DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
As to the claim amendments and remarks filed on 12/18/25, the previous 112b rejections are withdrawn. However, new rejections are entered to address the claim amendments.
Based on the claim amendments and remarks, the previous 101 rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
In regards to the claim amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9, 11-16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected based on the following analysis
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “calculating routes” via a routing system and queue manager that are part of the controller. Calculating routes is an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or math, and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III is clear that using a computer/controller to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. After the routes are calculated, then the drive system is controlled to move the tube holders along the calculated routes. The claims determine the container route and then move the container along the route. This is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally applying the abstract idea per MPEP 2106.05(f), and also is just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which are not particular practical applications.
The claim does recite a plurality of sample containers, and tube holders, and a transport plane with a drive system and with a transport area and queue area, but this is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which is not a particular practical application.
The claims recite performing the abstract ideas on a control system, which is a general-purpose computer. However, a general-purpose computer is not a particular machine, and performing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer does not integrate the exception into a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(b), I.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
The claim recites the additional elements of a plurality of sample containers, and tube holders, and a transport plane with a drive system and with a transport area and queue area. These additional elements do not amount to significantly more as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art as evidenced by Silbert et al (WO 2021216932 where US 20250020679 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Silbert”; already of record) and Sinz et al (US 20160341750; hereinafter “Sinz”; already of record). Silbert teaches a distribution system with a transport plane with various queue areas with a drive system for moving containers in holders (Silbert; Fig. 1-2 & see prior art rejection below). Sinz teaches a distribution system with a transport plane with various queue areas and a drive system for moving containers in holders (Sinz; Fig. 1-6, [18, 33] & see prior art rejection below).
The dependent claims are also rejected based on a similar analysis and that does not appear to resolve any of the above issues. Claims 2,4-9, 11-15 just recite details of the queue areas, and they do not amount to significantly more because Sinz and Silbert each teach multiple queue areas (Silbert; Fig. 1-2 & see prior art rejection below, and also Sinz; Fig. 1-6, [18, 33] & see prior art rejection below). The examiner further notes that these areas are arbitrary regions of space and are also related to intended use, and do not further limit the device structure beyond that of a capability. Claim 3 calculates a route (step 2A prong one) and then does not provide any application (step 2A prong two) such that there is no practical application. Claim 16 recites the abstract idea of calculating routes (step 2A prong one) and then just moves the holder along the calculated route (step 2A prong two) which does not integrate the exception as explained in the analysis for claim 1 above.
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 1-9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what “the start transportation fields” and “the stop transportation fields” are referring to in the last two lines of the clam because no start/stop transportation field has been previously recited. Therefore, these limitations have insufficient antecedent basis, and it is unclear what is attempting to be referred to. What are the stop the start transportation fields, and where are they located, and what is their function?
Claims 2-9, 11-16 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Silbert et al (WO 2021216932 where US 20250020679 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Silbert”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Silbert teaches a distribution system (Silbert; Fig. 1-2) comprising: a plurality of sample containers a plurality of tube holders adapted to carry the sample containers; a transport plane comprising a transport surface, the tube holders being received on and moving over the transport surface, wherein the transport plane comprises at least one transportation area and at least one queue area, the at least one transportation area comprising a plurality of transportation fields, and the tube holders moving via the transportation fields, wherein the at least one queue area comprises queues of a plurality of different queue types differentiating between a tube holder with a sample container, an empty tube holder, an input queue and an output queue, the at least one queue area storing a plurality of the tube holders; a drive system moving the tube holders on the transport surface of the transport plane in at least two dimensions; and a control system controlling the drive system to move the tube holders, wherein the control system comprises a routing system calculating routes for the tube holders on the at least one transportation area of the transport plane, wherein the control system comprises a queue manager calculating routes for the tube holders in the at least one queue area considering the different queue types, and wherein the control system controls the drive system to move the tube holders via the transportation fields along the calculated routes from the start transportation fields to the stop transportation fields (Silbert teaches a transport plane with a transportation area and drive as a conveyor; Fig. 1-2. Silbert teaches container holders for holding sample containers; [49, 170, 365]; Fig. 1. Silbert teaches a controller to manage the movement of tube holders [334-338, 363], where there are empty tube holders input via queue 218 and output into queue 248 [337], where there are samples with tubes at queue 242 [336], an input and output queue 238 for tube holders with containers [334], and an input queue 220/252 for empty tube holders [338, 373], and where STAT samples can be input and take priority [373]. Silbert also teaches various queues as the structures on the side of the transportation area in Figures 1-3. The examiner notes that the transportation area and queue area are just regions of space and what they are used for, including the different queue type, is a matter of intended use not further defining the apparatus beyond that of a capability. Silbert teaches moving the various container holders A/B/C/D along different transportation fields, where the area at which they start moving is the start field and the area at which they stop is the stop field; [334-338, 363, 365, 382, 389, 415, 430], Fig. 1-3. The examiner notes that the transportation fields are just area or positions of space through which tubes/holders are transported, and that the various tube holders are transported along different locations which define the fields).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 1, wherein the queue area comprises a sample container output queue, a sample container input queue, an empty tube holder output queue, and an empty tube holder input queue (Silbert teaches a transport plane with a transportation area and drive as a conveyor; Fig. 1-2. Silbert teaches a controller to manage the movement of tube holders [334-338, 363], where there are empty tube holders input via queue 218 and output into queue 248 [337], where there are samples with tubes at queue 242 [336], an input and output queue 238 for tube holders with containers [334], and an input queue 220/252 for empty tube holders [338, 373], and where STAT samples can be input and take priority [373]. Silbert also teaches various queues as the structures on the side of the transportation area in Figures 1-3. The examiner notes that the transportation area and queue area are just regions of space and what they are used for, including the different queue type, is a matter of intended use not further defining the apparatus beyond that of a capability).
As to claim 3, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the sample container output queue is split into emergency (STAT) samples and routine samples, wherein the queue manager calculates the route of a tube holder loaded with a STAT sample so that it can skip part of the sample container output queue (Silbert teaches a transport plane with a transportation area and drive as a conveyor; Fig. 1-2. Silbert teaches a controller to manage the movement of tube holders [334-338, 363], where there are empty tube holders input via queue 218 and output into queue 248 [337], where there are samples with tubes at queue 242 [336], an input and output queue 238 for tube holders with containers [334], and an input queue 220/252 for empty tube holders [338, 373], and where STAT samples can be input and take priority [373]. The examiner notes that the transportation area and queue area are just regions of space and what they are used for, including the different queue type, is a matter of intended use not further defining the apparatus beyond that of a capability. Silbert teaches managing routes for STAT samples; [373]).
As to claim 4, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the sample container output queue continuously supplies sample containers to connected devices (Silbert teaches various output queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure).
As to claim 5, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the sample container input queue stores tube holders with a sample container entering the transport plane (Silbert teaches various input queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure).
As to claim 6, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 5, wherein the sample container input queue is a random access queue or a First-In-First-out queue (Silbert teaches various input queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure).
As to claim 7, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the empty tube holder output queue provides a constant supply of empty tube holders at a loading position of the transport plane to connected devices (Silbert teaches the empty output queue in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure).
As to claim 8, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the empty tube holder input queue stores empty tube holder from a transport interface of the distribution system to provide access to the transportation area (As best understood, Silbert teaches the empty input queue in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure).
As to claim 9, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 1, wherein the queues are static queues which are placed such that their purpose is fulfilled while minimizing their obstruction with a main traffic of tube holders on the at least one transportation area (Silbert teaches various queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure. The queues are static in that they are part of the track system).
As to claim 11, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 1, wherein each of the queues comprises a plurality of queue fields, wherein at least one queue field of the respective queue is an interface field between the at least one transportation area and the at least one queue area (As best understood, Silbert teaches various queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure. Silbert teaches that the queues have multiple regions of space such that the space just before movement to/from the transportation area is the interface field).
As to claim 12, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 11, wherein a first queue field of the respective output queue and a last queue field of the respective input queue are interface fields, wherein the routing system and the queue manager are configured for being aware of movement within the interface fields (As best understood, Silbert teaches various queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure. Silbert teaches that the queues have multiple regions of space such that the space just before movement to/from the transportation area is the interface field).
As to claim 13, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the sample container output queue comprises an interface field to the STAT queue, wherein said interface field is configured for providing an interface to STAT samples to merge into the output queue of the routine samples (As best understood, Silbert teaches various queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure. Silbert teaches that the queues have multiple regions of space such that the space just before movement to/from the transportation area is the interface field).
As to claim 14, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 13, wherein on the interface field one field moves are allowed from and to the interface field on a side of the queue area (As best understood, Silbert teaches various queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure. Silbert teaches that the queues have multiple regions of space such that the space just before movement to/from the transportation area is the interface field).
As to claim 15, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 1, wherein the transport plane comprises at least one dynamic shared queue having at least one dynamic shared queue field, wherein the routing system is configured for dynamically assigning the at least one dynamic shared queue field of the dynamic shared queue to every tube holder on the transport plane (Silbert teaches various queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure. The queues can dynamically fluctuate in size of the number of holders at each location based on processing speed/demand, and the controller dynamically assigns and manages the transport of holders; [334-338, 363]).
As to claim 15, Silbert teaches the distribution system according to claim 1, wherein the queue manager calculates a route to move a tube holder from the input queue to a laboratory station, and the control system controls the drive system to move the tube holder along the calculated route (Silbert teaches a controller to manage the movement of tube holders [334-338, 363]. Silbert teaches moving the various container holders A/B/C/D along different transportation fields, where the area at which they start moving is the start field and the area at which they stop is the stop field; [334-338, 363, 365, 382, 389, 415, 430], Fig. 1-3. The examiner notes that the transportation fields are just area or positions of space through which tubes/holders are transported, and that the various tube holders are transported along different locations which define the fields).
Claims 1-9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Sinz et al (US 20160341750; hereinafter “Sinz”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Sinz teaches a distribution system (Sinz; Fig. 1-6) comprising: a plurality of sample containers a plurality of tube holders adapted to carry the sample containers; a transport plane comprising a transport surface, the tube holders being received on and moving over the transport surface, wherein the transport plane comprises at least one transportation area and at least one queue area, the at least one transportation area comprising a plurality of transportation fields, and the tube holders moving via the transportation fields, wherein the at least one queue area comprises queues of a plurality of different queue types differentiating between a tube holder with a sample container, an empty tube holder, an input queue and an output queue, the at least one queue area storing a plurality of the tube holders; a drive system moving the tube holders on the transport surface of the transport plane in at least two dimensions; and a control system controlling the drive system to move the tube holders, wherein the control system comprises a routing system calculating routes for the tube holders on the at least one transportation area of the transport plane, wherein the control system comprises a queue manager calculating routes for the tube holders in the at least one queue area considering the different queue types, and wherein the control system controls the drive system to move the tube holders via the transportation fields along the calculated routes from the start transportation fields to the stop transportation fields (Sinz teaches a transport plane with a transportation area; Figs. 1-6, [18, 33]. Sinz teaches sample container carriers moving sample containers on the transport surface; [31]. Sinz teaches a controller to manage the movement of tube holders [32]. Sinz teaches that various dynamic buffer areas 30/30* form different queue areas, and can be created based on the simulation and needs of the system [15, 19, 21], and where add-on buffer queues that are fixed can still exist [24]; Fig. 1-6. Sinz teaches optimizing/managing and changing buffer number, size, and location when determining routing of holders; [22, 23, 24-49]. Sinz teaches that the buffers can include holders with tubes [20] and can have holders without tubes [25], where each of these buffer regions would have corresponding inputs and outputs, and also has interface locations to interface with the transportation area, and also logical fields which can be varied [25, 27]. Sinz also teaches STAT samples as low access time samples where the region of space of that buffer would be the input/output; [24]. Sinz further teaches that the holders can be removed from the buffer and transported to different devices or be removed from system; [20]. The examiner notes that the transportation area and queue area are just regions of space and what they are used for, including the different queue type, is a matter of intended use not further defining the apparatus beyond that of a capability. Sinz teaches moving various container holders along different transportation fields/routes, where the area at which they start moving is the start field and the area at which they stop is the stop field; [22, 23, 24-49], Fig. 1-6. The examiner notes that the transportation fields are just area or positions of space through which tubes/holders are transported, and that the various tube holders are transported along different locations which define the fields).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 1, wherein the queue area comprises a sample container output queue, a sample container input queue, an empty tube holder output queue, and an empty tube holder input queue (Sinz teaches a transport plane with a transportation area; Figs. 1-6, [18, 33]. Sinz teaches a controller to manage the movement of tube holders [32]. Sinz teaches that various dynamic buffer areas 30/30* form different queue areas, and can be created based on the simulation and needs of the system [15, 19, 21], and where add-on buffer queues that are fixed can still exist [24]; Fig. 1-6. Sinz teaches optimizing/managing and changing buffer number, size, and location when determining routing of holders; [22, 23, 24-49]. Sinz teaches that the buffers can include holders with tubes [20] and can have holders without tubes [25], where each of these buffer regions would have corresponding inputs and outputs, and also has interface locations to interface with the transportation area, and also logical fields which can be varied [25, 27]. Sinz also teaches STAT samples as low access time samples where the region of space of that buffer would be the input/output; [24]. Sinz further teaches that the holders can be removed from the buffer and transported to different devices or be removed from system; [20]. The examiner notes that the transportation area and queue area are just regions of space and what they are used for, including the different queue type, is a matter of intended use not further defining the apparatus beyond that of a capability).
As to claim 3, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the sample container output queue is split into emergency (STAT) samples and routine samples, wherein the queue manager calculates the route of a tube holder loaded with a STAT sample so that it can skip part of the sample container output queue (Sinz teaches a transport plane with a transportation area; Figs. 1-6, [18, 33]. Sinz teaches a controller to manage the movement of tube holders [32]. Sinz teaches that various dynamic buffer areas 30/30* form different queue areas, and can be created based on the simulation and needs of the system [15, 19, 21], and where add-on buffer queues that are fixed can still exist [24]; Fig. 1-6. Sinz teaches optimizing/managing and changing buffer number, size, and location when determining routing of holders; [22, 23, 24-49]. Sinz teaches that the buffers can include holders with tubes [20] and can have holders without tubes [25], where each of these buffer regions would have corresponding inputs and outputs, and also has interface locations to interface with the transportation area, and also logical fields which can be varied [25, 27]. Sinz also teaches STAT samples as low access time samples where the region of space of that buffer would be the input/output; [24]. Sinz further teaches that the holders can be removed from the buffer and transported to different devices or be removed from system; [20]. The examiner notes that the transportation area and queue area are just regions of space and what they are used for, including the different queue type, is a matter of intended use not further defining the apparatus beyond that of a capability Sinz also teaches managing routing of STAT samples as low access time samples; [24]).
As to claim 4, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the sample container output queue continuously supplies sample containers to connected devices (Sinz teaches various output queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure).
As to claim 5, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the sample container input queue stores tube holders with a sample container entering the transport plane (Sinz teaches various input queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure).
As to claim 6, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 5, wherein the sample container input queue is a random access queue or a First-In-First-out queue (Sinz teaches various input queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure).
As to claim 7, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the empty tube holder output queue provides a constant supply of empty tube holders at a loading position of the transport plane to connected devices (Sinz teaches the empty output queue in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure).
As to claim 8, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the empty tube holder input queue stores empty tube holder from a transport interface of the distribution system to provide access to the transportation area to travel (As best understood, Sinz teaches the empty input queue in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure).
As to claim 9, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 1, wherein the queues are static queues which are placed such that their purpose is fulfilled while minimizing their obstruction with a main traffic of tube holders on the at least one transportation area (Sinz teaches various queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure. The queues are static in that they are part of the track system, and Sinz also teaches add-on buffers that would be static; [24]).
As to claim 11, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 1, wherein each of the queues comprises a plurality of queue fields, wherein at least one queue field of the respective queue is an interface field between the at least one transportation area and the at least one queue area (As best understood, Sinz teaches various queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure. Sinz teaches that the queues have multiple regions of space such that the space just before movement to/from the transportation area is the interface field. Sinz teaches that the buffers can include holders with tubes [20] and can have holders without tubes [25], where each of these buffer regions would have corresponding inputs and outputs, and also has interface locations to interface with the transportation area, and also logical fields which can be varied [25, 27, 52]; Fig. 1-4, 6).
As to claim 12, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 11, wherein a first queue field of the respective output queue and a last queue field of the respective input queue are interface fields, wherein the routing system and the queue manager are configured for being aware of movement within the interface fields (As best understood, Sinz teaches various queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure. Sinz teaches that the queues have multiple regions of space such that the space just before movement to/from the transportation area is the interface field. Sinz teaches that the buffers can include holders with tubes [20] and can have holders without tubes [25], where each of these buffer regions would have corresponding inputs and outputs, and also has interface locations to interface with the transportation area, and also logical fields which can be varied [25, 27, 52]; Fig. 1-4, 6).
As to claim 13, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 2, wherein the sample container output queue comprises an interface field to the STAT queue, wherein said interface field is configured for providing an interface to STAT samples to merge into the output queue of the routine samples (As best understood, Sinz teaches various queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure. Sinz teaches that the queues have multiple regions of space such that the space just before movement to/from the transportation area is the interface field. Sinz also teaches STAT samples as low access time samples where the region of space of that buffer would be the input/output; [24]. Sinz teaches that the buffers can include holders with tubes [20] and can have holders without tubes [25], where each of these buffer regions would have corresponding inputs and outputs, and also has interface locations to interface with the transportation area, and also logical fields which can be varied [25, 27, 52]; Fig. 1-4, 6).
As to claim 14, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 13, wherein on the interface field one field moves are allowed from and to the interface field on a side of the queue area (As best understood, Sinz teaches various queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure. Sinz teaches that the queues have multiple regions of space such that the space just before movement to/from the transportation area is the interface field. Sinz also teaches STAT samples as low access time samples where the region of space of that buffer would be the input/output; [24]. Sinz teaches that the buffers can include holders with tubes [20] and can have holders without tubes [25], where each of these buffer regions would have corresponding inputs and outputs, and also has interface locations to interface with the transportation area, and also logical fields which can be varied [25, 27, 52]; Fig. 1-4, 6).
As to claim 15, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 1, wherein the transport plane comprises at least one dynamic shared queue having at least one dynamic shared queue field, wherein the routing system is configured for dynamically assigning the at least one dynamic shared queue field of the dynamic shared queue to every tube holder on the transport plane (Sinz teaches various queues in claim 1/2 above, and what the queues are used for is a matter of intended use and does not further define the system structure. Sinz teaches that various dynamic buffer areas 30/30* form different queue areas, and can be created based on the simulation and needs of the system [15, 19, 21], Fig. 1-6).
As to claim 15, Sinz teaches the distribution system according to claim 1, wherein the queue manager calculates a route to move a tube holder from the input queue to a laboratory station, and the control system controls the drive system to move the tube holder along the calculated route (Sinz teaches a controller to manage the movement of tube holders [32]. Sinz teaches that various dynamic buffer areas 30/30* form different queue areas, and can be created based on the simulation and needs of the system [15, 19, 21], and where add-on buffer queues that are fixed can still exist [24]; Fig. 1-6. Sinz teaches optimizing/managing and changing buffer number, size, and location when determining routing of holders; [22, 23, 24-49]. Sinz teaches that the buffers can include holders with tubes [20] and can have holders without tubes [25], where each of these buffer regions would have corresponding inputs and outputs, and also has interface locations to interface with the transportation area, and also logical fields which can be varied [25, 27]. Sinz also teaches STAT samples as low access time samples where the region of space of that buffer would be the input/output; [24]. Sinz further teaches that the holders can be removed from the buffer and transported to different devices or be removed from system; [20]. The examiner notes that the transportation area and queue area are just regions of space and what they are used for, including the different queue type, is a matter of intended use not further defining the apparatus beyond that of a capability. Sinz teaches moving various container holders along different transportation fields/routes, where the area at which they start moving is the start field and the area at which they stop is the stop field; [22, 23, 24-49], Fig. 1-6. The examiner notes that the transportation fields are just area or positions of space through which tubes/holders are transported, and that the various tube holders are transported along different locations which define the fields).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Gelbman et al (US 20140370608; hereinafter “Gelbman”; already of record) teaches various tube holder types, and tracking their status via queues; Fig. 7, [115].
Pollack et al (US 20150118756; hereinafter “Pollack”; already of record) teaches sample manager software and controlling queues; [170-179].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/18/25 have been considered, but are moot because arguments are towards the amended claims and not the current ground of rejection. However, because the examiner is relying on the same prior art then the examiner will address applicants arguments towards the prior art in order to advance prosecution. Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant's arguments on pages 7-9 of their remarks fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicants do not present any arguments towards the prior art rejections of Sinz or Silbert on pages 7-9 of their remarks, and instead focus arguments towards references used in the corresponding EPO application, where the argued references were not used in the rejection of the US application. The examiner notes that Sinz or Silbert teach the claim limitations and direct applicants attention to the rejection above.
Applicants argue on pages 5-6 of their remarks that the 101 rejection should be withdrawn because there is a corresponding action after calculating the routes. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The routes being calculated are abstract ideas under step 2A prong one. Under step 2A prong two, after the routes are calculated, then the drive system is controlled to move the tube holders along the calculated routes. The claims determine the container route and then move the container along the route. This is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally applying the abstract idea per MPEP 2106.05(f), and also is just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which are not particular practical applications.
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 BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798