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 and 10/07/2025 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 Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/01/2025. 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 Claims 12-14 are considered withdrawn.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 § 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 1-4, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malin (US 20120251275 A1; hereinafter “Malin” already of record).
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]).
Regarding claim 2, 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, 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, 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 8, 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, 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, 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 for access to the compartment is configured to be sealed by a gas barrier film, preferably at least partially transparent, to form a blister-like packaging.
Malin teaches a shell like main body that includes an opening (see claim 1 above). The blister-like packaging configured to form a gas barrier film does not add patentable weight to the invention as this is a intended use to pack the transport packaging.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malin (US 20120251275 A1; hereinafter “Malin” already of record).
Regarding claim 6, 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).
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, 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).
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 Colin et al (US 20100035338 A1).
Regarding claim 5, 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).
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 Smith et al. (US 6670174 B1).
Regarding claim 10, 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).
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.
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