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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 and 69-70 are pending with claims 1-8 and 10-11 being examined and claims 12-14 are deemed withdrawn. Claim 9 is canceled.
Response to Amendment
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn. Applicant amended claims 8 and 10 to correct the deficiencies and canceled claim 9.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Chima (translation of JPS 63102663 A; hereinafter “Chima”).
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 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nering (US 6280134 B1; hereinafter “Nering” already of record) in view of Chima (translation of JPS 63102663 A; hereinafter “Chima”).
Regarding claim 1, Nering teaches a transfer device for transferring 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 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).
Nering fails to teach the transfer device is for transferring a plurality of objects through a transfer port, comprising a container configured to accommodate the plurality of objects.
However, Chima teaches the analogous art of a transport device (Chima; fig. 2. 6 and [0001] “basket for transport”) wherein the device is for transferring a plurality of objects (Chima; fig. 5. 2, 6, 7a and [0001] “stacked containers 1 on the lift table 7a is transferred”), the device comprising a container configured to accommodate the plurality of objects (Chima; fig. 11. 17 and [0001] “empty containers 1 is inserted into basket guide 17”).
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 transfer device to transfer a plurality of objects, wherein the device comprises a container configured to accommodate the plurality of objects as taught by Chima because Chima teaches a transport device (Chima; fig. 2. 6 and [0001] “basket for transport”) wherein the device is for transferring a plurality of objects (Chima; fig. 5. 2, 6, 7a and [0001] “stacked containers 1 on the lift table 7a is transferred”), the device comprising a container configured to accommodate the plurality of objects (Chima; fig. 11. 17 and [0001] “empty containers 1 is inserted into basket guide 17”).
The modification allows to maintain a continuous throughput giving a continuous process flow.
Regarding claim 6, modified 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, modified 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, modified Nering teaches the transfer device according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the door is configured to be connected to the transfer port (Nering; fig. 1A-B. 24 illustrates door 24 in what appears to be an “alpha port design configuration”).
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 Chima (translation of JPS 63102663 A; hereinafter “Chima”), further in view of Tamura (US 20150217294 A1; hereinafter “Tamura”).
Regarding claim 2, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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”), 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, modified 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) 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights