DETAILED ACTION
In application filed on 04/29/2023, Claims 1-20 are pending. The claim set submitted on 11/07/2025 is considered because this is the most recent claim set with some preliminary amendments. Claims 14-20 are considered in the current office 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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 14-19 in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/07/2025.
Group II, Claims 14-20 are considered on the merits below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the resolution of certain figures, such as Figs. 1 and 2 are low as such can be improved.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “the operation” in line 7. It appears this limitation should be recited as “an operation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “each liquid tube” in line 1 of the Claim but recited “at least one liquid tube” in Claim 1, lines 1 and 9.
Consistent language should be use and for the purpose of expedited prosecution, Examiner interprets “each liquid tube” as “at least one liquid tube”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “the liquid tube” in line 1 of the Claim but recited “at least one liquid tube” in Claim 1, lines 1 and 9.
Consistent language should be use and for the purpose of expedited prosecution, Examiner interprets “the liquid tube” as “at least one liquid tube”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Further, Claim 19 recites “the presence” in line 2. It appears this limitation should be recited as “a presence”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jooris et al. (US20150056607A1) in view of Akcakir et al. (US20130260396A1) and further in view of McLaren et al. (US7177454B2).
Regarding Claim 14, Jooris teaches that an apparatus for detecting a matter and microorganisms (See Para 0001…The invention pertains to the technical field of observing, measuring, analysing and/or separating objects, including biological organisms such as cells, bacteria, yeasts, micro-organisms, nematodes and non-biological objects, impurities, contaminants, or any combination thereof, in a liquid sample), comprising:
at least one sample reservoir (referred to as reservoir [Para 0118; Fig. 1, ref. 206; Also See Annotated Fig. 1, ref. 206) having a sample outlet (See Annotated Fig. 1, ref. 206) for holding a sample comprising liquid, matter, and microorganisms (See Para 0118… liquid sample is guided via a tube (202); See Para 0001…liquid sample includes biological organisms such as cells, bacteria, yeasts, micro-organisms, nematodes and non-biological objects, impurities, contaminants, or any combination thereof);
at least one liquid tube (referred to as a tube [Para 0118; Fig. 1, ref. 202]); See Annotated Fig.1) connected (See Annotated Fig.1 for …connected) to a sample outlet (See Annotated Fig.1, where sample reservoir has a sample outlet) of the sample reservoir (referred to as reservoir [Para 0118; Fig. 1, ref. 206; Also See Annotated Fig. 1, ref. 206).
Jooris does not teach that the sample reservoir has a sample inlet;
wherein the liquid tube comprises a singularity of microscope slides embedded therein, a plurality of image enlargement device located above or below the microscope slide, and a light source for illuminating the sample on the singularity of microscope slides; and
a control unit having computer software and algorithm programs that manage the operation of the apparatus and identify and classify the sample, wherein the control unit is in electric communication with the at least one sample reservoir and the at least one liquid tube.
PNG
media_image1.png
582
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jooris, Annotated Fig. 1
In the analogous art of an instrument and a measurement apparatus and methodology that yields a measurement and test methodology that characterizes a population of cells/particles or detects a sub-population of cells/particles based on their detected mobility in a quick and efficient manner, Akcakir teaches that the sample reservoir (referred to as sample chamber [Para 0101; Figs. 1D and 3A]) has a sample inlet (See Annotated Fig. 3A; See Para 0111… The particles 108 are flowed into the sample chamber 118 of the microfluidic device 116, or introduced into the microtiter plates by a robotic microtiter apparatus which introduces a number of samples 107 (particles 108 and solution) into different wells… thereby teaching ‘sample inlet’);
wherein the liquid tube (See Annotated Fig. 3A) comprises a microscope slide (referred to as transparent sample holder 105 (i.e., microscope slide) [Para 0094; Fig. 1A, ref 105]) embedded therein, a singularity of image enlargement device (referred to as a microscope objective lens 110 (see FIG. 1A) [Para 0107; Fig. 1A, ref 110]) located above or below (See Fig. 1A…located above or below) the microscope slide (referred to as transparent sample holder 105 (i.e., microscope slide) [Para 0094; Fig. 1A, ref 105]), and a light source (referred to as a coherent light source (e.g., laser, superluminescent diode) 100 [Para 0094; Fig. 1A, ref. 100]) for illuminating the sample (See Para 0176…sing a coherent source 100 to illuminate the sample 107 of particles 108 provides additional advantages for sample 107 measurement) on the microscope slide (referred to as transparent sample holder 105 (i.e., microscope slide) [Para 0094; Fig. 1A, ref 105]); and
a control unit (referred to as computer system [Para 0015]) having computer software and algorithm programs (See Para 0116… the disclosed assay methods may be implemented as a computer program product for use with a computer system… Those skilled in the art should appreciate that such computer instructions can be written in a number of programming languages for use with many computer architectures or operating systems) that manage the operation of the apparatus (See Para 00116… disclosed assay methods may be implemented as a computer program product for use with a computer system) and identify and classify the sample (See Para 0020… statistically analyzing, using a processor of a computer system, said holographic images of said particles captured by said imaging apparatus), wherein the control unit (referred to as computer system [Para 0015; Fig. 1A, ref. 113]) is in electric communication (See Para 0152… sampling of different regions of the sample 107, to synchronized force application, image acquisition and data analysis may be automated and computer-controlled (i.e., by computer 113), thereby teaching “electric communication’) with the at least one sample reservoir (referred to as sample chamber [Para 0101; Figs. 1D and 3A]) and the at least one liquid tube (See Annotated Fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Jooris to incorporate that the sample reservoir has a sample inlet; wherein the liquid tube comprises a singularity of microscope slides embedded therein, a plurality of image enlargement device located above or below the microscope slide, and a light source for illuminating the sample on the singularity of microscope slides; and a control unit having computer software and algorithm programs that manage the operation of the apparatus and identify and classify the sample, wherein the control unit is in electric communication with the at least one sample reservoir and the at least one liquid tube, as taught by Akcakir, for the benefit of providing a measurement and test methodology that characterizes a population of cells/particles or detects a sub-population of cells/particles based on their detected mobility in a quick and efficient manner (Akcakir, Para 0001), allowing for the minimization of testing time for high-throughput diagnostic applications, for example, a new microscopy method and apparatus which can measure particle mobility more quickly, is provided (Akcakir, Para 0005).
PNG
media_image2.png
541
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Akcakir, Annotated Fig. 3A
The combination of Jooris and Akcakir does not teach a plurality of microscope slides and a plurality of image enlargement device.
In the analogous art of a method, system, and apparatus are provided for automated light microscopic for detection of proteins associated with cell proliferative disorders, McLaren teaches a plurality of microscope slides (referred to as flour slides [Col. 2, line 42]) and a plurality of image enlargement device (referred to as plurality of objectives [Col. 29, lines 9-10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Jooris and Akcakir to incorporate a plurality of microscope slides and a plurality of image enlargement device, as taught by McLaren for the benefit of providing a method and apparatus for automated cell analysis which eliminates the need for operator input to locate cell objects for analysis (McLaren, Col.2, lines 36-39), allowing for the provision for an improved automated cell analysis system which can quickly and accurately scan large amounts of biological material on a batch of slides (McLaren, Col. 4, lines 13-14; Col. 2, lines 36-39).
In addition, Claim 14 recites a control unit and a light source then recites how these structures function. Claim 14 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 15, the apparatus in claim 14 is obvious over Jooris in view of Akcakir and further in view of McLaren.
Jooris further teaches that each liquid tube (interpreted as “at least one liquid tube in light of Claim 15 objection) (referred to as a tube [Para 0118; Fig. 1, ref. 202]); See Annotated Fig.1) comprises interconnected tubing sections (Annotated Fig. 1 for the tubing sections) having a reservoir pump tube (See Annotated Fig. 1), a pump exit tube (See Annotated Fig. 1), a liquid viewing tube (referred to as transparent tube [Para 0046; 0118]), and a reservoir entrance tube (Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, the apparatus in claim 14 is obvious over Jooris in view of Akcakir and further in view of McLaren.
Jooris teaches the liquid tube (referred to as a tube [Para 0118; Fig. 1, ref. 202]); See Annotated Fig.1)
Jooris and Akcakir does not teach that the microscope slides are adjustable so that a space between the microscope slides in the liquid tube can be increased or decreased.
In the analogous art of a method, system, and apparatus are provided for automated light microscopic for detection of proteins associated with cell proliferative disorders, McLaren teaches that the microscope slides (referred to as four slides [Col. 2, line 42]) are adjustable so that a space between the microscope slides (referred to as four slides [Col. 2, line 42]) can be increased or decreased.
Examiner submits that the limitation “…adjustable so that a space between the microscope slides can be increased or decreased” is interpreted as intended use and given patentable weight to the extent of the automatic slide feed mechanism in conjunction with X-Y stage 38 providing automatic slide handling in the apparatus 10 (Col. 14, lines 23-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Jooris and Akcakir to incorporate that the microscope slides are adjustable so that a space between the microscope slides in the liquid tube can be increased or decreased, as taught by McLaren for the benefit of providing automatic slide handling in the apparatus for automated cell analysis of biological specimens (Maclaren, Col. 14, lines 1-3, lines 23-26) allowing for the provision for an improved automated cell analysis system which can quickly and accurately scan large amounts of biological material on a batch of slides (McLaren, Col. 4, lines 13-14; Col. 2, lines 36-39).
In addition, Claim 16 recites the microscopic slides then recites how the microscope slides function with respect to the liquid tube. Claim 16 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jooris et al. (US20150056607A1) in view of Akcakir et al. (US20130260396A1) and further in view of McLaren et al. (US7177454B2) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Traber (US6121599A).
Regarding Claim 17, the apparatus in claim 16 is obvious over Jooris in view of Akcakir and further in view of McLaren.
The combination of Jooris, Akcakir and McLaren does not teach that one of the microscope slides is fixed and the other of the microscope slides is movable.
In the analogous art of a device for use in the optical investigation of surfaces, especially microscope slides, Traber teaches that that one of the microscope slides is fixed (See Col. 2, lines 54-56…the microscope slide on which the sample is located is fixed in space during the investigation and does not move) and the other of the microscope slides is movable (See Col. 2, lines 58-61…the device has an microscope slide that is attached to a support. The support is fixed in space during the measurement, but it is transportable; See Col. 2, lines 62-64…the microscope slide is moved).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Jooris, Akcakir, McLaren to incorporate that one of the microscope slides is fixed and the other of the microscope slides is movable, as taught by Traber for the benefit of preventing the microscope slide from being shaken and the sample from being moved and having a slide that is transportable during measurement (Traber, Col. 2, lines 57-61), allowing for the provision of a simple yet inexpensive system for use in the optical investigation of surfaces that works with high resolution (Traber, Col. 1, lines 65-67).
In addition, Claim 17 recites one of the microscopic slides and the other of the microscopic slides then recites how these structures function. Claim 17 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jooris et al. (US20150056607A1) in view of Akcakir et al. (US20130260396A1) and further in view of McLaren et al. (US7177454B2) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Scampini (US20080055572A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the apparatus in claim 16 is obvious over Jooris in view of Akcakir and further in view of McLaren.
The combination of Jooris, Akcakir and McLaren does not teach that the microscope slides are a layered three-slide system, a top microscope slide being fixed, and a middle and a bottom microscope slide being adjustable.
In the analogous art of a system and method for determining whether one or more slides are loaded properly within a cassette, Scampini teaches that the microscope slides are a layered three-slide system (See Para 0010… the slides being arranged in a vertical stack or horizontally; See Fig. 6, refs 500 for 3 slides), a top microscope slide (See Annotated Fig. 6) being fixed (See Para 0029…in normal use, slides 110 are loaded into a cassette so that they are flat and are properly positioned so that they face upright with the specimen samples 112 being on top surfaces 111 of the slides 110; Also this limitation is interpreted as “intended use”. See MPEP 2114), and a middle and a bottom microscope slide (See Annotated Fig. 6) being adjustable (See Para 0029… All of the slides are typically arranged in a similar manner since processing equipment is typically configured to handle slides that are oriented in a particular manner…; Also this limitation is interpreted as “intended use”. See MPEP 2114).
PNG
media_image3.png
786
1253
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Scampini, Annotated Fig. 6
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Jooris, Akcakir, McLaren to incorporate that the microscope slides are a layered three-slide system, a top microscope slide being fixed, and a middle and a bottom microscope slide being adjustable, as taught by Scampini for the benefit of providing slides with “common” orientation that can vary depending on the cassette and equipment configurations (Scampini, Para 0029), allowing for the provision of a system and method that checks or provides an indication of the arrangement of slides in a cassette to ensure that all of the slides are properly loaded in the cassette. Such a system and method would improve the performance of processing equipment, safety, throughput and operator convenience (Scampini, Para 0006).
In addition, Claim 18 recites the top, middle and bottom microscopic slides and then recites how these structures function. Claim 18 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jooris et al. (US20150056607A1) in view of Akcakir et al. (US20130260396A1) and further in view of McLaren et al. (US7177454B2) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Fotouhi et al. (US20190284615A1).
Regarding Claim 19, the apparatus in claim 14 is obvious over Jooris in view of Akcakir and further in view of McLaren.
The combination of Jooris, Akcakir and McLaren does not teach that the liquid tube comprises a primary liquid tube and an auxiliary liquid tube, wherein the primary liquid tube firstly detect the presence of matter or contaminants in the sample, and the auxiliary liquid tube optionally operates for further evaluation thereof if an alert mode turns on when the matter or contaminants contains pathogenic microorganisms.
In the analogous art of a method of detecting a pathogen, e.g., Listeria bacterium, Chlamydia bacteria, gonorrhea bacteria and/or HPV, in a sample is disclosed, which comprises bringing a sample into contact with a graphene layer functionalized with an antibody exhibiting specific binding affinity to the pathogen, Fotouhi teaches that the liquid tube (See Annotated Fig. 9) comprises a primary liquid tube (referred to as any of channels 1011, 1013 and 1015 [Para 0061; Fig. 1) and an auxiliary liquid tube (referred to as any of channels 1011, 1013 and 1015 [Para 0061; Fig. 1), wherein the primary liquid tube (referred to as any of channels 1011, 1013 and 1015 [Para 0061; Fig. 1) firstly detect the presence of matter or contaminants in the sample (See Para 0061…each of which has a diameter in a range of about 10 microns to about 100 microns and is in fluid communication with the antibody-functionalized graphene layer of one of the sensing units. ; Also See Para 0063…sensing unit can be measured and correlated with the presence of a particular pathogen for which that sensing unit is configured).
Examiner submits that the limitation “the auxiliary liquid tube optionally operates for further evaluation thereof if an alert mode turns on when the matter or contaminants contains pathogenic microorganisms” is viewed as optional and thus not required by the claim.
PNG
media_image4.png
539
1011
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fotouhi, Annotated Fig. 9
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Jooris, Akcakir and McLaren to incorporate that the liquid tube comprises a primary liquid tube and an auxiliary liquid tube, wherein the primary liquid tube firstly detect the presence of matter or contaminants in the sample, and the auxiliary liquid tube optionally operates for further evaluation thereof if an alert mode turns on when the matter or contaminants contains pathogenic microorganisms, as taught by Fotouhi, for the benefit of fluidically coupling the channels 1011, 1013, and 1015 via an input manifold 1017 to an input port 1019 through which a sample can be introduced into the microfluidic device 1010 (Fotouhi, Para 0061), allowing for the provision of improved methods and systems for detecting pathogenic agents (Fotouhi, Para 0005).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jooris et al. (US20150056607A1) in view of Akcakir et al. (US20130260396A1) and further in view of McLaren et al. (US7177454B2) and further in view of Fotouhi et al. (US20190284615A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Stanghellini et al. (US5767090A).
Regarding Claim 20, the apparatus in claim 19 is obvious over Jooris in view of Akcakir and further in view of McLaren and further in view of Fotouhi.
The combination of Jooris, Akcakir, McLaren and Fotouhi does not teach eliminating the pathogenic microorganisms using a biosurfactant, wherein the biosurfactant is selected from the group consisting of surfactin, iturin, fengycin, lichenysin, serrawettin, phospholipids, rhamnolipid, sophorolipid, trehalolipid, mannosylerythritol-lipids, cellobiolipids, lipoproteins, rubiwettins, trehalose, ornithin, pentasaccharide lipids, viscosin, bacitracin, lipopeptides, and combinations thereof.
In the analogous art of the use of biosurfactants as biological control products, Stanghellini teaches eliminating the pathogenic microorganisms using a biosurfactant, wherein the biosurfactant is selected from the group consisting of surfactin, iturin, fengycin, lichenysin, serrawettin, phospholipids, rhamnolipid, sophorolipid, trehalolipid, mannosylerythritol-lipids, cellobiolipids, lipoproteins, rubiwettins, trehalose, ornithin, pentasaccharide lipids, viscosin, bacitracin, lipopeptides, and combinations thereof (See Abstract… use of biosurfactants as biological control products. In particular, rhamnolipid biosurfactants produced by Pseudomonas spp. were demonstrated to rapidly kill zoospores by rupturing the plasma membrane of three representative zoosporic plant pathogenic microorganisms: Pythium aphanidernatum, Plasmopara lactucae-radicis, and Phytophthora capsica).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Jooris, Akcakir, McLaren and Fotouhi to incorporate eliminating the pathogenic microorganisms using a biosurfactant, wherein the biosurfactant is selected from the group consisting of surfactin, iturin, fengycin, lichenysin, serrawettin, phospholipids, rhamnolipid, sophorolipid, trehalolipid, mannosylerythritol-lipids, cellobiolipids, lipoproteins, rubiwettins, trehalose, ornithin, pentasaccharide lipids, viscosin, bacitracin, lipopeptides, and combinations thereof, as taught by Stanghellini for the benefit of demonstrating the use of biosurfactants as biological control products (Stanghellini, Abstract), allowing for the provision of an environmentally safe and effective method for controlling zoosporic plant pathogens (Stanghellini, Col. 1, lines 53-54).
In addition, Claim 20 recites the apparatus of Claim 19 and then recites how the apparatus functions. Claim 20 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Halter et al. (WO2013111025A1) teaches an invention that is related to a flow through device for staining and/or analyzing a biological sample, said device comprising a support for the biological sample, a conduit in fluid communication with the support to which at least one liquid reagent can be delivered in such way that a biological sample provided on the support engages and/or interacts with the at least one liquid reagent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-1678. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached on (571) 272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/LYLE ALEXANDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797