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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 3, 4, 7, 8 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3 – Claim 3 recites the limitation "the sealing foil" in lines 1 and 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the cavities’ openings" in lines 2 and 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4 – Claim 4 recites the limitation "the upper ends" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cavities’ openings" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7 – Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cavities" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8 – Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cavities" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15 – Claim 15 recites “a method of using for fluid handling and transport”. The Examiner submits this is unclear as it is unclear what apparatus is to be used based on the preamble.”
Inventorship
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandell (US 6,426,215) in view of Farina et al. (2003/0129095). Sandell teaches a PCR plate cover and maintaining device.
Regarding claims 1 and 12 – As shown in the Figures, Sandell teaches a plate (plate 30 or 40) with at least one cavity (wells 31 or 41) for receiving a fluid which is surrounded by a rim (base 32/walls 34b and peripheral wall 42); and a separate cover (10 or 20 or 310) comprising a centrally arranged surface (material layer 35 plus shell 11 or 21 or 311) as a sealing element which is surrounded by a rim. The cover of Sandell further includes a snap fit mechanism (retaining devices 13 or 23a, 23b or 331, 326) for connecting the plate (plate 30 or 40) and cover (10 or 20 or 310). Sandell does not teach wherein the rim of the plate or cover which is to be connected is configured for accommodating the snap-fit mechanism of an upper or lower plate of cover in a retaining element arranged at the rim.
Farina teaches a stackable vessel array. The vessel array (102) is best shown in Figures 4-8A and described in Paragraphs 0033-0040. As shown in Figures 4-5, The vessel array (102) includes a plurality of wells (128) formed through the base plate (116) between parallel side walls (118, 119). The vessel array further includes stacking features comprised of notched side flanges (121) having an inclined guide (123) and notch (125) on the edge of the vessel array that mates with the foot section (138) of parallel rails (136) to allow a first vessel array (102) to be stacked on a second vessel array (102) for processing and storage. See also Figures 6-7 and especially Paragraph 0036 of Farina. The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the stacking features comprised of the notch and rail features from Farina with the device of Sandell. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the stacking features to Sandell in order to stack vessel arrays as taught by Farina.
Regarding claims 4 and 5 – Sandell shows a rigid centrally arranged surface centrally arranged surface (shell 11 or 21 or 311) having a plurality of windows to allow light transmission (openings 14 or 24 or 314). Sandell teaches a snap fit element (13 or 23a/23b or 313/326) for securing the cover (10 or 20 or 310) to the plate (30 or 40) in the Figures and column 4, line 58 – column 5, line 50; and column 8, line 24 – column 9, line 45.
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 10 – Figure 1B of Sandell shows wells (41) of the plate (40) having a collar (unlabeled) extending over the surface (top surface 43) surrounding the openings of the plate (40) which contacts the seal (layer 35) during heat sealing. See also column 4, lines 16-57.
Regarding claim 11 – The Examiner first notes that the claim recites open language –“comprising” in the claim 1 preamble. Therefore, the device is not limited to only four cavities. Sandell shows plates (30, 40) in Figures 1A-1B having multiple sets of four cavities arranged two by two.
Regarding claim 13 – Farina shows a snap fit mechanism comprised of a hook (rails 136 with foot section 138) extending downwards from the rim of the plate in Figures 5-6 and Paragraph 0036.
Regarding claim 14 – Sandell discloses a cover (10 or 20 or 310) having a sealing element with four snap fit mechanisms (retaining devices 13 or 23a, 23b or 331, 326) in Figures 2-5 (cover 10), Figure 6-9 (cover 20) and Figures 10-14 (cover 310), respectively.
Regarding claim 15 – Sandell teaches a method of using their plate that includes providing the cover and placing the cover on the plate, and then performing PCR on the contents of the plate in column 4, line 4 – column 6, line 31.
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandell (US 6,426,215) in view of Farina et al. (2003/0129095) and further in view of Turner (US 2008/0233015). Sandell in view of Farina teaches every element of claims 2, 3, and 6 except for the foil in the sealing material and a centrally arranged surface comprising at least one downwards projecting protrusion in the wells. Turner teaches a device for sealing microplates. The embodiments of the device most relevant to the instant claims are shown in Figures 1A-3 and described in Paragraphs 0054-0070. As shown in Figure 1b, Turner teaches a sealing device (10b) comprised of a sealing layer (12b) for contacting and sealing the wells (27) of a microplate 25 and also a backing layer (14b) made of foil (claim 12 of Turner) that allows the composite device (10b) to function as a pierceable septum. The sealing device (20) is positioned between a heated platen (28) and the microplate (25) and then heated to seal the wells (27). During the heating and sealing process, the sealing member (30) is deformed into the well (35) to form a light concentrating optical lens structure for directing light during optical examination of the well. See Paragraphs 0061-0070. The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the sealing layer with lens structures from Turner with the combined teachings of Sandell and Farina. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time would add the sealing layer to Sandell and Farina in order to form lens structures during sealing that also assist in optical analysis in the wells as taught by Turner.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandell (US 6,426,215) in view of Farina et al. (2003/0129095), and further in view of Pham et al. (US 6,171,780). Sandell in view of Farina teaches every element of claim 7 except for the white or black materials in the wells. Pham teaches a low fluorescence assay platform. The platform is best shown in Figures 1A, 1B and 2 and includes a plurality of wells for assaying materials. See columns 10—14 of Pham which describes the multiwell platform. Pham teaches the addition of opaque materials including carbon black and black pigments to prevent crosstalk between the wells during optical analysis in column 13, lines 11-46. The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the black material from the wells of Pham with the combined teachings of Sandell and Farina. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time would add the black material to the wells of Sandell and Farina in order to prevent cross talk between wells during optical analysis as taught by Pham.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAYNE K HANDY whose telephone number is (571)272-1259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571-272-1267. 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.
/DWAYNE K HANDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1798 September 23, 2025
/JILL A WARDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798