], Fig. 1-7).
As to claim 6, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one light system includes a light emitting diode (LED) (Kleefstra; [121, 124, 126-128]).
As to claim 7, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 6, where the light system comprises three light sources (Kleefstra teaches at least three and up to twelve light sources and also teaches that light sources can be above, to the side, and beneath; [124, 126, 127]).
As to claim 8, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the light sources are a tip light source, a side light source and a bottom light source and wherein, optionally, each light source comprises a plurality of LEDs arranged in a circular configuration (Kleefstra teaches at least three and up to twelve light sources and also teaches that light sources can be above, to the side, and beneath, and can further be arranged in various configurations/locations based on design choice; [124, 126, 127]).
As to claim 13, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the indexing disc comprises a plurality of bumpers that contact the plated culture dish when received by the indexing disc, the indexing disc optionally comprising a hinged arm that is in an open position to receive the plated culture dish into an indexing disc receptacle wherein the hinged are is moved to a closed position when the plated culture dish is received by the receptacle (Kleefstra teaches that the disc 255 includes bumpers as the portions of the disc that form protrusions seen at the bottom of figure 12A or at the left or right of the disc in figure 12B).
As to claim 14, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a conveyor that transports the plated culture dish from an ingress location to the indexing disc and from the indexing disc to an egress location (Kleefstra teaches conveyor 240 that moves conveyor from ingress 2100 to the disc and conveyor 245 that moves from the disc to egress 2600; Fig. 11, 12A, [109-111, 113]).
As to claim 15, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the ingress location comprises a culture dish lift comprising a platform that rises beneath a plated culture dish placed at the ingress location, wherein the culture dish lift optionally comprises a sensor that detects a presence of the plated culture dish on the platform and further optionally comprises a securement for the plated culture dish on the platform, wherein the securement is optionally a suction cup (Kleefstra teaches a robotic lift that moves the dish from the shelf 220 in the incubator and to the ingress location 2100 where the dish is in the imaging module at 2100/200, and the imaging module 200 is above the shelf/incubator 220 such that the dish is lifted; Fig. 7A, 7B, 12A, [76, 92, 93, 110, 111, 113]. Additionally, Kleefstra teaches a robotic arm which would pick up the dish from the bottom because petri dishes must be picked up from the bottom because they have lids that cover the tops and cannot be picked up from above as the dish would fall if only the lid was grasped; [49, 52, 54, 67, 68, 72], Fig. 6).
As to claim 16, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the conveyor further comprises a buffer position that stops the plated culture dish from advancing into the indexing disc and optionally further comprises a scanning station positioned downstream of the buffer position, wherein a scanner at the scanning station reads the label on the plated culture dish and wherein the scanning station optionally comprises a scanning lift comprising a platform that rises beneath a plated culture dish placed at the scanning station and that rotates the plated culture dish to place the label to be read by the scanner, wherein the scanning lift further comprises a securement for the plated culture dish on the platform, wherein the securement is optionally a suction cup (Kleefstra teaches a buffer 2250; [109, 111], Fig. 12A).
As to claim 17, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a lid manipulator that removes a lid from the plated culture dish prior to the plated culture dish being received into the indexing disc, wherein the lid manipulator optionally comprises a securement that attaches to a lid on the plated culture dish to remove the lid therefrom and optionally wherein the system comprises a second lid manipulator that receives the lid from the lid manipulator and wherein the second lid manipulator places the lid back on the plated culture dish (Kleefstra teaches a lid manipulator 250 at 2300; [109, 111, 114-115], Fig. 12A, 13).
As to claim 18, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the egress location comprises a culture dish scanning lift comprising a platform that rises beneath a plated culture dish placed at the egress location, and where during reading of the barcode that the plated culture dish is rotated to place the label in a position to be read by a scanner, wherein the scanning lift further comprises a securement for the plated culture dish on the platform, wherein the securement is optionally a suction cup (Kleefstra teaches a robotic lift that moves the dish from the imaging module at 2600/200 and to the shelf 220 in the incubator; Fig. 7A, 7B, 12A, [73, 76, 77, 92, 93, 110, 111, 113]. Additionally, Kleefstra teaches a robotic arm which would pick up the dish from the bottom because petri dishes must be picked up from the bottom because they have lids that cover the tops and cannot be picked up from above as the dish would fall if only the lid was grasped; [49, 52, 54, 67, 68, 72], Fig. 6. Kleefstra also teaches that the dish is moved to the egress 2600 and then to the incubator shelf where the dish is scanned again; [110]. Kleefstra teaches that when the ID is read that the dish is rotated, where the portion that lifts the dish to rotate it and place it back on the conveyor is the lift/securement; [109, 111]. Kleefstra also teaches that readers are strategically positioned throughout the system to enable identification and management of the dishes; [51]).
Kleefstra does not teach that the dish is rotated and read by a scanner at the egress location. However, Kleefstra does discuss that during scanning of the barcode that the dish is rotated (Kleefstra; [109, 111]) and where readers are strategically positioned throughout the system to enable identification and management of the dishes (Kleefstra; [51]). Without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the scanner that rotates the dish to scan the barcode of Kleefstra to also be at the egress to allow for the dish identification to be checked prior to removing the dish from the imager/moving the dish to the incubator since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.' Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the egress of Kleefstra by the scanner that rotates the dish to scan the barcode as taught by Kleefstra because Kleefstra teaches that during scanning of the barcode that the dish is rotated (Kleefstra; [109, 111]) and that readers are strategically positioned throughout the system to enable identification and management of the dishes (Kleefstra; [51]) where including the rotating would enable the dish to be scanned and where including the reader at the egress would ensure that the dish identification to be checked prior to removing the dish from the imager/moving the dish to the incubator.
As to claim 19, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system is an image capture module integrated with an incubator (Kleefstra teaches shelf 220 is part of an incubator such that the image capture module 200 is joined with the incubator 220/100; Fig. 4, 7B, [72, 73, 76, 92, 93, 110, 111, 113]).
As to claim 20, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 19, wherein the image capture module is adjacent to the incubator outside of a controlled cabinet environment (Kleefstra teaches image capture module 200 is adjacent to the shelf 220 as part of an incubator, and where the image capture 200 is outside of the controlled incubator environment; Fig. 4, 7B, [72, 73, 76, 92, 93, 94, 110, 111, 113]).
As to claim 21, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the indexing disc moves the plated culture dish from a location, where it is received by the indexing disc, to the imaging device and from the imaging device to an exit location from the indexing disc (Kleefstra teaches multiple receptacles; [117, 119], Fig. 12, 14).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleefstra et al (US 20150299639; hereinafter “Kleefstra”; already of record) in view of Triva, D (US 20160083686; hereinafter “Triva”; already of record) in view of Guthrie et al (US 20140227774; hereinafter “Guthrie”; already of record).
As to claim 9, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 8, with the three light sources (Kleefstra teaches at least three and up to twelve light sources and also teaches that light sources can be above, to the side, and beneath, and can further be arranged in various configurations/locations based on design choice; [124, 126, 127]).
Although modified Kleefstra teaches that various light configurations can be used based on design choice, modified Kleefstra does not specifically teach a diffuser for each light source. However, Guthrie teaches the analogous art of an imaging device for a plated culture dish where the imaging device incudes a diffuser (Guthrie teaches a camera to image a dish, where a light source is used with a diffuser; Fig. 1, [19, 20, 27-31, 48-50]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified each LED light source in the imaging device of modified Kleefstra to have included a diffuser as in Guthrie because Guthrie teaches that using a diffuser enables the culture plate to be uniformly illuminated (Guthrie; [27, 50]).
As to claim 10, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the diffuser for the side light source comprises a lifting mechanism that moves the diffuser vertically thereby permitting the plated culture dish to be moved into the field of view of the telecentric lens (The modification of the side light of Kleefstra to include a diffuser as in Guthrie has already been discussed above in claim 9. Guthrie teaches a light diffuser lifting mechanism that moves vertically; Fig. 1, [42, 57]).
As to claim 11, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 1, wherein with the support is below the mirror and the culture dish such that the plated culture dish is placed on and carried by the indexing disc (see claim 1 above and Triva; Fig. 3-4).
Modified Kleefstra does not specifically teach the support is a transparent cover. However, Guthrie teaches the analogous art of imaging a plated culture dish where the dish is on a transparent glass support (Guthrie teaches a transparent glass support 116 to support the dish; [39, 52], Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the support below the mirror for the culture dish of modified Kleefstra to have been transparent glass as in Guthrie because Guthrie teaches that glass is advantageous as it helps to support the dish (Guthrie; [52], Fig. 1), and also because glass can be easily replaced if scratched (Guthrie; [52]), and also because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a transparent support is necessary in order to view transmitted light through a clear culture dish.
As to claim 12, modified Kleefstra teaches the system of claim 11, wherein a moveable opaque background is positioned beneath the transparent cover (The modification of the imaging system of Kleefstra to include the imaging system with the mirror of Triva has already been discussed above in claim 1, and the modification of the support below the mirror of modified Kleefstra to be a transparent support as in Guthrie has already been discussed above in claim 11. Triva teaches an opaque background 13 beneath the dish to improve the detected image; [65, 90], Fig. 3-4. Additionally, Guthrie teaches an opaque frame/cover 112 which is just below a support 116 as a glass stage; [36, 37, 39, 50]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on pages 14-16 that the combination of references does not teach a plurality of receptacles with a mirror. Applicants argue that the Triva teaches a mirror carried with a slide while the instant claims recite a plurality of receptacles. Applicants also state that the disc rotates the disc and brings the culture disc into alignment with the mirror because the instant invention does not have a fixed relationship between the mirror and the support. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant's invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the disc rotates the disc and brings the culture disc into alignment with the mirror because the instant invention does not have a fixed relationship between the mirror and the support) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, these arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Second, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). The examiner maintains that the modifiecation of the plurality of supports/receptacles of Kleefstra to each have a mirror as in Triva addresses the invention as instantly claimed. Kleefstra teaches an indexing disc with a plurality of receptacles, each receptacle having a support for a plated culture dish, the indexing disc receiving the plated culture dish from a conveyor and rotating the plated culture dish into a field of view of the lens (Kleefstra teaches carousel disc 255 that rotates the dish to camera 230; [109-114, 117-120, 122-123, 128], Fig. 12, 14, 15, 16. Kleefstra teaches multiple receptacles/supports where the support is the structure of the disc forming the receptacle; [117, 119], Fig. 12, 14). Kleefstra does teach that the imaging device can be configured in various ways (Kleefstra; [121-123]) and that there can also be reflection that is imaged (Kleefstra; [128]). Kleefstra does not specifically teach that the imaging device is a camera with a telecentric lens, or a mirror positioned adjacent to a support for the plated culture dish, the mirror adapted to provide a reflection of a label on a side of the plated culture dish within the field of view of the telecentric lens. However, Triva teaches the analogous art of imaging a petri dish, where the imaging device is a camera with a telecentric lens (Triva teaches a camera 6 with a telecentric lens 7; [57, 58, 88], Figs. 1-7), and a mirror positioned adjacent to a support for the plated culture dish, the mirror adapted to provide a reflection of a label on a side of the plated culture dish within the field of view of the telecentric lens (Triva teaches a mirror 17 to provide a reflection of a bar code to the imaging device; [38, 74], Figs. 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the imaging device for imaging petri dishes and the supports that supported a plurality of culture dishes of Kleefstra to have included a camera with a telecentric lens and a mirror as in Triva because Triva teaches that using the mirror helps to determine exact angular positioning of the petri dish to enable image comparison (Triva; [38, 74]) and because Triva teaches that cameras with telecentric lenses are known imaging sensors for petri dishes (Triva; [57, 58, 88]). The resulting configuration would be that each support/receptacle of Kleefstra included a corresponding mirror.
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 BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights