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 statement (IDS) submitted on 4/25/23 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 1-11 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “waste transfer device for transferring waste” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification describes the waste transfer device as including a first transfer line extending from the reaction well to the temporary storage, a first valve on the first transfer line, and a first pump installed in the first transfer line (see [21, 50] and Fig. 3 of the instant specification); and this is how the transfer device will be interpreted for purposes of examination.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what the waste passage is defined by or how the waste flows backwards as recited in the last two lines of the claim. The claim recites a valve on a waste passage, but the waste passage has not been previously defined or described and it is unclear how this passage is configured with respect to the other structures of the cartridge. Further, it is unclear how waste flows backwards or where waste flows backwards from. The claim recites a storage that stores waste, but there is no clarification on how the waste then flows anywhere, or how the waste even flows forwards. If the waste is prevented from flowing backwards, then it must flow forward in some manner; however, it is unclear how the waste flows given the lack of clarification on the structural relationship recited in the claims. The examiner suggests that applicants consider clarifying how the passage is formed such that is clear how and where waste flows to/from. Claim 10 also recites the same limitation and is rejected similarly.
Claims 2-9 and 11 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what is being recited or required. Specifically, claim 1 recites the various containers in the alternative where these do not have to be present. For example, if the prior art only had a dispensing tip container, then it is unclear where the storage of claim 8 would be located. Thus, it is unclear to a potential infringer what is required in the instance where a dispensing tip container is present.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested.
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 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, 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kim, K (KR102160442 which is already of record, and where US 20220184603 is used as the corresponding document/translation; hereinafter “Kim”).
The examiner notes that applicants can overcome this rejection by filing a certified translation of the instant priority document in order to perfect the claim to foreign priority.
As to claim 1, Kim teaches a reaction well cartridge device (Kim; Fig. 1-5), comprising: a cartridge body in which a reaction well container for accommodating reaction wells in which biological reactions occur is formed, wherein the cartridge body comprises one or more of a dispensing tip container for accommodating dispensing tips, a sample container for accommodating samples, a reagent container for accommodating reagents, a mixture container for accommodating a mixture containing the samples and the reagents, a diluent container for accommodating a diluent, a washing solution container for accommodating a washing solution, and combinations thereof; a temporary storage formed in the cartridge body and configured to temporarily store waste generated after reaction in the reaction wells; and a non-return valve device installed in a waste passage formed on one side of the temporary storage to prevent inflow of the waste from flowing backwards (Kim teaches a cartridge body in fig. 2 with various wells/containers 11-17 and a storage 20, and a check valve on a waste passage; Fig. 1-5, [17, 36, 37, 45, 46]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “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.
As to claim 4, Kim teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 1, wherein the temporary storage comprises a waste storage case having an accommodation space formed therein; and a waste absorber accommodated in the accommodation space and capable of absorbing the waste to prevent leakage of the waste to the outside (Kim teaches an absorber; [38-42], Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 5, Kim teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 4, wherein the waste absorber is a compression-type dry sponge capable of absorbing the waste while expanding (Kim teaches an absorber; [38-42], Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 6, Kim teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 4, wherein the waste absorber comprises a coagulant that solidifies when mixed with moisture to prevent leakage of the waste to the outside and environmental pollution caused by the waste (Kim teaches an absorber; [38-42], Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 7, Kim teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 4, wherein the waste absorber comprises one or more of a disinfectant, a germicide, a deodorant, a preservative, a bleach, a fragrance, a coagulant, and combinations thereof (Kim teaches an absorber; [38-42], Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 8, Kim teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 1, wherein the temporary storage is formed below a portion comprising one or more of the sample container, the reagent container, the mixture container, the diluent container, the washing solution container, and combinations thereof (Kim teaches storage 20 below containers 11-17; Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 9, Kim teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 1, wherein the temporary storage is formed below the reaction well container to be indirectly or directly connected to the reaction wells (Kim; Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 10, Kim teaches a reaction well cartridge system, comprising: a reaction well cartridge device comprising a cartridge body in which a reaction well container for accommodating reaction wells in which biological reactions occur is formed, wherein the cartridge body comprises one or more of a dispensing tip container for accommodating dispensing tips, a sample container for accommodating samples, a reagent container for accommodating reagents, a mixture container for accommodating a mixture containing the samples and the reagents, a diluent container for accommodating a diluent, a washing solution container for accommodating a washing solution, and combinations thereof; a temporary storage formed in the cartridge body and configured to temporarily store waste generated after reaction in the reaction wells; and a non-return valve device installed in a waste passage formed on one side of the temporary storage to prevent inflow of the waste from flowing backwards, and a waste transfer device for transferring the waste from the reaction wells to the temporary storage (Kim teaches a cartridge body in fig. 2 with various wells/containers 11-17 and a storage 20, and a check valve on a waste passage; Fig. 1-5, [17, 36, 37, 45, 46]. Kim teaches the transfer device 110 includes a transfer line L1, a valve V1, and a pump P1; [50-53], Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 11, Kim teaches the reaction well cartridge system according to claim 10, wherein the waste transfer device comprises a first transfer line extending from the reaction wells to the temporary storage; a first valve installed on the first transfer line; and a first pump installed in the first transfer line (Kim teaches the transfer device 110 includes a transfer line L1, a valve V1, and a pump P1; [50-53], Fig. 1-5).
Claims 1, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Yanez et al (US 20210031181; hereinafter “Yanez”).
As to claim 1, Yanez teaches a reaction well cartridge (Yanez; Fig. 1-10) device, comprising: a cartridge body in which a reaction well container for accommodating reaction wells in which biological reactions occur is formed, wherein the cartridge body comprises one or more of a dispensing tip container for accommodating dispensing tips, a sample container for accommodating samples, a reagent container for accommodating reagents, a mixture container for accommodating a mixture containing the samples and the reagents, a diluent container for accommodating a diluent, a washing solution container for accommodating a washing solution, and combinations thereof (Yanez teaches a cartridge body with various wells/containers; [97, 99], Fig. 1-5); a temporary storage formed in the cartridge body and configured to temporarily store waste generated after reaction in the reaction wells (Yanez teaches a waste storage 13; [100], Fig. 1-10); and a non-return valve device installed in a waste passage formed on one side of the temporary storage to prevent inflow of the waste from flowing backwards (As best understood, Yanez teaches a valve that is part of the closing element that can be opened and closed to prevent fluid return from flowing backwards from the waste storage to the reaction well from which it came; [37, 38]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “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.
As to claim 8, Yanez teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 1, wherein the temporary storage is formed below a portion comprising one or more of the sample container, the reagent container, the mixture container, the diluent container, the washing solution container, and combinations thereof (Yanez teaches a cartridge body with various wells/containers above the waste storage; [97, 99], Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 9, Yanez teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 1, wherein the temporary storage is formed below the reaction well container to be indirectly or directly connected to the reaction wells (Yanez teaches a cartridge body with various wells/containers above the waste storage, and connected to reaction wells; [97, 99], Fig. 1-5).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, K (KR102160442 which is already of record, and where US 20220184603 is used as the corresponding document/translation; hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Lee, D (Translation of KR 20-0176888; already of record; hereinafter “Lee”).
As to claim 2, Kim teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 1, wherein a valve is installed in the non-return valve device (see claim 1 above).
Kim does not teach the valve having an X-shape. However, Lee teaches the analogous art of a check valve that is X-shaped (Lee teaches a +-shape valve; page 1 and Figures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the check valve of Kim to be x-shaped as in Lee because Lee teaches that an x-shaped helps smooth open/closing and also helps ensure that during closing that the valve is more closely blocked (Lee; page 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, K (KR102160442 which is already of record, and where US 20220184603 is used as the corresponding document/translation; hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Gaertner et al (US 20210172968; hereinafter “Gaertner”).
As to claim 3, Kim teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 1, with the temporary storage having the non-return valve device (see claim 1 above).
Kim does not teach an air exhaust installed on the other side of the temporary storage, positioned above the non-return valve device, and configured to discharge internal air to the outside to reduce internal air pressure increased according to inflow of the waste However, Gaertner teaches the analogous art of waste storage with a valves for fluid entry and exit (Gaertner teaches waste 380 with exit 550; Fig. 1-5, 10-15, [94]) where the waste storage includes an air escape exhaust positioned above the waste exit (Gaertner teaches an air escape where this escape would be required to be above the fluid exit as otherwise fluid would exit out of the air escape since it is known that an air escape needs to be above the fluid in order to properly vent; [94]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the waste storage of Kim to have included an air escape as in Gaertner because Gaertner teaches that this helps air escape (Gaertner; [94]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize the advantage of ensuring that the waste was not pressurized thereby decreasing the likelihood of waste accidentally spilling.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanez et al (US 20210031181; hereinafter “Yanez”) in view of Lee, D (Translation of KR 20-0176888; already of record; hereinafter “Lee”).
As to claim 2, Yanez teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 1, wherein a valve is installed in the non-return valve device (see claim 1 above).
Yanez does not teach the valve having an X-shape. However, Lee teaches the analogous art of a check valve that is X-shaped (Lee teaches a +-shape valve; page 1 and Figures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the check valve of Yanez to be x-shaped as in Lee because Lee teaches that an x-shaped helps smooth open/closing and also helps ensure that during closing that the valve is more closely blocked (Lee; page 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanez et al (US 20210031181; hereinafter “Yanez”) in view of Gaertner et al (US 20210172968; hereinafter “Gaertner”).
As to claim 3, Yanez teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 1, with the temporary storage having the non-return valve device (see claim 1 above).
Yanez does not teach an air exhaust installed on the other side of the temporary storage, positioned above the non-return valve device, and configured to discharge internal air to the outside to reduce internal air pressure increased according to inflow of the waste However, Gaertner teaches the analogous art of waste storage with a valves for fluid entry and exit (Gaertner teaches waste 380 with exit 550; Fig. 1-5, 10-15, [94]) where the waste storage includes an air escape exhaust positioned above the waste exit (Gaertner teaches an air escape where this escape would be required to be above the fluid exit as otherwise fluid would exit out of the air escape since it is known that an air escape needs to be above the fluid in order to properly vent; [94]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the waste storage of Yanez to have included an air escape as in Gaertner because Gaertner teaches that this helps air escape (Gaertner; [94]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize the advantage of ensuring that the waste was not pressurized thereby decreasing the likelihood of waste accidentally spilling.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanez et al (US 20210031181; hereinafter “Yanez”) in view of Dohale et al (US 20210172968; hereinafter “Dohale”).
As to claim 4, Yanez teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 1, wherein the temporary storage comprises a waste storage case having an accommodation space formed therein (See claim 1 above).
Yanez does not specifically teach a waste absorber accommodated in the accommodation space and capable of absorbing the waste to prevent leakage of the waste to the outside. However, Dohale teaches the analogous art of a waste storage with a waste absorber accommodated in the accommodation space and capable of absorbing the waste to prevent leakage of the waste to the outside (Dohale teaches a waste chamber with an absorbent; [166], Figures 4-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the waste storage of Yanez to include an absorber as in Dohale because Dohale teaches that the absorbent substance can help to dry the waste and/or prevent leaks or spills (Dohale; [166]).
As to claim 5, modified Yanez teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 4, wherein the waste absorber is a compression-type dry sponge capable of absorbing the waste while expanding (The modification of the waste storage of Yanez to include an absorber as in Dohale has already been discussed above. Dohale teaches a sponge/foam pad absorber; [166]).
As to claim 6, modified Yanez teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 4, wherein the waste absorber comprises a coagulant that solidifies when mixed with moisture to prevent leakage of the waste to the outside and environmental pollution caused by the waste (The modification of the waste storage of Yanez to include an absorber as in Dohale has already been discussed above. Dohale teaches a dry powder as a coagulant that dries the waste to prevent leaks, where drying would turn it into a solid; [166]).
As to claim 7, modified Yanez teaches the reaction well cartridge device according to claim 4, wherein the waste absorber comprises one or more of a disinfectant, a germicide, a deodorant, a preservative, a bleach, a fragrance, a coagulant, and combinations thereof (The modification of the waste storage of Yanez to include an absorber as in Dohale has already been discussed above. Dohale teaches a dry powder as a coagulant that dries the waste to prevent leaks, where drying would turn it into a solid; [166]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanez et al (US 20210031181; hereinafter “Yanez”) in view of Belgrader et al (US 20130079253; hereinafter “Belgrader”).
As to claim 10, Yanez teaches a reaction well cartridge system (Yanez; Fig. 1-10), comprising: a reaction well cartridge device comprising a cartridge body in which a reaction well container for accommodating reaction wells in which biological reactions occur is formed, wherein the cartridge body comprises one or more of a dispensing tip container for accommodating dispensing tips, a sample container for accommodating samples, a reagent container for accommodating reagents, a mixture container for accommodating a mixture containing the samples and the reagents, a diluent container for accommodating a diluent, a washing solution container for accommodating a washing solution, and combinations thereof (Yanez teaches a cartridge body with various wells/containers; [97, 99], Fig. 1-5); a temporary storage formed in the cartridge body and configured to temporarily store waste generated after reaction in the reaction wells (Yanez teaches a waste storage 13; [100], Fig. 1-10); and a non-return valve device installed in a waste passage formed on one side of the temporary storage to prevent inflow of the waste from flowing backwards (As best understood, Yanez teaches a valve that is part of the closing element that can be opened and closed to prevent fluid return from flowing backwards from the waste storage to the reaction well from which it came; [37, 38]).
Yanez does not specifically teach a waste transfer device for transferring the waste from the reaction wells to the temporary storage, where the waste transfer device includes a first transfer line extending from the reaction well to the temporary storage. However, Belgrader teaches the analogous art of transferring waste from reaction wells to temporary storage via a first transfer line extending from the reaction well to the temporary storage (Belgrader teaches transferring from reaction chamber to the waste chamber via a transfer line; Fig. 3B. [75]). It would have been obvious to have modified the connection of the reaction well and waste storage of Yanez to include a transfer line as in Belgrader because Belgrader teaches that a fluid line is a well-known connection pathway between a reaction well and a waste storage (Belgrader; Fig. 3B, [75]). Modified Yanez does not specifically teach a first valve on the first transfer line, and a first pump installed in the first transfer line. However, Belgrader also teaches a transfer line for moving fluid which includes a valve and a pump (Belgrader; Fig. 3B, [75-76]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included on the transfer line of modified Yanez a valve and pump to control fluid flow as in Belgrader because Belgrader teaches that the valve and pump help to provide and control fluid flow while also ensuring controlled and unidirectional flow as desired (Belgrader; [75, 76]).
As to claim 11, modified Yanez teaches the reaction well cartridge system according to claim 10, wherein the waste transfer device comprises a first transfer line extending from the reaction wells to the temporary storage; a first valve installed on the first transfer line; and a first pump installed in the first transfer line (The modification of Yanez with Belgrader teaches the transfer device; see claim 10 above).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12370453 B2.
Although claim 1 at issue is not identical, it are not patentably distinct from each other because it is directed to a reaction well cartridge device, comprising: a cartridge body in which a reaction well container for accommodating reaction wells in which biological reactions occur is formed, wherein the cartridge body comprises one or more of a dispensing tip container for accommodating dispensing tips, a sample container for accommodating samples, a reagent container for accommodating reagents, a mixture container for accommodating a mixture containing the samples and the reagents, a diluent container for accommodating a diluent, a washing solution container for accommodating a washing solution, and combinations thereof; a temporary storage formed in the cartridge body and configured to temporarily store waste generated after reaction in the reaction wells (claims 1, 9, 13 of ‘452 discloses a reaction well cartridge with at least one of the claimed containers and a temporary storage to store waste); and a non-return valve device installed in a waste passage formed on one side of the temporary storage to prevent inflow of the waste from flowing backwards (claims 6, 13 of ‘452 discloses a check valve). Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claims are encompassed by the claims of US 12370453.
Although claim 11 at issue is not identical, it are not patentably distinct from each other because it is directed to a reaction well cartridge system, comprising: a reaction well cartridge device comprising a cartridge body in which a reaction well container for accommodating reaction wells in which biological reactions occur is formed, wherein the cartridge body comprises one or more of a dispensing tip container for accommodating dispensing tips, a sample container for accommodating samples, a reagent container for accommodating reagents, a mixture container for accommodating a mixture containing the samples and the reagents, a diluent container for accommodating a diluent, a washing solution container for accommodating a washing solution, and combinations thereof; a temporary storage formed in the cartridge body and configured to temporarily store waste generated after reaction in the reaction wells (claims 1, 9, 13 of ‘452 discloses a reaction well cartridge with at least one of the claimed containers and a temporary storage to store waste); and a non-return valve device installed in a waste passage formed on one side of the temporary storage to prevent inflow of the waste from flowing backwards (claims 6, 13 of ‘452 discloses a check valve), and a waste transfer device for transferring the waste from the reaction wells to the temporary storage (claims 9, 10, 13, 14 of ‘452 discloses a waste transfer device that includes a line, a valve, and a pump (see 112(f) claim interpretation above)). Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claims are encompassed by the claims of US 12370453.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Cucci et al (US 20190201898; hereinafter “Cucci”) teaches a pump and fluid outlet from waste; [126], fig. 1.
Akashi et al (US 20120115238; hereinafter “Akashi”) teaches an absorbent material in the waste chamber; [57].
Conclusion
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 on 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, Jill Warden can be reached on 5712721267. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Benjamin R Whatley/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798