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 on 04/21/2023, 08/14/2025 and 11/07/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant disagrees with the restriction requirement mailed 11/26/2025. Applicant traverses on grounds that the Patent Office has not established it would impose a burden to examine the full scope of the claimed invention.
Examiner recognizes that the same corresponding technical feature is common to the groups. MPEP 1850 (II) states, in part:
Lack of unity of invention may be directly evident "a priori," i.e., before considering the claims in relation to any prior art, or may only become apparent "a posteriori," i.e., after taking the prior art into consideration. For example, independent claims to A + X, A + Y, X + Y can be said to lack unity a priori as there is no subject matter common to all claims. In the case of independent claims to A + X and A + Y, unity of invention is present a priori as A is common to both claims. However, if it can be established that A is known, there is lack of unity a posteriori, since A (be it a single feature or a group of features) is not a technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art.
Examiner’s citation of art establishes that the common technical feature does not make over the art. As the technical feature does not define over the art, unity of invention is lacking.
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 are pending with claims 1-11 being examined. Claims 12-14 are considered withdrawn.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 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “preferably a transfer port in an "alpha part door design””. The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the term is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites “alpha part door design”. This limitation is indefinite since the ordinary artisan would not understand the expression based on applicant’s specification. Applicant’s specification merely discloses “A useful system for the transfer port and thus for the door of the transfer device is the alpha part door design, as is known, for example, from LaCalhène (registered trademark) or other providers” (Spec., Pg. 8, lines 14-16).
As to line 2 of claim 9, it is unclear what Applicant refers to as the container being “rigid.” Applicant does not define a material from what the container is constructed that would enable one of skill in the art to determine the “rigidity” of the container as every material has a rigidity to some degree.
Claim 10 recites “preferably in the form of a stack of Petri-dishes (P) in an aligned parallel orientation” The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the term is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nering (US 6280134 B1; hereinafter “Nering” already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Nering teaches a transfer device for transferring a plurality of objects through a transfer port (Nering; fig. 1A, 1B. 11,13, 15, 19a, 24 illustrates an interface 11, first wafer carrier 19a loaded into the second portion 15 which is a sealed chamber having a door 24 which opens to receive a wafer carrier 19a from the first portion 13 and closes after the wafer carrier lowers into the second portion 15), comprising:
a container with an internal space configured to accommodate the plurality of objects to be transferred through the transfer port,
wherein the container has at least one extraction opening at an end portion of the container in an axial direction dimensioned such that the objects can be removed from the container at least individually (Nering; fig 1A, 1B. 11, 15, 19a, 24 illustrates interface has the second portion which is a sealed chamber having a door 24 which opens to receive a wafer carrier from the first portion and closes after the wafer carrier lowers into the second portion,
a door configured to selectively close the at least one extraction opening and seal the internal space from the environment; and
a piston arranged in the container so as to be movable in a translational motion in the axial direction towards/away from the at least one extraction opening to move the objects accommodated in the container (Nering; fig. 1A, 1B. 13, 15, 23).
Regarding claim 6, Nering teaches the transfer device according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the at least one extraction opening (Nering; fig. 1A. 21) is arranged at an axial end of the container or at a periphery of the axial end portion of the container (Nering; fig. 1A and Col. 3 lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 7, Nering teaches the transfer device according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the at least one extraction opening and the piston are arranged at opposite sides of the container in the axial direction (Nering; fig. 1B. 24).
Regarding claim 8, Nering teaches the transfer device according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the door is configured to be connected to the transfer port, preferably a transfer port in an "alpha part door design" (Nering; fig. 1A-B. 24 illustrates door 24 in what appears to be an “alpha port design configuration”).
Regarding claim 9, Nering teaches the transfer device according to claim 1 (see above) wherein the container is rigid. Nering teaches a container. Examiner notes that every material is rigid to some degree.
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.
Claims 2-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nering (US 6280134 B1; hereinafter “Nering” already of record) in view of Tamura (US 20150217294 A1; hereinafter “Tamura”).
Regarding claim 2, Nering teaches the transfer device according to claim 1 (see above) to include a piston (see above).
Nering fails to teach the piston is configured to be actuated from an outside of the container.
However, Tamura teaches the analogous art of a container and cell transfer system (Tamura; Title) that includes a piston (Tamura; fig. 1. 56 and [0038] “yoke member”) wherein the piston is configured to be actuated from an outside of the container (Tamura; fig. 3. 56, 59 and [0041] “inserted into/pulled out”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Nering’s piston to be actuated from an outside of the container as taught by Tamura because Tamura teaches a container and cell transfer system (Tamura; Title) that includes a piston (Tamura; fig. 1. 56 and [0038] “yoke member”) wherein the piston is configured to be actuated from an outside of the container (Tamura; fig. 3. 56, 59 and [0041] “inserted into/pulled out”).
This allows to manually insert and pull the piston.
Regarding claim 3, Nering teaches the transfer device according to claim 2 (see above) to include a container and a piston (see above).
Nering fails to teach the container has an access opening for introducing a pushing and/or pulling force on the piston to effect the translational motion of the piston in the container.
However, Tamura teaches the analogous art of a container and cell transfer system (Tamura; Title) that includes a piston (Tamura; fig. 1. 56 and [0038] “yoke member”) and container (Tamura; fig. 2. 50) wherein the container has an access opening (Tamura; fig. 2. 59) for introducing a pushing and/or pulling force on the piston to effect the translational motion of the piston in the container (Tamura; fig. 2. 50, 56, 59 and [0041] “inserted into/pulled out”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Nering’s container and a piston to have an access opening for introducing a pushing and/or pulling force on the piston to effect the translational motion of the piston in the container to have an access opening for introducing a pushing and/or pulling force on the piston to effect the translational motion of the piston in the container as taught by Tamura because Tamura teaches a container and cell transfer system (Tamura; Title) that includes a piston (Tamura; fig. 1. 56 and [0038] “yoke member”) and container (Tamura; fig. 2. 50) wherein the container has an access opening (Tamura; fig. 2. 59) for introducing a pushing and/or pulling force on the piston to effect the translational motion of the piston in the container (Tamura; fig. 2. 50, 56, 59 and [0041] “inserted into/pulled out”).
This allows to manually insert and pull the piston.
Regarding claim 4, Nering teaches the transfer device according to claim 1 (see above) to include a container with an internal space (see above).
Nering fails to teach the internal space of the container is sealed from the outside environment of the container by means of a deformable sleeve and/or a sliding seal sealed between the piston and the container.
However, Tamura teaches the analogous art of a container and cell transfer system (Tamura; Title) that includes a container with an internal space (Tamura; fig. 2. 50) and a sliding seal (Tamura; fig. 3. 72) wherein the internal space of the container is sealed from the outside environment of the container by means of a deformable sleeve and/or a sliding seal sealed between the piston and the container (Tamura; fig. 3. 50, 72).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Nering’s a container with an internal space to be sealed from the outside environment of the container by means of a deformable sleeve and/or a sliding seal sealed between the piston and the container as taught by Tamura because Tamura teaches a container and cell transfer system (Tamura; Title) that includes a container with an internal space (Tamura; fig. 2. 50) and a sliding seal (Tamura; fig. 3. 72) wherein the internal space of the container is sealed from the outside environment of the container by means of a deformable sleeve and/or a sliding seal sealed between the piston and the container (Tamura; fig. 3. 50, 72).
Sealing the container from the outside environment prevents contamination of the contents in the container.
Regarding claim 5, Nering teaches the transfer device according to claim 4 (see above) to include a sleeve (see above).
Nering fails to teach the sleeve is at least partially elastic and/or foldable and/or rollable to follow the translational motion of the piston while maintaining the sealed condition with respect to the outside environment.
However, Tamura teaches the analogous art of a container and cell transfer system (Tamura; Title) that includes a sleeve (see above), wherein the sleeve is rollable to follow the translational motion of the piston while maintaining the sealed condition with respect to the outside environment (Tamura; fig. 2. 59, 72 illustrates what appears to be the sleeve 72 rollable into the sleeve to follow the translational motion 59 of the piston 56 while maintaining the sealed condition with respect to the outside environment).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Nering’s sleeve to be partially elastic and/or foldable and/or rollable to follow the translational motion of the piston while maintaining the sealed condition with respect to the outside environment as taught by Tamura because Tamura teaches a container and cell transfer system (Tamura; Title) that includes a sleeve (see above), wherein the sleeve is rollable to follow the translational motion of the piston while maintaining the sealed condition with respect to the outside environment (Tamura; fig. 2. 59, 72 illustrates what appears to be the sleeve 72 rollable into the sleeve to follow the translational motion 59 of the piston 56 while maintaining the sealed condition with respect to the outside environment).
This allows to create a seal around the piston.
Regarding claim 10, Nering teaches the transfer device according to claim 1 (see above) to include a container with an inner structure (see above).
Nering fails to teach wherein the container is a cylindrical container with an inner structure configured to receive a stack of the objects, preferably in the form of a stack of Petri-dishes in an aligned parallel orientation, and permit the movement of the objects along the axial direction.
However, Tamura teaches the analogous art of a container and cell transfer system (Tamura; Title) that includes a container (Tamura; fig. 2. 50) wherein the container is a cylindrical container (Tamura; fig. 4A. 51) with an inner structure configured to receive a stack of the objects (Tamura; [0032] “Inner peripheral surface defines opening 59”), preferably in the form of a stack of Petri-dishes in an aligned parallel orientation, and permit the movement of the objects along the axial direction (Tamura; fig. 2. 75 “culture plate”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Nering’s container with an inner structure to receive a stack of the objects, preferably in the form of a stack of Petri-dishes in an aligned parallel orientation, and permit the movement of the objects along the axial direction as taught by Tamura because Tamura teaches a container and cell transfer system (Tamura; Title) that includes a container (Tamura; fig. 2. 50) wherein the container is a cylindrical container (Tamura; fig. 4A. 51) with an inner structure configured to receive a stack of the objects (Tamura; [0032] “Inner peripheral surface defines opening 59”), preferably in the form of a stack of Petri-dishes in an aligned parallel orientation, and permit the movement of the objects along the axial direction (Tamura; fig. 2. 75 “culture plate”).
The modification allows to store petri dishes in parallel orientation.
Regarding claim 11, Nering teaches the transfer device according to claim 10 (see above) to include a container (see above).
Nering fails to teach the container further comprises a stack of a plurality of Petri-dishes as the plurality of objects received inside the container.
However, Tamura teaches the analogous art of a container and cell transfer system (Tamura; Title) that includes a container (Tamura; fig. 2. 50) wherein the container further comprises a stack of a plurality of Petri-dishes as the plurality of objects received inside the container (Tamura; fig. 1. 75 and [0035] “culture plates such as a petri dish”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Nering’s container to further comprises a stack of a plurality of Petri-dishes as the plurality of objects received inside the container as taught by Tamura because Tamura teaches a container and cell transfer system (Tamura; Title) that includes a container (Tamura; fig. 2. 50) wherein the container further comprises a stack of a plurality of Petri-dishes as the plurality of objects received inside the container (Tamura; fig. 1. 75 and [0035] “culture plates such as a petri dish”).
This allows to transport stacks of petri dishes inside the container.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798