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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 are pending with claims 1-11 being examined and claims 12-14 are considered withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
As to the claim amendments and remarks filed on 05/20/2026, Examiner has found applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The previous rejection has been modified in accord with the amendment and will be addressed below.
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 1-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term "like" in the expression “shell-like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-11 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 2, the term "like" in the expression “shell-like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 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).
Regarding claim 4, the term "like" in the expression “rack-like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the term "like" in the expression “rack-like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the term "like" in the expression “rack-like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 is rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 7, the term "like" in the expression “rack-like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the term "like" in the expression “shell-like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the term "like" in the expression “rack-like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 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).
Regarding claim 11, the term "like" in the expression “shell-like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malin (US 20120251275 A1; hereinafter “Malin” already of record) in view of Van Ness et al (US 5,390,792; hereinafter “Van Ness”).
Regarding claim 1, Malin teaches a transport packaging for a plurality of petri-dishes (Malin; [0020] “a handling device structured to arrange and transport Petri dishes”), comprising:
a shell-like main body (Malin; fig. 6. 14) with a compartment for holding the plurality of petri-dishes in a parallel orientation (Malin; fig. 6. 15), the compartment being accessible from an opening at one side of the main body (Malin; fig. 6. front side of cartridge); and
a rack-like structure formed in the compartment for supporting the petri- dishes in a fixed position during handling and configured to allow insertion/extraction of the petri-dishes into/from the rack-like structure in a direction (Malin; fig. 7. 63, and [0119])
Malin fails to teach the opening of the shell-like main body for access to the compartment is sealed by a gas barrier film to form a blister-like packaging.
However, Van Ness teaches the analogous art of a packaging (Van Ness; Title) that includes a main body (Van Ness; fig. 1. 10) that includes a compartment (Van Ness; fig. 2. 22) wherein access to the compartment is sealed by a gas barrier film to form a blister-like packaging (Van Ness; fig. 1. 32).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Malin’s transport packaging shell-like main body compartment to be sealed by a gas barrier film to form a blister-like packaging as taught by Van Ness because Van Ness teaches a packaging (Van Ness; Title) that includes a main body (Van Ness; fig. 1. 10) that includes a compartment (Van Ness; fig. 2. 22) wherein access to the compartment is sealed by a gas barrier film to form a blister-like packaging (Van Ness; fig. 1. 32).
The modification allows to the container to be impervious to bacteria (Van Ness; Col. 4 line 68 to Col 5 line 5).
Regarding claim 2, modified Malin teaches the transport packaging for a plurality of petri-dishes according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the rack-like structure (Malin; fig. 7. 63) is integrally formed with the compartment (Malin; fig. 7. 63 illustrates the rack-like structure integrally formed with the compartment).
Regarding claim 3, modified Malin teaches the transport packaging for a plurality of petri-dishes according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the main body comprises an external stand for placing the transport packaging in a defined posture (Malin; fig. 8. 70, 71 and [0124] “one or more openings 70 in which pins 70 engage where storage rack 14 stands”), preferably in an essentially vertical and/or an essentially horizontal orientation (Malin; fig. 8, 14).
Regarding claim 4, modified Malin teaches the transport packaging for a plurality of petri-dishes according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the rack-like structure is formed with spacers for individually supporting the petri-dishes with a clearance from each other and/or from lateral walls of the main body (Malin; fig. 7. 63 illustrates what appear to be spacers, in figure 6 the petri-dishes are illustrated spaced individually from each other) to allow gripping of the Petri-dishes at their top and bottom sides and/or their peripheral wall from the side of the access opening and removal/insertion through the opening (Malin; Abstract “the device includes a gripper to grasp the petri dish laterally”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Malin teaches the transport packaging for a plurality of petri-dishes according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the rack-like structure is formed to support the petri-dishes in one or more row/rows (A,B). Malin teaches a one or more rack-like structures formed to support petri dishes (Malin; fig. 8. 14).
Modified Malin does not explicitly teach the rows are in a staggered (A,B) configuration.
It would have been obvious to form the rack-like structure to have one or more rows in a staggered configuration as this would prevent the lids and bottoms of the petri dishes from sticking together.
Regarding claim 7, modified Malin teaches the transport packaging for a plurality of petri-dishes according to claim 6 (see above), wherein the rack-like structure is formed to support the petri-dishes in at least two rows (A,B) in a parallel and spaced apart manner or in staggered manner (Malin; fig. 8. 14).
Regarding claim 8, modified Malin teaches the transport packaging for a plurality of petri-dishes according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the main body includes a dedicated storage compartment sized to receive a folded bag for accommodating, in an unfolded state, the shell-like main body. Malin teaches the transport packaging for a plurality of petri-dishes with a plurality of compartments. What the plurality of compartments are used for is a matter of intended use.
Regarding claim 9, modified Malin teaches the transport packaging for a plurality of petri-dishes according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the main body includes a manually deformable zone for selectively reducing an internal volume of the compartment without interfering with the Petri-dishes accommodated in the compartment (Malin; fig. 7. 63 Illustrates spacers that can be folded inward to reduce an internal volume of the compartment without interfering with the Petri-dishes accommodated in the compartment).
Regarding claim 11, modified Malin teaches the transport packaging for a plurality of petri-dishes according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the opening of the shell-like main body is at least partially transparent (Malin; fig. 6. 14, 15).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malin (US 20120251275 A1; hereinafter “Malin” already of record) in view of Van Ness et al (US 5,390,792; hereinafter “Van Ness”), further in view of Colin et al (US 20100035338 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified MaIin teaches the transport packaging for a plurality of petri-dishes according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the rack-like structure is formed to hold a stack of petri-dishes (Malin; fig. 6. 15).
Modified Malin fails to teach the stack of petri-dishes is formed without separation from each other so as to block direct removal and allow movement along the direction of the stack, and includes a defined dispensing portion at the end of the stack that allows insertion/extraction of the petri-dishes from the opening in the direction.
However, Colin teaches the analogous art of a holder for culture plates (Colin; Title) that includes a rack-like structure (Colin; fig. 1. 10) formed to hold a stack of petri dishes without separation from each other so as to block direct removal and allow movement along the direction of the stack (Colin; fig. 3. 12), and includes a defined dispensing portion at the end of the stack that allows insertion/extraction of the petri-dishes from the opening in the direction (Colin; fig. 3. 32 and [0028] “opening 32 where stack of plates may be withdrawn”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Malin’s rack-like structure to form the stack of petri-dishes without separation from each other so as to block direct removal and allow movement along the direction of the stack, and includes a defined dispensing portion at the end of the stack that allows insertion/extraction of the petri-dishes from the opening in the direction as taught by Colin because Colin teaches a holder for culture plates (Colin; Title) that includes a rack-like structure (Colin; fig. 1. 10) formed to hold a stack of petri dishes without separation from each other so as to block direct removal and allow movement along the direction of the stack (Colin; fig. 3. 12), and includes a defined dispensing portion at the end of the stack that allows insertion/extraction of the petri-dishes from the opening in the direction (Colin; fig. 3. 32 and [0028] “opening 32 where stack of plates may be withdrawn”).
This allows to withdraw the plates from the bottom up in a first in first out manner.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malin (US 20120251275 A1; hereinafter “Malin” already of record) in view of Van Ness et al (US 5,390,792; hereinafter “Van Ness”), further in view of Smith et al. (US 6670174 B1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Malin teaches the transport packaging for a plurality of petri-dishes according to claim 1 (see above) to include a shell-like main body (see above).
Modified Malin fails to teach the shell-like main body is formed as a one-piece blister cavity, preferably formed from a formable sheet or web material, and further preferably by thermoforming or cold-forming or a combination thereof.
However, Smith teaches the analogous art of a culture dish package (Smith; Title) that includes a shell-like main body (Smith; fig. 2. 10) wherein the shell-like main body is formed as a one-piece blister cavity (Smith; fig. 1. 10), preferably formed from a formable sheet or web material, and further preferably by thermoforming or cold-forming or a combination thereof (Smith; Col. 3 lines 4-6).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Malin’s shell-like main body to be formed as a one-piece blister cavity, preferably formed from a formable sheet or web material, and further preferably by thermoforming or cold-forming or a combination thereof as taught by Smith because Smith teaches a culture dish package (Smith; Title) that includes a shell-like main body (Smith; fig. 2. 10) wherein the shell-like main body is formed as a one-piece blister cavity (Smith; fig. 1. 10), preferably formed from a formable sheet or web material, and further preferably by thermoforming or cold-forming or a combination thereof (Smith; Col. 3 lines 4-6).
This allows for a more convenient method of mass producing shell-like bodies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/20/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections over Malin, Colin and Smith have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejection has been modified in accord with the amendment.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues the gas barrier film (which was formerly recited in claim 11) is explicitly required to seal the opening of the shell-shaped main body which Malin, alone or in combination, fails to teach.
In response, Van Ness is cited above to address the limitation.
Applicant also argues Malin fails to disclose a transport packaging for a plurality of Petri dishes.
Examiner disagrees. Malin teaches the storage device is used for transporting Petri dishes (Malin; 0020], [0055], [0072]).
Applicant further argues Malin’s storage rack 14 does not form a packaging.
Examiner disagrees. Malin teaches packing the petri dishes in the storage rack.
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 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