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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, and 16-19, and the species of a hinge embodiment, in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-12, 14-15, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a) each frame further comprises a hinge or an internal slidable connection, wherein the two or more frames are pivotably hinged to one another via said hinge or wherein the two or more frames are connected to one another via said internal slidable connection, such that in a first configuration the two or more frames abut each other in a longitudinal direction, and in a second configuration the two or more frames are in extension of each other, and b) the assembly comprises a further slidable connection, wherein the two or more frames are releasably connected to one another via said further slidable connection, such that in a first configuration the two or more frames abut each other in a longitudinal direction, and in a second configuration the two or more frames do not abut each other in a longitudinal direction while still connected to one another via said further slidable connection” (claim 1) and the embodiment of claims 1 and 2, where claim 1 requires “each frame further comprises a hinge” and claim 2 requires “i. each frame comprises an internal slidable connection, such as on a lateral surface, for example on an upper portion, a lower portion, or an upper and a lower portion of the lateral surface, or ii. the assembly comprises a further slidable connection such as a ring or a hollow cylinder to which the two or more frames are attached, or iii. each frame comprises an internal slidable connection, such as on a lateral surface, for example on an upper portion, a lower portion, or an upper and a lower portion of the lateral surface and the assembly comprises a further slidable connection such as a ring or a hollow cylinder to which the two or more frames are attached” (claim 2), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note that the figures show independent embodiments of the hinge embodiment and the internal slidable connection embodiment. The figures do not show an embodiment of a combination of both the hinge and internal slidable connection.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In page 2, line 14, it is suggested to recite “SBS” and “SLAS” in line 2 in an unabbreviated form to establish the acronym.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested to recite “SBS” and “SLAS” in line 2 in an unabbreviated form to establish the acronym. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
In this case, “blocking means” of claim 16 is interpreted a non-transparent barrier (specification, page 25, last paragraph), a coating on a back part of containers (page 26, first paragraph), an integrated part of the cassette (page 26, second paragraph), and equivalents thereof. Note that claim 19 provides sufficient structure to the blocking means, therefore claim 19 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 2-3, 5, 9, and 17-19 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 claims 2-3, 5, 9, and 19, the phrase "such as" and “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitations following “such as” and “for example” are interpreted as not required by the claim. Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites “the containers comprise each at least one of…” in line 2. The phrase “each at least one of” is unclear. Does “each” of the containers comprise “at least one of the listing? Or do the containers comprise each of a first optical sensor, second optical sensor, and third optical sensor? For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as each container comprising “at least one of” a first optical sensor, second optical sensor, and third optical sensor.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the limitation "the female part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro et al. (JPH 11123335 A; see machine translation) in view of Berthold et al. (US 5098663 A; cited in the IDS, filed 05/11/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Tashiro teaches an assembly (Figs. 1 and 12-15) comprising two or more frames (Figs. 1 and 12-15 teaches two or more frames of test tube stands), wherein each frame comprises a plurality of containers or is configured to hold a plurality of containers in a vertical direction (Figs. 1 and 12-15),
wherein each frame is configured to receive at least one cassette (Figs. 1 and 12-15 teaches two or more frames of test tube stands having openings, therefore is configured to receive at least one cassette at a later time),
wherein each frame comprises an opening in an upper end (Figs. 1 and 12-15 teaches at least an opening, such as ports 5, in an upper end 7) and wherein:
a) each frame further comprises a hinge (Figs. 12-15 teaches each frame of test tube stand comprises hinge 14) or an internal slidable connection (Figs. 3-7, 9-11 teach each frame of the test tube stand have concave portions 16,16” and convex portions 15,15”), wherein the two or more frames are pivotably hinged to one another via said hinge (Figs. 12-15) or wherein the two or more frames are connected to one another via said internal slidable connection (Figs. 3-7, 9-11 teach each frame of the test tube stand have concave portions 16,16” and convex portions 15,15” which are connected to one another),
such that in a first configuration the two or more frames abut each other in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 15; alternatively, Fig. 9), and in a second configuration the two or more frames are in extension of each other (Figs. 12-14; alternatively Fig. 11), or
b) the assembly comprises a further slidable connection (Figs. 3-7, 9-11 teach each frame of the test tube stand have concave portions 16,16” and convex portions 15,15” that are slidably connected), wherein the two or more frames are releasably connected to one another via said further slidable connection (Figs. 3-7, 9-11), such that in a first configuration the two or more frames abut each other in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 9), and in a second configuration the two or more frames do not abut each other in a longitudinal direction while still connected to one another via said further slidable connection (Figs. 10-11),
or
a) each frame further comprises a hinge or an internal slidable connection, wherein the two or more frames are pivotably hinged to one another via said hinge or wherein the two or more frames are connected to one another via said internal slidable connection, such that in a first configuration the two or more frames abut each other in a longitudinal direction, and in a second configuration the two or more frames are in extension of each other (not required due to the “or” statement), and
b) the assembly comprises a further slidable connection, wherein the two or more frames are releasably connected to one another via said further slidable connection, such that in a first configuration the two or more frames abut each other in a longitudinal direction, and in a second configuration the two or more frames do not abut each other in a longitudinal direction while still connected to one another via said further slidable connection (not required due to the “or” statement),
and
wherein each frame are configured to allow optical access to the containers from the side of said each frame at least when the assembly is in the second configuration (Figs. 12-14 teaches each frame have openings on the sides that allow for optical access; alternatively Fig. 11 teaches each frame have openings on the sides that allow for optical access).
Tashiro fails to teach: the assembly comprising two or more cassettes; wherein each cassette comprises a plurality of containers or is configured to hold a plurality of containers in a vertical direction; wherein each cassette are configured to allow optical access to the containers from the side of said each cassette at least when the assembly is in the second configuration.
Berthold teaches a specimen rack for specimen containers such as test tubes (abstract; Figs. 1-3). Berthold teaches individually removing test tubes and replacing them in a rack is labor intensive (column 1, lines 46-51). Berthold teaches the invention provides an improved specimen rack offering maximum safety in handling and enabling an entire process sequence to be simplified (column 2, lines 5-8). Berthold teaches the specimen rack comprises: a frame (stand 40) and cassettes (holders 20), wherein each cassette comprises a plurality of containers or is configured to hold a plurality of containers in a vertical direction (Figs. 1-3, 4F); wherein each cassette are configured to allow optical access to the containers from the side of said each cassette (Figs. 1-3). Berthold teaches the frame is configured to receive the cassettes (Fig. 1). Berthold teaches as a function of the particular detection method used and the equipment with which the user works, it may be necessary to remove the holders 20 from the stand 40 and reinsert them a number of times for the various procedures to be performed, this double safety system is of particular significance (column 4, lines 37-42). Berthold teaches specimen containers are capable of being moved and handled together without having to remove individual containers (column 6, lines 10-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of Tashiro to incorporate the teachings of improving specimen racks for test tubes by including a frame and removable cassettes of Berthold (Figs. 1-4; column 2, lines 5-8; column 4, lines 37-42; column 6, lines 10-33) to provide: the assembly comprising two or more cassettes; wherein each cassette comprises a plurality of containers or is configured to hold a plurality of containers in a vertical direction; wherein each cassette are configured to allow optical access to the containers from the side of said each cassette at least when the assembly is in the second configuration. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving safety in handling of the containers of each frame and enabling simplification of removing or replacing multiple containers for each frame as taught by Berthold (column 2, lines 5-8; column 4, lines 37-42; column 6, lines 10-33).
Regarding claim 2, Tashiro further teaches wherein:
i. each frame (Figs. 1 and 12-15 teaches two or more frames of test tube stands) comprises an internal slidable connection (Figs. 3-7, 9-11 teach each frame of the test tube stand have concave portions 16,16” and convex portions 15,15”), such as on a lateral surface (Figs. 3-7, 9-11 teaches portions 16,16”, 15, 15” on a lateral surface of the test tube stand), for example on an upper portion, a lower portion, or an upper and a lower portion of the lateral surface (Figs. 3-7, 9-11 teaches portions 16,16”, 15, 15” on an upper and lower portion of the lateral surface of the test tube stand), or
ii. the assembly comprises a further slidable connection such as a ring or a hollow cylinder to which the two or more frames are attached (not required due to the “or” statement), or
iii. each frame comprises an internal slidable connection, such as on a lateral surface, for example on an upper portion, a lower portion, or an upper and a lower portion of the lateral surface and the assembly comprises a further slidable connection such as a ring or a hollow cylinder to which the two or more frames are attached (not required due to the “or” statement).
Regarding claim 3, Tashiro further teaches wherein:
i. the container is a reaction tube, a cuvette or a bioreactor (Figs. 2, 12-15 teaches test tubes, which are interpreted as a reaction tube, a cuvette or a bioreactor), or
ii. each container is configured to hold a liquid composition such as a liquid or a molten reaction mixture or medium such as a growth medium (Figs. 2, 12-15 and page 4, line 8 teaches liquid in the test tubes; therefore, each container is configured to hold a liquid composition as claimed), or
iii. the container is a reaction tube, a cuvette or a bioreactor (Figs. 2, 12-15 teaches test tubes, which are interpreted as a reaction tube, a cuvette or a bioreactor), and wherein each container is configured to hold a liquid composition such as a liquid or a molten reaction mixture or medium such as a growth medium (Figs. 2, 12-15 and page 4, line 8 teaches liquid in the test tubes; therefore, each container is configured to hold a liquid composition as claimed).
Regarding claim 4, Tashiro further teaches wherein each container, or at least a part thereof, is made of a material allowing optical access to the inner part of the container at least from the side of the container (Figs. 2, 12-15 and page 4, lines 7-9 teach the state of the liquid in the test tubes can be seen well, therefore each container is implied to made of a material to allow optical access to inside of the container from the side of the container).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tashiro further teaches wherein the plurality of containers is provided in one or more rows (Tashiro, Figs. 12-15 teaches test tubes in one or more rows), and wherein each cassette is configured to receive and to hold said one or more rows (Tashiro in view of Berthold teaches each cassette configured to hold a plurality of containers in a vertical direction, wherein Tashiro, Figs. 12-15 teaches test tubes in one or more rows; therefore, modified Tashiro teaches each cassette configured to receive and hold one or more rows of the containers).
Regarding claim 7, Tashiro further teaches wherein:
i. the containers are provided with a sealing element in their lower end (not required due to the “or” statement), or
ii. the containers have an opening in their upper end (Figs. 12-15 teaches the test tubes having an opening in their upper end), or
iii. the containers are provided with a sealing element in their lower end, and wherein the containers have an opening in their upper end (not required due to the “or” statement).
Regarding claim 18, note that “said sealing element” is interpreted as not required due to the “or” statement (see claim 7), therefore, the limitations of “wherein said sealing element comprises the female part of a connecting pair consisting of a female part and a male part, said female part being configured to receive said male part to establish a fluid-tight connection via the connecting pair”, which further define the “sealing element” are interpreted as not required.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro in view of Berthold as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woods (US 20070017306 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tashiro fails to teach wherein each cassette, frame, or each cassette and each frame is configured to match a standard SBS -format, an SLAS standard, or a standard SBS format and an SLAS standard when the assembly is in the first configuration, such as a 6-tube format, a 12-tube format, a 24-tube format, a 48-tube format, a 96- tube format, a 384-tube format, a 1536-tube format, a 3456-tube format or a 9600-tube format.
Woods teaches a sample tube which engages in a supporting rack (abstract). Woods teaches conventionally, SBS format standard plates are well known in the industry (paragraph [0005]) and SBS format racks allows for processing with robots and systems that maintain high storage densities and throughput rate (paragraph [0005]). Woods teaches sample tubes can be operated on or stored within a standard 384-SBS format rack and may be accessed by automated sampling equipment by either piercing a seal or removing the seal (paragraph [0012]). Woods teaches a sample tube for use in a 384 SBS format rack (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each cassette, frame, or each cassette and each frame of modified Tashiro to incorporate the teachings of SBS formats for sample tubes of Woods (paragraphs [0005],[0012],[0019]) to provide: wherein each cassette, frame, or each cassette and each frame is configured to match a standard SBS -format, an SLAS standard, or a standard SBS format and an SLAS standard when the assembly is in the first configuration, such as a 6-tube format, a 12-tube format, a 24-tube format, a 48-tube format, a 96- tube format, a 384-tube format, a 1536-tube format, a 3456-tube format or a 9600-tube format. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully utilizing known standardized formats of laboratory equipment to improve automated processing, throughput, and storage of containers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro in view of Berthold as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watson et al. (US 20090246085 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tashiro fails to teach wherein a plurality of piercing elements is provided in the lower part of the frames, each of said piercing elements being configured to penetrate one container in its lower end when the assembly holds the cassette holding the containers.
Watson teaches a liquid storage apparatus for providing a safe and easy to use device for efficiently managing liquid reagents used in a variety of laboratory equipment, which helps reduce likelihood of accidents, allows for flexibility of experimental design, and helps maximize use of reagents to prevent waste (abstract). Watson teaches a plurality of a plurality of piercing elements is provided in the lower part of a frame (Fig. 1, needles 60 of frame 40), each of said piercing elements being configured to penetrate one container in its lower end when the apparatus holds a cassette holding the containers (Figs. 1-2; paragraph [0043]-[0045]). Watson teaches the piercing elements pierce the containers to allow liquid to flow out to a liquid mixing and handling system (paragraph [0045]). Watson teaches in certain diagnostic equipment and systems, reagents are stored in containers with a needle pierceable septum at one end (paragraph [0003]). Watson teaches the invention is useful in automated systems (paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of modified Tashiro to incorporate the teachings of a storage apparatus for containers comprising piercing elements of Watson (Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0043]-[0045]) to provide: wherein a plurality of piercing elements is provided in the lower part of the frames, each of said piercing elements being configured to penetrate one container in its lower end when the assembly holds the cassette holding the containers. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automation of processing and handing fluids within the containers for certain diagnostic systems as taught by Watson (paragraphs [0003],[0011],[0045]).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro in view of Berthold as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Verhoef et al. (US 20200319217 A1; filed 04/08/2019).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tashiro fails to teach wherein the containers comprise one or more optical sensor on their front side, such as an optical spot, said optical sensor being configured to allow measurement of one or more parameters of the liquid composition held in the containers, such as CO2 content, O2 content, ammonia content, N2 content, pH, analyte concentration, optical density, turbidity, temperature or fluorescence.
Verhoef teaches a system for automated cell culture and testing, including a rack defining storage positions to support an array of sample holders (abstract). Verhoef teaches the system includes additional detection assembly or chemical sensor to monitor pH, oxygen, and/or carbon dioxide level within each well (paragraph [0061]), wherein each chemical sensor may be mounted on a side wall of a well (paragraph [0061]). Verhoef teaches sensing fluorescence (paragraph [0061]). Verhoef teaches the chemical sensor may detect light from a side wall of a well (paragraph [0065]). Verhoef teaches sensors and automation can include one or more of image sensors, pH sensors, O2 sensors, temperature sensors, and CO2 sensors, wherein all of these sensors are remotely operated by a user and results can be monitored (paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the containers of modified Tashiro to incorporate the teachings of sensors for containers and optically measuring containers from a side of the container of Verhoef (paragraphs [0049],[0061],[0065]) to provide: the containers comprise one or more optical sensor on their front side, such as an optical spot, said optical sensor being configured to allow measurement of one or more parameters of the liquid composition held in the containers, such as CO2 content, O2 content, ammonia content, N2 content, pH, analyte concentration, optical density, turbidity, temperature or fluorescence. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automation of monitoring and analyzing the containers.
Regarding claim 17, modified Tashiro fails to teach the assembly according to claim 9, wherein the containers comprise each at least one of a first optical sensor configured to measure CO2 content, a second optical sensor configured to measure O2 content, and a third optical sensor configured to measure pH.
Verhoef teaches a system for automated cell culture and testing, including a rack defining storage positions to support an array of sample holders (abstract). Verhoef teaches the system includes additional detection assembly or chemical sensor to monitor pH, oxygen, and/or carbon dioxide level within each well (paragraph [0061]), wherein each chemical sensor may be mounted on a side wall of a well (paragraph [0061]). Verhoef teaches sensing fluorescence (paragraph [0061]). Verhoef teaches the chemical sensor may detect light from a side wall of a well (paragraph [0065]). Verhoef teaches sensors and automation can include one or more of image sensors, pH sensors, O2 sensors, temperature sensors, and CO2 sensors, wherein all of these sensors are remotely operated by a user and results can be monitored (paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the containers of modified Tashiro to incorporate the teachings of sensors for containers and optically measuring containers from a side of the container of Verhoef (paragraphs [0049],[0061],[0065]) to provide: the assembly according to claim 9, wherein the containers comprise each at least one of a first optical sensor configured to measure CO2 content, a second optical sensor configured to measure O2 content, and a third optical sensor configured to measure pH. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automation of monitoring and analyzing the containers according to known parameters such as CO2, O2, and pH.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro in view of Berthold as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Du et al. (US 20160327585 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Tashiro fails to teach the assembly according to claim 6, wherein the assembly further comprises blocking means separating said first and second row of containers.
Du teaches a test tube rack of an analyzer pipeline including multiple test tube holders for holding test tubes (abstract). Du teaches the test tube rack includes a light blocker configured at a side wall of the test tube rack and across multiple test tube holders (paragraphs [0008],[0028]). Du teaches the light blocker is configured at a portion of a side wall of a test tube to strengthen the stability of the test tube rack (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of modified Tashiro to incorporate the teachings of a test tube rack including a light blocker of Du (paragraphs [0008],[0028],[0032]) to provide: the assembly according to claim 6, wherein the assembly further comprises blocking means separating said first and second row of containers. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving light separation between the rows of containers and strength the stability of the assembly, therefore improving optical analysis of individual containers or rows of containers.
Regarding claim 19, modified Tashiro fails to teach the assembly according to claim 16, wherein:
i. the blocking means comprise or consist of a non-transparent barrier such as a non- transparent sheet or membrane separating said first and second row of containers, or
ii. the blocking means comprise or consist of a coating on the back part of the containers, wherein said coating is configured to prevent optical access to one of said rows,
for example wherein the non-transparent sheet, the coating, or the non-transparent sheet and the coating, is of dimensions such that optical access to one of said first and second row of containers is enabled from one side of said one row while optical access to the other of said first and second row of containers from said one side of said one row is prevented.
Du teaches a test tube rack of an analyzer pipeline including multiple test tube holders for holding test tubes (abstract). Du teaches the test tube rack includes a light blocker configured at a side wall of the test tube rack and across multiple test tube holders (paragraphs [0008],[0028]). Du teaches the light blocker is configured at a portion of a side wall of a test tube to strengthen the stability of the test tube rack (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of modified Tashiro to incorporate the teachings of a test tube rack including a light blocker of Du (paragraphs [0008],[0028],[0032]) to provide: the assembly according to claim 16, wherein: i. the blocking means comprise or consist of a non-transparent barrier such as a non- transparent sheet or membrane separating said first and second row of containers, or ii. the blocking means comprise or consist of a coating on the back part of the containers, wherein said coating is configured to prevent optical access to one of said rows, for example wherein the non-transparent sheet, the coating, or the non-transparent sheet and the coating, is of dimensions such that optical access to one of said first and second row of containers is enabled from one side of said one row while optical access to the other of said first and second row of containers from said one side of said one row is prevented. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving light separation between the rows of containers and strength the stability of the assembly, therefore improving optical analysis of individual containers or rows of containers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qi et al. (CN 110479400 A) teaches a test device comprising multiple racks that are connected by hinges (Figs. 1-7) having a first configuration where the racks abut (Figs. 1-4) and a second configuration where the racks are in extension of each other (Fig. 7).
Ding (CN 108554479 A) teaches a test tube rack for chemical experiment comprising multiple test tube racks connected by hinges that can be folded and unfolded (Figs. 1-4).
Gosta (US 3186556 A) teaches a test tube rack comprising multiple racks that are connected by hinges (Fig. 1).
Xu et al. (CN 105032521 A) teaches a multifunctional foldable test tube rack comprising multiple racks that are connected by hinges (Figs. 1-5) having a first configuration where the racks abut (Fig. 5) and a second configuration where the racks are in extension of each other (Figs. 1-4).
Sattler (WO 2009040082 A1) teaches a reagent container system comprising multiple frames connected by a hinge (Figs. 1-17).
Yasuda et al. (US 20040259091 A1) teaches an opaque sheet material existing between the minute wells functions as a light-shielding wall and as such prevents the luminescence from adjacent minute wells from turning into interfering light, thus improving the measurement reproducibility (paragraph [0046]).
Hargreaves (US 6121055 A) teaches a detection vessel having a radiation shield to provide a shielded portion and an unshielded portion (column 10, lines 25-48). Hargreaves teaches physically shielding portion of a vessel using a light-impenetrably material (column 30, lines 50-67); wherein a shield can be integral in a detection vessel body or can be a separate shield enclosed by the body of the detection vessel (column 31, lines 1-8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758