DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending and under examination.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Applicants remarks and claim amendments, received 01/27/2026, have overcome the drawing objections. Accordingly, the drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Based on the amended claims, the 112(b) rejection(s) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action have been withdrawn. However, new 112(b) rejections have been set forth.
In view of the claim amendments and remarks received on 11/27/2019, the previous prior art rejection over Edens has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection set forth (see below).
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 and 3-8 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.
Claims 1 lines 6-7 recite “a fixing unit fixing the container to prevent the container from escaping upward in the sampling area”. Claim 1 lines 9-10 recite “the container transfer device further comprising a movable body movable relative to the constriction portion”. Further, claim 1 lines 11-13 recite “the movable body … is configured to serve as the fixing unit”. Claim limitations “fixing unit” and “movable body” are directed towards the same element, therefore establishing a double inclusion of a single element. However, where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(o). The examiner suggest applicant amend the claim using the same terminology when referring to the same feature of the claimed invention, and to carry the terminology throughout the entire claim set. Claims 3-8 are also rejected by their dependency from claim 1.
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 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 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(s) 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edens et al. (US 2008/0247914; already of record – hereinafter “Edens”) in view of Katsuaki (Translation of JP-2002243636A – hereinafter “Katsuaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Edens disclose a container transfer device (Edens; fig. 1, [0028]) comprising:
a rotating table on which a container accommodating a sample is placed and which moves the container between an exchange area and a sampling area (Edens disclose rotating table as sampling area 3; fig. 1, [0034]. The table 3 comprises an exchange area where vial handling arm 4 exchanges vials 12 from the table 3; “pick-up position”, [0032, 0034, 0050, 0057], and rotates to move the container 12 to a sampling area where capper arm 5 uncaps/recaps the vials and specimen transfer pipette assembly 9 samples the vial; fig. 1, [0034, 0039]);
a holding body holding the container placed on the rotating table to allow the container to be pulled out upward (Edens disclose the rotating table 3 comprises wells 20 for transferring the sample vial 12 into and out of with vial handling arm 4; fig. 4A, [0021, 0034); and
a fixing unit fixing the container to prevent the container from escaping upward in the sampling area (Edens disclose the table 3 comprises a cam 21 and motor 22 that tighten belt 19 around at least a portion of the circumference of the sample vial 12 to stabilize the vial in the sampling area 3 while a capper arm 5 grasps the cap of the vial and removes the vial cap by rotating the cap in an opening direction. The belt 19 applies a known pressure/force to hold the vial and prevent it from rotating or being lifted; figs. 1 & 4A-B, [0034-0035, 0055, 0082, 0084-0086, 0104, 0107]), and
wherein the container has a constricted portion (Edens disclose body of container 12 is constricted with respect to the top and cap; fig. 4B), the container transfer device further comprises a movable body movable relative to the constricted portion in the constricted portion (Edens disclose the table 3 comprises a cam 21 and motor 22 that tighten belt 19 around at least a portion of the circumference of the sample vial 12 to stabilize the vial in the sampling area 3 while a capper arm 5 grasps the cap of the vial and removes the vial cap by rotating the cap in an opening direction. The belt 19 applies a known pressure/force to hold the vial and prevent it from rotating or being lifted; figs. 1 & 4A-B, [0034-0035, 0055, 0082, 0084-0086, 0104, 0107]. The belt is a movable body that is movable relative to the body of container 12 that is the constricted portion with respect to the top and cap), and
the movable body is configured to enter the constricted portion of the container, and is configured to serve as the fixing unit by catching the constricted portion (Edens disclose the table 3 comprises a cam 21 and motor 22 that tighten belt 19 around at least a portion of the circumference of the sample vial 12 to stabilize the vial in the sampling area 3 while a capper arm 5 grasps the cap of the vial and removes the vial cap by rotating the cap in an opening direction. The belt 19 applies a known pressure/force to hold the vial and prevent it from rotating or being lifted; figs. 1 & 4A-B, [0034-0035, 0055, 0082, 0084-0086, 0104, 0107]. The belt is a movable body that is movable relative to the body of container 12 that is the constricted portion with respect to the top and cap).
Edens does not teach the movable body is formed by a plate-like member.
However, Katsuaki teach the analogous art of a fixing unit fixing a container from escaping upward (Katsuaki; figs. 13-14, [0075]) and a movable body movable relative to a constricted portion of the container (Katsuaki; figs. 13-14, #165b, #174, [0077]), wherein the movable body is formed by a plate-like member configured to enter the constricted portion of the container by catching the constricted portion (Katsuaki; fig. 13(B), [0076-0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the movable body of Edens with the movable body formed by a plate-like member, as taught by Katsuaki, because Katsuaki teach the plate-like member provides a predetermined holding position for holding the container in a table (Katsuaki; [0015]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Edens and Katsuaki both teach a rotating table on which a container is secured by a fixing unit.
Regarding claim 3, modified Edens disclose the container transfer device of claim 1 above, further comprising a switch unit switching between a caught state and an uncaught state of the movable body with respect to the constricted portion of the container in the sampling area and the exchange area (The modification of the movable body of Edens with the movable body formed by a plate-like member, as taught by Katsuaki, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Edens disclose a spring mounted to the cam 21 that keeps the belt 19 from closing prematurely onto the vial or into an empty well; [0084-0085]. A microprocessor is in functional communication with the motor 22 and is capable of controlling the engagement of the motor 22 with lever arm and tightening and releasing of the belt on a vial; [0107]. Further, Katsuaki teach a spring 175 mounted to a cam 177 that catches groove 165b of the container; fig. 13(B), [0077-0078]).
Regarding claim 4, Edens disclose the container transfer device of claim 3 above, wherein the switch unit includes a biasing member biasing the movable body toward the constricted portion of the container, and a cam moving the movable body in a direction in which the movable body is separated from the constricted portion of the container in the exchange area by using a rotary power for rotating the rotating table (The modification of the movable body of Edens with the movable body formed by a plate-like member, as taught by Katsuaki, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Edens disclose a spring mounted to the cam 21 that keeps the belt 19 from closing prematurely onto the vial or into an empty well; [0084-0085]. A microprocessor is in functional communication with the motor 22 and is capable of controlling the engagement of the motor 22 with lever arm and tightening and releasing of the belt on a vial; [0107]. Further, Katsuaki teach a spring 175 mounted to a cam 177 that catches groove 165b of the container; fig. 13(B), [0077-0078]).
Regarding claim 5, Edens disclose the container transfer device of claim 3 above, further comprising a pin member maintaining the uncaught state of the movable body with respect to the container in the exchange area (The modification of the movable body of Edens with the movable body formed by a plate-like member, as taught by Katsuaki, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Edens disclose a pin which cam 21 pivots around to maintain the cam in the caught/uncaught state of the moveable body 19 with respect to the container 12 in the exchange area; fig. 4B, [0084-0086]. Further, Katsuaki teach a spring 175 mounted to a cam 177 that catches groove 165b of the container; fig. 13(B), [0077-0078]).
Regarding claim 7, Edens disclose the container transfer device of claim 4, further comprising a pin member maintaining the uncaught state of the movable body with respect to the container in the exchange area The modification of the movable body of Edens with the movable body formed by a plate-like member, as taught by Katsuaki, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. (Edens disclose a pin which cam 21 pivots around to maintain the cam in the caught/uncaught state of the moveable body 19 with respect to the container 12 in the exchange area; fig. 4B, [0084-0086]. Further, Katsuaki teach a spring 175 mounted to a cam 177 that catches groove 165b of the container; fig. 13(B), [0077-0078]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In addition to the remarks of record, the instant claims define over the prior art because the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the pin member is attached to the holding body to be movable up and down, the pin member is configured to, when being at a lowered position, engage with the movable body to maintain the uncaught state and, when being at a raised position, disengage from the movable body not to maintain the uncaught state, and a pin push-up block is further included for pushing up the pin member to the raised position in the sampling area by using a rotary power for rotating the rotating table.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/27/2026, have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are towards the amended claims and do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. However, because the examiner is using the same prior art in the rejection, then the examiner will address applicant’s remarks in order to promote compact prosecution.
Applicants argue, see pages 5-6 of their remarks, that Edens does not teach the amended limitation of a plate-like member that is movable relative to a constricted portion of the container and that can enter the constricted portion. The examiner agrees and notes that the arguments are towards the newly amended limitations and do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. Accordingly, the examiner has withdrawn the prior art rejection of Edens. However, upon further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection has been set forth over Edens in view of Katsuaki which teach the plate-like member that is movable relative to a constriction portion of a container and that can enter the constricted portion.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798