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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grohbuhl (GB 2 537 887 A) in view of Bryant (US 20180372768).
Regarding claim 7, Grohbuhl teach an automated analytical system for processing biological samples, the system comprising: a housing (Fig. 1, Para. 0002: automated analyzer system); a sample rack configured to hold a plurality of sample receptacles (Fig. 1: rack 140); a sample receiving bay within said housing, the sample receiving bay having a plurality of lanes arranged substantially parallel to each other and configured to accommodate the sample rack configured to hold a plurality of sample receptacles (Fig. 1: insertion lanes 145); a reader within essentially the same horizontal plane as the lanes (Fig. 1: camera 170); a positioning element configured to position the sample rack in the processing position (Fig. 1: tracks in insertion lanes 145); a detecting element configured to detect the sample rack in the processing position; a locking element configured to lock the sample rack in the processing position (Fig. 1: element at end of lane 145 to stop the rack from the end wall) ; and a processing module configured to process the biological samples in the sample receptacles (Para. 0018: Camera, CCD, or CMOS chip).
Grohbuhl is silent to a proximal stopping element defining a focusing position on a lane; a distal stopping element defining a processing position on a lane.
Bryant et al teach pausing and resuming for each container position on the rack to allow stationary imaging of the rack (Para. 0058). It is noted that the proximal stopping element has the opening and walls around the container position and the distal stopping element is the end of the lane. It is desirable to provide a pausing and resuming the movement to the sample rack to allow for discontinuous detecting of each sample container when the detector has a limited range of detection area. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is known. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the proximal stopping elements for the pausing and resuming the movement at each of the container positions having the opening and the walls to provide the above advantage of allowing for discontinuous detecting of each sample container when the detector has a limited range of detection area.
Regarding claim 13, Grohbuhl/Bryant a moveable platform configured to be extended horizontally out of the housing so as to form an extension of the plurality of lanes outside of the housing, the platform having positioning elements configured to position a sample rack on the platform in an exposed inspection position (Fig. 1: loading module 110). Grohbuhl teach lanes 145 with guide rails (Fig. 1: 145 lanes with guides) , but is silent to an indicator system arranged along each of the extended lanes in alignment with dedicated sample receptacle slots of a sample rack when the sample rack is located in the exposed inspection position , wherein the indicator system is configured to indicate a status of sample receptacles in their respective sample receptacle slots . Bryant teach an indicator system arranged along each of the extended lanes in alignment with dedicated sample receptacle slots of a sample rack when the sample rack is located in the exposed inspection position (Fig. 1 sample rack present sensor 107 and loading shelf position sensor) , wherein the indicator system is configured to indicate a status of sample receptacles in their respective sample receptacle slots. (Para. 0079). It is desirable provide the extended lanes with an indicator position to ensure the rack is places in position before loading inside the instrument. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is known. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the indicator system arranged along each of the extended lanes in alignment with dedicated sample receptacle slots of a sample rack when the sample rack is located in the exposed inspection position , wherein the indicator system is configured to indicate a status of sample receptacles in their respective sample receptacle slots of Bryant to provide the above advantage of ensuring the rack is places in position before loading inside the instrument.
Claim(s) 8-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grohbuhl (GB 2 537 887 A) in view of Bryant (US 20180372768) and further in view of Gomm (US20060263248).
Regarding claim 8, Grohbuhl/Bryant teach an indicator system for the position of the rack (Para. 0049), but is silent the indicator system is arranged along each of the lanes in alignment with dedicated sample receptacle slots of a sample rack when the sample rack is located in an inspection position, wherein the indicator system is configured to indicate a status of sample receptacles in their respective sample receptacle slots.
Gomm teaches a system for handlining samples in containers in a rack with status indicator lights 82,84 arranged along each of the lanes in alignment with dedicated sample receptacle slots of a sample rack when the sample rack is located in an inspection position (Fig. 1: carrier 40 at locations 54), wherein the indicator system is configured to indicate a status of sample receptacles in their respective sample receptacle slots (Para. 0069: lights 82,84 indicate the status of the carriers in the slot locations 54). It is advantageous to provide an indicator system to alert the operator not to place another carrier in that location (Para. 0069). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is known. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the indicator system is configured to indicate a status of sample receptacles in their respective sample receptacle slots of Gomm to the device of Grohbuhl/Bryant to provide the above advantage of alerting the operator not to place another carrier in that location.
Regarding claim 9, Grohbuhl/Bryant/Gomm teach the indicator system comprises a light source on or within the lane, the light source being optically coupled via an optical light guiding system to light emission windows positioned to illuminate the dedicated sample receptacle positions of the sample rack (Gomm: Fig.1: 82,84) .
Regarding claim 10, Grohbuhl/Bryant/Gomm teach the light source comprises several individual light sources, each of the individual light sources being optically coupled via the optical light guiding system to the light emission windows. (Gomm: Para. 0069; Fig.1: 82,84)
Regarding claim 11, Grohbuhl/Bryant/Gomm teach the individual light sources are positioned essentially underneath the dedicated sample receptacle positions of the sample rack.(Gomm: Para. 0069; Fig.1: 82,84)
Regarding claim 12, Grohbuhl/Bryant/Gomm teach the number of the individual light sources along a lane matches the number of dedicated sample rack positions and/or light emission windows of the sample rack. (Gomm: Para. 0069; Fig.1: 82,84)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The present invention is directed to a method for introducing a sample rack holding a plurality of sample receptacles into a sample receiving bay. Each independent claim identifies the uniquely distinct features "manually moving the sample rack from a loading position towards a processing position along a lane in the sample receiving bay" and "pausing the movement when the sample rack arrives at a focusing position defined by a proximal stopping element". The closest prior art, Grohbuhl and Bryant , either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above limitations obvious. Bryant teaches an automatic moving the sample rack, but is silent to manually moving the sample rack, thus the combination of Bryant to Grohbuhl fails to teach the pausing and resuming as Bryant does not teach the movement as manual to the proximal and distal stopping elements.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1-6, Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-8 , filed 12/23/2025, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 112, 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 7/1/2025 has been withdrawn.
Regarding claims 7-13, Applicants arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments that the Grohbuhl reference teaches away from pausing is not convincing because the claims 7-13 do not require the method step of pausing. Furthermore, the pausing of the sample rack for the stopping element found in Bryant is considered obvious to provide the advantage of allowing for discontinuous detecting of each sample container when the detector has a limited range of detection area. The arguments that Bryant is incompatible with the “manual” method is not within the scope of the claims 7-13 as there is no limitation directed at a manually moving the sample rack. The arguments that the “proximal stopping element” is not taught, because there must be a physical structure that resists movement to cause the pause and is overcome by resuming movement is not convincing, because the point at which Bryant pauses and continues the rack reads on the stopping element. The claims do not require a physical structure for resist movement caused by the manual insertion seen in claim 1, thus the arguments are not convincing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DENNIS MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571)270-3747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-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, Maris R. 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.
/Dennis White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758