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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of group II in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/119/2025. Applicant traverses on grounds that claims 13-20 are restricted under the wrong group and in fact claims 13-20 are directed to a sample analyzer and not a well tray.
Examiner agrees and rejoined claims 13-20 to group II.
Applicant also traverses Guckenberger does not teach the special technical features and does not make a contribution.
Examiner disagrees and the claims are addressed below.
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 12-20 being examined, claims 1-11 are withdrawn.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 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guckenberger et al. (US 20170199107 A1; hereinafter “Guckenberger” already of record).
Regarding claim 12, Guckenberger teaches a sample analyzer (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 10) comprising:
a support platform for receiving a well tray (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 148 and [0048]), wherein the support platform comprises:
an upper surface (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 152 and [0048]);
a registration feature connected to the upper surface (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 156), wherein the registration feature is configured for receiving, in a predetermined orientation, the well tray (Guckenberger; [0048] “plurality of ridges 156 define cavities configured to receive sample plate”);
at least one edge surface connected to the upper surface (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 132), wherein the at least one edge surface at least partially defines a slot for slidably receiving a removable magnet (Guckenberger; [0047]); and
a magnet receiver defined by the support platform and in communication with the slot (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 112, 132 and [0034], [0048] “work bed 132 includes magnetic base 112”).
Regarding claim 13, Guckenberger teaches the sample analyzer of claim 12 (see above), wherein the magnet receiver is configured to slidably receive the removable magnet (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 112, 132, 148 and [0048] work bed 132 includes a support plate 148 that is mounted on a translating plate wherein the magnetic base is mounted on the support plate).
Regarding claim 14, Guckenberger teaches the sample analyzer of claim 12 (see above), wherein the registration feature (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 156) is disposed so as to align the registration feature with the magnet receiver (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 112, 156).
Regarding claim 16, Guckenberger teaches the sample analyzer of claim 12 (see above), wherein the support platform at least partially defines an access opening in communication with the magnet receiver (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 112, 148, 152 and [0089]).
Regarding claim 17, Guckenberger teaches the sample analyzer of claim 12 (see above), wherein the registration feature comprises the removable magnet (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 112, 152).
Regarding claim 18, Guckenberger teaches the sample analyzer of claim 12 (see above), wherein the registration feature comprises a plurality of projections extending from the upper surface (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 156 and [0048] “three ridges”), wherein the plurality of projections define a registration area therebetween (Guckenberger; [0048] “the ridges define a plurality of cavities”).
Regarding claim 19, Guckenberger teaches the sample analyzer of claim 18 (see above), wherein the magnet receiver comprises a receiver area (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 112, 156 and [0048] “cavity may be configured to receive magnetic base 112”).
Regarding claim 20, Guckenberger teaches the sample analyzer of claim 19 (see above), wherein the receiver area (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 132 and [0047]) is greater than the registration area (Guckenberger; fig. 1. 132, 156 illustrates the receiver area 132is greater than the cavity formed by ridges 156 in order to fit magnet 112).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guckenberger et al. (US 20170199107 A1; hereinafter “Guckenberger” already of record).
Regarding claim 15, Guckenberger teaches the sample analyzer of claim 12 (see above) to include a removable magnet (see above).
Guckenberger does not teach the removable magnet comprises a tab, wherein the tab is configured to project from the at least one edge surface when the removable magnet is disposed in the magnet receiver.
However, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (MPEP § 2143). It would have been obvious to include a tab on the removable magnet in Guckenberger, in order to handle the magnet at the receiver area.
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