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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 10-12, 14-15, and 20 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/18/2026. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
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 § 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 teaches a plurality of test tubes or the frames are configured to hold test tubes in a vertical direction),
wherein each container is a bioreactor (Figs. 2 and 12-15 teaches test tubes, which are interpreted as a bioreactor since test tubes are structurally capable of functioning as a bioreactor, e.g. having a biological reaction occur within the test tube at a later time),
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),
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 and frames 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”), or
ii. the assembly comprises a further slidable connection 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 and the assembly comprises a further slidable connection to which the two or more frames are attached (not required due to the “or” statement).
Regarding claim 3, Tashiro further teaches wherein each container is configured to hold a liquid composition (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 a 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 Society for Biomolecular Screening (SBS) format, a Society for Laboratory Automation and Screening (SLAS) standard, or a standard SBS format and a SLAS standard when the assembly is in the first configuration.
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 Society for Biomolecular Screening (SBS) format, a Society for Laboratory Automation and Screening (SLAS) standard, or a standard SBS format and a SLAS standard when the assembly is in the first configuration. 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, said optical sensor being configured to allow measurement of one or more parameters of the liquid composition held in the containers.
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: wherein the containers comprise one or more optical sensor on their front side, said optical sensor being configured to allow measurement of one or more parameters of the liquid composition held in the containers. 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 each container comprises 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 each container comprises 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 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,
wherein the non-transparent barrier, the coating, or the non-transparent barrier 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 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, wherein the non-transparent barrier, the coating, or the non-transparent barrier 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 02/18/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-15, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, specifically regarding amended claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Remarks, pages 10-11 regarding Berthold), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that Berthold is silent on the use of multiple frames, however, Tashiro is used to teach two or more frames (Figs. 1, 12-15 teaches two or more frames of test tube stands).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references of Tashiro with Berthold since the references do not provide motivation to combine, the references have different purposes, and adding a cassette to Tashiro would deviate from the purpose of providing a compact storage solution (Remarks, pages 11-13), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, 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) for the intended purpose of holding test tubes (abstract; paragraph [0001]). However, 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 provides teachings of a specimen rack for specimen containers such as test tubes (abstract; Figs. 1-3), which has the same intended purpose of Tashiro. Berthold provides teachings of: 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); and the frame is configured to receive the cassettes (Fig. 1). Berthold provides motivation of 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; column 4, lines 37-42); wherein specimen containers are capable of being moved and handled together without having to remove individual containers (column 6, lines 10-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the assembly and frames 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).
Thus, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Tashiro and with Berthold to arrive at the claimed assembly with each frame configured to receive at least one cassette configured to hold containers while maintaining Tashiro’s intended purpose of holding test tubes.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Tashiro and Berthold fail to teach each container is a bioreactor, the examiner disagrees. Tashiro teaches: wherein each container is a bioreactor (Figs. 2 and 12-15 teaches test tubes, which are interpreted as a bioreactor since test tubes are structurally capable of functioning as a bioreactor, e.g. having a biological reaction occur within the test tube at a later time). The BRI of “bioreactor” includes a test tube, since a test tube is structurally capable of being used for biological reactions. Additionally, note that the claim recites “wherein each cassette comprises a plurality of containers or is configured to hold a plurality of containers in a vertical direction”, therefore, the BRI of the assembly includes the interpretation of the cassettes only configured to hold the containers in a vertical directions where the containers are not positively recited structurally.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “usable to run small-scale cultivations or fermentations…”, Remarks, page 12, last paragraph) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claims 5, 8, 9, 17, 16, 19 (Remarks, pages 13-14), the examiner disagrees for the same reasons as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights