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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction requirement filed on 9/4/2025 is withdrawn and claims 1-15 are presently being examined.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson, IV (US 11,498,077).
Regarding claim 1, Williamson teaches a sectionable cassette comprising a structure (12 and 14) having two side walls, a back wall and a front wall (14a, 14b, 14c and 14d) defining an upper face at the top of the walls and a lower face at the bottom of the walls. The structure (12 and 14) being configured to receive sample identification information (label, refer to Col. 1, Lines 40-45) from an automated cassette printing apparatus; and a closure (16) engageable with the structure (12 and 14) above the top of the walls or below the bottom of the walls whereby the structure and closure together or the closure define a sample enclosure having an apertured bottom face and an apertured top face. (Refer to Figure 1A)
Williamson fails to teach a ratio of the internal length to the internal width of the structure is from 1.0 to 1.6 and a ratio of the width of the sample enclosure to its depth is less than 5:1 and a ratio of the length of the sample enclosure to its depth is less than 6:1.
The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and/or proportions and would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Williamson where a ratio of the internal length to the internal width of the structure is from 1.0 to 1.6 and a ratio of the width of the sample enclosure to its depth is less than 5:1 and a ratio of the length of the sample enclosure to its depth is less than 6:1 in order to optimize tissue processing.
Regarding claim 2, the structure (12 and 14) comprising two side walls, a back wall and a front wall defines an open bottom face and an open top face and the closure (16) comprises a box (10) having side walls, a bottom surface comprising apertures (12b) and a lid (18) comprising apertures to cover the top surface which together define a sample compartment (refer to Figure 3B), the closure (16) being dimensioned to fit in register with the walls of the structure (12 and 14) and the closure and structure being securable together. (Refer to Figure 3B)
Regarding claim 3, the structure (12 and 14) comprising two side walls, a back wall and a front wall further comprises an apertured bottom face (12b) and the closure (16) comprises closure walls and a closure lid (18) comprising apertures, the closure being dimensioned to fit in register with the walls of the structure (12 and 14) and the closure (16) and the structure being securable together whereby the walls and bottom face of the structure and the closure walls and closure lid (18) define the sample compartment. (Refer to Figure 3B)
Regarding claim 4, Williamson fails to teach the closure (16) walls and lid (18) are integral. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is making a single unit piece would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make integral the closure and the lid in order to eliminate the use of multiple parts and therefore easily replaceable if need to.
Regarding claim 5, the closure (16) walls and lid (18) are separate from the lid and the lid and closure walls are securable together. (Refer to Figure 1A)
Regarding claim 6, the closure lid (18) and closure (16) walls comprise complementary engagement means (36). (Refer to Figure 1A)
Regarding claim 7, the structure (12 and 14) and the closure (16) comprise complementary engagement means (24 and 26).
Regarding claim 8, the complementary engagement means (24 and 26) comprises engagement means located at the front and rear of the cassette. (Refer to Figure 2)
Regarding claim 9, the complementary engagement means comprises a tongue or resilient latch (24 and 26) in the structure or closure and a receiving aperture for the tongue or latch in, respectively, the closure or structure. (Refer to Col. 11, Lines 55-60)
Regarding claim 10, the complementary engagement means (24 and 26) comprises i) a resilient latch in the structure or closure and a receiving aperture for the latch in, respectively, the closure or structure (Refer to Col. 11, Lines 55-60) and ii) a pivotally rotatable hinge mechanism (22a and 22b).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the pivotally rotatable hinge mechanism (22a and 22b) comprises a pin in a plane perpendicular to the walls of the structure and a clasp for engagement with and rotation about the pin. (Refer to Col. 19, Lines 1-10) (Refer to Col. 4, Lines 38-64)
Regarding claim 12, the pin is located in the structure and the clasp is located on the closure. (Refer to Col. 4, Lines 38-64)
Regarding claim 13, Williamson fails to teach the ratio of the width of the enclosure to its depth is less than 3:1 and the ratio of the length of the enclosure to its depth is less than 3:1. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and/or proportions and would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Williamson where the ratio of the width of the enclosure to its depth is less than 3:1 and the ratio of the length of the enclosure to its depth is less than 3:1 in order to optimize the tissue processing device.
Regarding claim 14, Williamson fails to teach the structure and closure have i) a length of 28 to 32 mm and a width of 25 to 28 mm and the sample enclosure has a depth of greater than 5 mm; or ii) a length of 65 to 80mm, and a width of 50 to 55 and the sample enclosure has a depth of greater than 10mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure and closure have i) a length of 28 to 32 mm and a width of 25 to 28 mm and the sample enclosure has a depth of greater than 5 mm; or ii) a length of 65 to 80mm, and a width of 50 to 55 and the sample enclosure has a depth of greater than 10mm in order to obtain an optimal tissue processing device.
Regarding claim 15, providing a histology processing cassette assembly (refer to claim 1 rejection) placing the closure (16) in register with and engaging the structure (12 and 14) to define a sample compartment which contains the sample (Refer to Figure 3B); applying information to the cassette assembly, preferably the structure, especially the front wall of the structure, using automated cassette printing apparatus before or after step ii) (Refer to Col. 1, Lines 41-52); placing the sample in the sample compartment and treating the sample by contacting it with a processing solution(Refer to Col. 1, Lines 41-52); and contacting the sample with molten paraffin and cooling the sample in molten paraffin so the sample is embedded in solidified paraffin for further processing. (Refer to Col. 2, Lines 1-12)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, EST.
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.
/JYOTI Mutreja/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798