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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments and remarks, filed on 7/14/2026, have been entered. The claim amendments appear to overcome the prior art.
The amendments and remarks, filed on 7/14/2026, have been entered. The claim amendments overcome the previous claim objections of claims 8, 9, and 11-13 and 112(b) rejection of claims 7, 11, and 13.
Claim Status
Claims 1-13 are pending with claims 7-13 being examined and claims 1-6 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 7 recites “the bottom surface forming second locating features including a projecting post and one or more apertures which interact with locating features of the x-ray-based analysis system”. Specifically, “the second locating feature” is not described in the instant specification. The second locating feature is discussed in the original presented claims filed on 3/22/2023. However, the second locating feature is not described as including the projecting post and the one or more apertures. The instant specification teaches the projecting post and the one or more apertures formed in the base in paragraph 26. However, there is no description of the second locating feature corresponding to the projecting post and the one or more apertures. Claims 8-13 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 7. The Examiner suggests amending claim 7 to read “the bottom surface forming/including a projecting post and one or more apertures”.
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 7-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “An assembly for handling samples required to be maintained at a cryogenic temperature during handling for analysis by an x-ray-based analysis system having a staging dewar and a robotic manipulator” in the preamble. The limitation is unclear as to whether the staging dewar and the robotic manipulator are structure comprised by the assembly or the x-ray-based analysis system. Further, the limitation is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. Specifically, the x-ray based analysis system is not a positively recited limitation of the assembly. Thus, if the staging dewar and robotic manipulator are structures comprised by the x-ray-based analysis system then the limitations would not be required. For purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the staging dewar and the robotic manipulator to be part of the assembly. Claims 8-13 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the basket base forms an upper surface” in line 2. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the basket base forming an upper surface”. Thus, it is unclear if the upper surface of claim 8 is an additional/different surface from the upper surface in claim 7. The Examiner interprets that the upper surface of claim 8 is the same as claim 7. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to read “the upper surface”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the basket surface forms features interacting with a component of the analysis system to locate the basket with respect to the analysis system” in lines 2-4. The limitation is unclear as to whether the features and component recited in claim 9 are the same structures recited in amended claim 7. Specifically, claim 7 recites the limitation “the bottom surface forming second locating features including a projecting post and one or more apertures which interact with locating features of the x-ray-based analysis system”. Therefore, is the Applicant claiming the basket surface comprises additional structures that correspond to the x-ray-based analysis system? For purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets that the Applicant is describing the same structures recited in claim 7. Therefore, the Examiner suggests Applicant cancel claim 9 if there are no additional structures/features.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of locating pins” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thus the limitation is unclear.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “further comprising the first plurality of sample magazines is seven” in line 2. The limitation is unclear as to what the assembly is further comprising, because the first plurality of sample magazines has antecedent basis. Additionally, the limitation is unclear as to what the Applicant means by “is seven”. Specifically, is the Applicant claiming a total of seven sample magazines? Does the sample magazine hold only seven vials/tubes? The limitation is unclear as to what the number seven represents.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 7 recites the limitation “the bottom surface forming second locating features including a projecting post and one or more apertures which interact with locating features of the x-ray-based analysis system, enabling the translated and rotational indexed position of the sample magazines to be established with respect to mating locating structures of the x-ray-based analysis system”. The closest prior art being Croquette et al (US 20180202908 A1; hereinafter “Croquette”) in view of Nemeth (US 20200187491 A1; hereinafter “Nemeth”).
Croquette teaches an assembly for handling samples required to be maintained at a cryogenic temperature during handling for analysis by an x-ray-based analysis system having a staging dewar and a robotic manipulator (Croquette; Abstract;), comprising: a transfer dewar (Croquette; para [150]; the storage vaults 110A-B); a lifting arm configured to support and allow removal of a first plurality of sample magazines from a shipping dewar to the transfer dewar1 (Croquette; para [52]; the robotic arm 150 accesses the storage vaults 110A-B and external ports 130A-B via respective openings at the floor of the enclosure 122. Specifically, openings 135A-B enable the robotic arm to access devices docked at external ports 130A-B, respectively).
1 The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the lifting arm, all the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed Croquette and the lifting arm of Croquette is capable of being “configured to support and allow removal of the first plurality of sample magazines from the shipping dewar to the transfer dewar”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed lifting arm is not differentiated from the lifting arm of Croquette (see MPEP §2114).
Croquette a first plurality of sample magazines, the sample magazines each having a magazine base and a removable cover, the magazine base having features for receiving a second plurality of sample pins, the sample pins being removably affixed to the magazine base; a shipping dewar for containing the first plurality of sample magazines containing the second plurality of sample pins; a sample basket adapted for receiving the first plurality of sample magazines, the sample basket forming a basket base and an upstanding perimeter wall cooperating for containing a level of a cryogenic liquid submerging the sample magazines, the basket base forming an upper surface receiving the sample magazines and a bottom surface, the upper surface forming first locating features for locating each of the first plurality of sample magazines onto the basket base in an established position.
However, Nemeth teaches an analogous art of a cryogenic storage device (Nemeth; Abstract) comprising a first plurality of sample magazines (Nemeth; Fig. 3, 4; para [64]; The storage beaker 30), the sample magazines each having a magazine base (Nemeth; Fig. 4; the Examiner notes that the magazine base comprises a base which is positioned onto the insulation box as seen between Figures 3 and 4) and a removable cover (Nemeth; Fig. 1A; para [64]; The storage beaker 30 may include an insulating lid 32;), the magazine base having features for receiving a second plurality of sample pins, the sample pins being removably affixed to the magazine base (Nemeth; Fig. 4, 6; para [65]; The storage chambers 36 are configured to receipt and retention of one or more vitrification sticks 44; Examiner notes that the vitrification sticks are removable and positioned within the sample magazine which contacts the magazine base); a shipping dewar for containing the first plurality of sample magazines containing the second plurality of sample pins (Nemeth; Fig. 12; para [68]; cryogenic storage cabinet 58); a sample basket adapted for receiving the first plurality of sample magazines (Nemeth; Fig. 11; para [68]; individual storage beakers 30 may be used in connection with a cryogenic storage tray 56), the sample basket forming a basket base and an upstanding perimeter wall cooperating for containing a level of a cryogenic liquid submerging the sample magazines (Nemeth; para [62]; The cooling source 12 may be a mechanical cooling device, for example an electrically refrigerated cryostat, such as a Cryo-Pulse 5 Plus available from Mirion Technologies, or may be a low temperature liquid, such as liquid nitrogen), the basket base forming an upper surface receiving the sample magazines and a bottom surface, the upper surface forming first locating features for locating each of the first plurality of sample magazines onto the basket base in an established position (Nemeth; para [63]; The cold finger 14, which may be made from a thermally conductive material, such as cooper, may be dimensioned to fit snuggly within the opening 24 so that cooling from the cooling source 12 is transferred to the freezing beaker 16 and the vitrification plate 22).
Specifically, modified Croquette does not teach the bottom surface comprising a projecting post and one or more apertures which interact with locating features of the x-ray-based analysis system. It would have not been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the bottom surface of the sample basket of Nemeth to correspond to the x-ray-based analysis system of Croquette.
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 Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/A.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights