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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “252” has been used to designate both “notch” and “panel” (see [0044]). 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. 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 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 1 – 12 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 1 recites the limitation "the specimen cup’s outer annular flange" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 1 to mean “up to an outer flange of the specimen cup.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said first container and said second container made from opaque materials” in line 8. It is unclear whether this limitation is intended to mean that the first container is also made from opaque materials. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 1 to mean “wherein said first container and said second container are made from opaque materials.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said opening of said first container sized to slidingly receive said second container wherein…” in line 13. The language of lines 13-15 does not make clear what is sized. This ambiguity amounts to an inability to distinctly claim the subject matter, and renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 1 to mean “wherein said opening of said first container is sized to slidingly receive said second container; wherein…”
Claims 2 – 5 are rejected as indefinite due to their reliance on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the specimen cup’s outer annular flange" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 6 to mean “up to an outer flange of the specimen cup.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation “said first rectangular container and said second rectangular container made from opaque materials” in line 12. It is unclear whether this limitation is intended to mean that the first container is also made from opaque materials. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 6 to mean “wherein said first container and said second container are made from opaque materials.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation “said opening of said first container sized to slidingly receive said second container wherein…” in line 19. The language of lines 19-21 does not make clear what is sized. This ambiguity amounts to an inability to distinctly claim the subject matter, and renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 6 to mean “wherein said opening of said first container is sized to slidingly receive said second container; wherein…”
Claims 7 – 11 are rejected as indefinite due to their reliance on claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the specimen cup’s outer annular flange" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 12 to mean “up to an outer flange of the specimen cup.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said first rectangular container and said second rectangular container made from opaque materials” in line 13. It is unclear whether this limitation is intended to mean that the first container is also made from opaque materials. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 6 to mean “wherein said first container and said second container are made from opaque materials.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said opening of said first rectangular container sized to slidingly receive said second rectangular container wherein…” in line 20. The language of lines 20-21 does not make clear what is sized. This ambiguity amounts to an inability to distinctly claim the subject matter, and renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 12 to mean “wherein said opening of said first rectangular container is sized to slidingly receive said second rectangular container; wherein…”
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker et al (US 6065848 A) in view of Katou et al (US 20190185799 A1) and further in view of Budike et al (US 20100280677 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Tucker et al teaches;
The claimed, “a first container having a floor and walls extending from said floor to an opening in said first container, said opening opposing said floor, said walls including opposing ledges at an interior of said first container” has been read on the taught (Column 5, line 42, “FIG. 1 shows a base, generally designated 10 […] and comprised of a main body 11 in turn comprised of an upwardly disposed side wall 12, […] and a bottom wall 14.”; Column 7, line 45, “FIG. 2 shows base main body 11 whose side wall has an upper edge or lip 72 defining the opening at the upper end of the base, and ledge 51 extending radially-inwardly therefrom.”);
The claimed, “said first container made from opaque materials” has been read on the taught (Column 19, line 16, “Preferably, the base is made of a structural polymeric material... A preferred material is polyvinyl chloride.”; Polyvinyl chloride reads on an opaque material.);
The claimed “a translucent panel,” “said translucent panel disposed on said ledges and spanning said interior of said first container,” and “wherein said translucent panel is spaced apart from said floor of said first container” has been read on the taught (Column 9, line 41, “When the support structure comprises a disc or panel, […] it can support a container thereon and it allows light to pass therethrough including through an aperture thereof to illuminate the interior of a supported container. Thus, the panel or disc can be supported by lip 72 or 72A, ledge 51 or 51A or other structure associated with the base, base bottom wall or sidewall.”; Column 10 teaches the use of a transparent panel. Figure 8 shows the panel being spaced apart from the floor of the container; see also Column 6 line 58’s teaching about support structure height.);
“Wherein said opening of said first container is sized to slidingly receive a second container, and wherein the second container rests on the panel” has been read on the taught (Column 6, line 47, “The base includes support structure to support the container thereon…”; See also Figure 8, which shows container 82 resting inside the lip of the base structure, supported on panel 80);
The claimed “a light source disposed in said first container between said translucent panel and said floor of said first container” has been read on the taught (Column 6, line 24, “Base 10 includes mount structure here comprising a mount secured in any suitable way to a portion of the base for mounting a light bulb, such as 50, preferably in an upward position such that it will direct light or be pointed toward an overlying container bottom wall, (FIGS. 13 and 15) to illuminate the interior of the container when it is supported by the base or when the base is secured to or onto the bottom of the container.”).
However, Tucker et al does not explicitly disclose details of the second container, including a second container having a first open end, sides, and a second end opposing said first open end, said second end having at least one hole adapted to receive a biopsy specimen cup up to the specimen cup’s outer annular flange and wherein said second container is made from opaque materials.
In the analogous art of specimen cup holders, Katou et al teaches;
The claimed “a second container having a first open end, sides, and a second end opposing said first open end” has been read on the taught ([0076], “…the base member 1 is in the form of a container including a first tubular portion 11 and a bottom portion 12 and having an opening 110 at an upper end of the first tubular portion 11… the bottom portion 12 has a circular through hole 121 that passes through the bottom portion 12…”; Base member 1 reads on a container. Tubular portion 11 reads on sides. Bottom portion 12 reads on a first open end. Opening 110 reads on a second end opposing said first open end.);
The claimed “said second end having at least one hole adapted to receive a biopsy specimen cup up to the specimen cup’s outer annular flange” has been read on the taught ([0080], “…the container body 3 has the bottom wall portion 31, the side wall portion 32 that rises from the peripheral edge of the bottom wall portion 31, and the flange 33.”; [0089], “…the flange 33 of the container body 3 is clamped between the peripheral edge portion of the opening 110 of the base member 1….”; Container body 3 reads on a biopsy specimen cup. Flange 33 reads on an annular flange of the specimen cup. The flange resting on opening 110 reads on the second end having one hole adapted to receive a biopsy cup; See also Figure 4.).
Additionally, Katou et al teaches illuminating the specimen container, as read on the taught ([0160], “…the state in the culture portion 41 of the device 4 can be observed through the transparent bottom portion 12 (the base member 1) and the thin portion 311… irradiation light can be transmitted, and therefore, the cells can be observed using various types of microscopes including an optical microscope and a phase-contrast microscope.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lighting device for a cup as taught by Tucker et al with the specimen cup holding system as taught by Katou et al, for the benefit of observing specimens using transmitted light (Katou et al, [0160], “With such a configuration, regardless of whether a light source is placed above or below the container, irradiation light can be transmitted, and therefore, the cells can be observed using various types of microscopes including an optical microscope and a phase-contrast microscope.”).
The embodiment taught by Katou et al discloses the use of a transparent material for the second container (see [0078]) for the stated purpose of allowing the container contents to be viewed from the outside (see [0148]). According to MPEP 2144.04(II), the omission of an element is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. In the case of the instant invention, if the ability to view a sample through a side wall is not desired, then it would be obvious to eliminate the use of a transparent material in the second container. This would furthermore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of lighting objects given Tucker et al, which teaches that opaque or reflective elements may be used to direct light in a desired direction (see for instance column 4 line 1, which teaches the use of a conical reflector).
However, Tucker et al in view of Katou et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the translucent panel has a notch in an edge, and wherein said notch is adjacent to one of said walls of said first container.
In the analogous art of lighting devices, Budike teaches;
Wherein a lighting device has a housing, and a hole is provided in the housing has been read on the taught ([0012], “The control module may include one or more power supply lines which exit the housing through a first hole and the interface cable may exit the housing through a second hole.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container lighting device as taught by Tucker et al in view of Katou et al with the hole as taught by Budike. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Tucker et al in view of Katou et al contains a “base” device of a light configured to hold a container, and a specimen container configured to be lit. The claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” by the inclusion of a notch in the support panel. The prior art of Budike teaches a “comparable” device of a lighting device including a housing, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention by the inclusion of a notch/hole in the housing. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known technique in the same way to the “base” device, for the predictable result of allowing an external cable to enter the housing.
Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike does not explicitly disclose wherein the notch is in a panel edge, or wherein said notch is adjacent to one of the walls of the first container. However, this is held to be mere rearrangement of parts, and is prima facie obvious absent some teaching that the location of the notch either modifies the operation of the device or leads to an unexpected result—please see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Accordingly, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike et al.
With regards to claim 2, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike.
However, Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike.
According to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), changes in shape are not sufficient to distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. Please see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Accordingly, claim 2’s limitation of “wherein said first container and said second container are rectangular” is obvious over Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike et al.
With regards to claim 3, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike.
Neither Tucker et al nor Katou et al teach wherein said light source is remotely controllable, said device further comprising a remote control operable to control said light source.
Budike further teaches;
The claimed “wherein said light source is remotely controllable, said device further comprising a remote control operable to control said light source” has been read on the taught ([0087], “FIGS. 6A-6B illustrate exemplary arrangements of controls for a lighting system… the wireless signal can come from a remote wireless control device (e.g. […] handheld remote…”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike with the use of a remote-controlled light source as taught by Budike. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Tucker et al in view of Katou et al in view of Budike contains a “base” device of a light configured to hold a container, and a specimen container configured to be lit. The claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” by the use of a remote controlled light source. The prior art of Budike teaches a “comparable” device of a lighting device, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention by the inclusion of a remote control. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known technique in the same way to the “base” device, for the predictable result of allowing the light to be turned on or off remotely.
With regards to claim 4, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike et al.
Tucker et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein said light source rests on said floor” has been read on the taught (Column 9, line 63, “Loop 54A at the end of arm 54A of retainer member 20A extends fully or substantially fully about bulb 50 and thereby mounts the bulb therein, between the batteries and centrally of the base.”; Figure 7 shows the bulb resting on the floor of the base).
With regards to claim 5, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike et al.
Tucker et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein a portion of said second container extends from said opening of said first container when said second container rests on said translucent panel” has been read on the taught (Column 10, line 18, “The panel is shown supporting a container […] thereon.”; Figure 8 shows lip 72 extending up from the panel, and container 82 extending above the lip.).
With regards to claim 6, Tucker et al teaches;
“A first container having a floor and walls extending from said floor to an open top of said first container, said open top opposing said floor” has been read on the taught (Column 5, line 42, “FIG. 1 shows a base, generally designated 10 […] and comprised of a main body 11 in turn comprised of an upwardly disposed side wall 12, […] and a bottom wall 14);
“A first wall of having a first ledge at an interior of said first container, said first ledge spaced apart from said flood; a second wall in opposition to said first wall, said second wall having a second ledge at said interior of said first container, said second ledge space apart from said floor” has been read on the taught (Column 7, line 45, “FIG. 2 shows base main body 11 whose side wall has an upper edge or lip 72 defining the opening at the upper end of the base, and ledge 51 extending radially-inwardly therefrom.”; Ledge 51 extending radially reads on a first and second ledge. Figures 1 and 2 show the ledge being spaced apart from the floor.);
“Said first container is made from opaque materials” has been read on the taught (Column 19, line 16, “Preferably, the base is made of a structural polymeric material... A preferred material is polyvinyl chloride.”; Polyvinyl chloride reads on an opaque material.);
The claimed “a translucent panel,” “said translucent panel resting on said first ledge and said second ledge, said translucent panel spanning said walls at said interior of said first container,” and “wherein said translucent panel is spaced apart from said floor of said first container” has been read on the taught (Column 9, line 41, “When the support structure comprises a disc or panel, […] it can support a container thereon and it allows light to pass therethrough including through an aperture thereof to illuminate the interior of a supported container. Thus, the panel or disc can be supported by lip 72 or 72A, ledge 51 or 51A or other structure associated with the base, base bottom wall or sidewall.”; Column 10 teaches the use of a transparent panel. Figure 8 shows the panel being spaced apart from the floor of the container; see also Column 6 line 58’s teaching about support structure height.);
“Wherein said opening of said first container is sized to slidingly receive a second container, and wherein the second container rests on the panel” has been read on the taught (Column 6, line 47, “The base includes support structure to support the container thereon…”; See also Figure 8, which shows container 82 resting inside the lip of the base structure, supported on panel 80);
The claimed “a light source disposed in said first container between said translucent panel and said floor of said first container” has been read on the taught (Column 6, line 24, “Base 10 includes mount structure here comprising a mount secured in any suitable way to a portion of the base for mounting a light bulb, such as 50, preferably in an upward position such that it will direct light or be pointed toward an overlying container bottom wall, (FIGS. 13 and 15) to illuminate the interior of the container when it is supported by the base or when the base is secured to or onto the bottom of the container.”).
Tucker et al does not explicitly disclose details of the second container, including a second container having a first open end, sides, and a second end opposing said first open end, said second end having at least one hole adapted to receive a biopsy specimen cup up to the specimen cup’s outer annular flange, and wherein said second container is made from opaque materials.
In the analogous art of specimen cup holders, Katou et al teaches;
“A second container having a first open end, sides, and a second end opposing said first open end” has been read on the taught ([0076], “…the base member 1 is in the form of a container including a first tubular portion 11 and a bottom portion 12 and having an opening 110 at an upper end of the first tubular portion 11… the bottom portion 12 has a circular through hole 121 that passes through the bottom portion 12…”; Base member 1 reads on a container. Tubular portion 11 reads on sides. Bottom portion 12 reads on a first open end. Opening 110 reads on a second end opposing said first open end.);
The claimed “said second end having at least one hole adapted to receive a biopsy specimen cup up to the specimen cup’s outer annular flange” has been read on the taught ([0080], “…the container body 3 has the bottom wall portion 31, the side wall portion 32 that rises from the peripheral edge of the bottom wall portion 31, and the flange 33.”; [0089], “…the flange 33 of the container body 3 is clamped between the peripheral edge portion of the opening 110 of the base member 1….”; Container body 3 reads on a biopsy specimen cup. Flange 33 reads on an annular flange of the specimen cup. The flange resting on opening 110 reads on the second end having one hole adapted to receive a biopsy cup; See also Figure 4.).
Additionally, Katou et al teaches illuminating the specimen container, as read on the taught ([0160], “…the state in the culture portion 41 of the device 4 can be observed through the transparent bottom portion 12 (the base member 1) and the thin portion 311… irradiation light can be transmitted, and therefore, the cells can be observed using various types of microscopes including an optical microscope and a phase-contrast microscope.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lighting device for a cup as taught by Tucker et al with the specimen cup holding system as taught by Katou et al, for the benefit of observing specimens using transmitted light (Katou et al, [0160], “With such a configuration, regardless of whether a light source is placed above or below the container, irradiation light can be transmitted, and therefore, the cells can be observed using various types of microscopes including an optical microscope and a phase-contrast microscope.”).
The embodiment taught by Katou et al discloses the use of a transparent material for the second container (see [0078]) for the stated purpose of allowing the container contents to be viewed from the outside (see [0148]). According to MPEP 2144.04(II), the omission of an element is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. In the case of the instant invention, if the ability to view a sample through a side wall is not desired, then it would be obvious to eliminate the use of a transparent material in the second container. This would furthermore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of lighting objects given Tucker et al, which teaches that opaque or reflective elements may be used to direct light in a desired direction (see for instance column 4 line 1, which teaches the use of a conical reflector).
However, Tucker et al in view of Katou et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second containers are rectangular.
According to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), changes in shape are not sufficient to distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. Please see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As such, the claimed “a first rectangular container having a floor and four walls extending from said floor” and “a second rectangular container” are obvious over Tucker et al in view of Katou et al.
However, Tucker et al in view of Katou et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the translucent panel has a notch in an edge, and wherein said notch is adjacent to a third wall of said four walls or a fourth wall of said four walls.
In the analogous art of lighting devices, Budike teaches;
Wherein a lighting device has a housing, and a hole is provided in the housing has been read on the taught ([0012], “The control module may include one or more power supply lines which exit the housing through a first hole and the interface cable may exit the housing through a second hole.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container lighting device as taught by Tucker et al in view of Katou et al with the hole as taught by Budike. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Tucker et al in view of Katou et al contains a “base” device of a light configured to hold a container, and a specimen container configured to be lit. The claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” by the inclusion of a notch in the support panel. The prior art of Budike teaches a “comparable” device of a lighting device including a housing, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention by the inclusion of a notch/hole in the housing. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known technique in the same way to the “base” device, for the predictable result of allowing an external cable to enter the base
Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike does not explicitly disclose wherein the notch is in a panel edge, or wherein said notch is adjacent to a specific wall of the first container. However, this is held to be mere rearrangement of parts, and is prima facie obvious absent some teaching that the location of the notch either modifies the operation of the device or leads to an unexpected result—please see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Accordingly, the device of claim 6 is obvious over Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike et al.
With regards to claim 7, the device of claim 6 is obvious over Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike.
Neither Tucker et al nor Katou et al teach wherein said light source is remotely controllable, said device further comprising a remote control operable to control said light source.
Budike further teaches;
The claimed “wherein said light source is remotely controllable, said device further comprising a remote control operable to control said light source” has been read on the taught ([0087], “FIGS. 6A-6B illustrate exemplary arrangements of controls for a lighting system… the wireless signal can come from a remote wireless control device (e.g. […] handheld remote…”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike with the use of a remote-controlled light source as taught by Budike. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Tucker et al in view of Katou et al in view of Budike contains a “base” device of a light configured to hold a container, and a specimen container configured to be lit. The claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” by the use of a remote controlled light source. The prior art of Budike teaches a “comparable” device of a lighting device, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention by the inclusion of a remote control. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known technique in the same way to the “base” device, for the predictable result of allowing the light to be turned on or off remotely.
With regards to claim 8, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Tucker et al in view of
The claimed “wherein said light source rests on said floor” has been read on the taught (Column 9, line 63, “Loop 54A at the end of arm 54A of retainer member 20A extends fully or substantially fully about bulb 50 and thereby mounts the bulb therein, between the batteries and centrally of the base.”; Figure 7 shows the bulb resting on the floor of the base).
With regards to claim 9, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Tucker et al in view of
The claimed “wherein a portion of said second container extends from said opening of said first container when said second container rests on said translucent panel” has been read on the taught (Column 10, line 18, “The panel is shown supporting a container […] thereon.”; Figure 8 shows lip 72 extending up from the panel, and container 82 extending above the lip.).
With regards to claim 10, the device of claim 6 is obvious over Tucker et al in view of
Tucker et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein said first ledge and said second ledge are equidistant from said floor” has been read on the taught (Column 9, line 47, “Thus, the panel or disc can be supported by lip 72 or 72A, ledge 51 or 51A or other structure associated with the base, base bottom wall or sidewall.”; Figure 8 shows the ledges 51 being equidistant from the floor).
With regards to claim 11, the device of claim 6 is obvious over Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike.
Katou et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein a bottom of the specimen cup is suspended above said translucent panel when said first open end of said second rectangular container rests on said translucent panel” has been read on the taught (Figure 20 clearly shows the specimen cup (as read on container body 3), suspended above the bottom of the second container (as read on base member 1).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device including a first and second container as taught by Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike with the suspended specimen cup as taught by Katou et al, for the benefit of ensuring that the second container does not interfere with the transparent portion of the specimen cup (Katou et al, [0128] “According to this configuration, even when the base member 1 in the form of a container is placed on a flat surface, the thin portion 311 of the container body 3 is not blocked by the base member 1.”).
With regards to claim 12, Tucker et al teaches;
“A first container having a floor and walls extending from said floor to an open top of said first container, said open top opposing said floor” has been read on the taught (Column 5, line 42, “FIG. 1 shows a base, generally designated 10 […] and comprised of a main body 11 in turn comprised of an upwardly disposed side wall 12, […] and a bottom wall 14);
“A first wall of having a first ledge at an interior of said first container, said first ledge spaced apart from said flood; a second wall in opposition to said first wall, said second wall having a second ledge at said interior of said first container, said second ledge space apart from said floor” has been read on the taught (Column 7, line 45, “FIG. 2 shows base main body 11 whose side wall has an upper edge or lip 72 defining the opening at the upper end of the base, and ledge 51 extending radially-inwardly therefrom.”; Ledge 51 extending radially reads on a first and second ledge. Figures 1 and 2 show the ledge being spaced apart from the floor.);
“Said first container is made from opaque materials” has been read on the taught (Column 19, line 16, “Preferably, the base is made of a structural polymeric material... A preferred material is polyvinyl chloride.”; Polyvinyl chloride reads on an opaque material.);
The claimed “a translucent panel,” “said translucent panel resting on said first ledge and said second ledge, said translucent panel spanning said walls at said interior of said first container,” and “wherein said translucent panel is spaced apart from said floor of said first container” has been read on the taught (Column 9, line 41, “When the support structure comprises a disc or panel, […] it can support a container thereon and it allows light to pass therethrough including through an aperture thereof to illuminate the interior of a supported container. Thus, the panel or disc can be supported by lip 72 or 72A, ledge 51 or 51A or other structure associated with the base, base bottom wall or sidewall.”; Column 10 teaches the use of a transparent panel. Figure 8 shows the panel being spaced apart from the floor of the container; see also Column 6 line 58’s teaching about support structure height.);
“Wherein said opening of said first container is sized to slidingly receive a second container, and wherein the second container rests on the panel” has been read on the taught (Column 6, line 47, “The base includes support structure to support the container thereon…”; See also Figure 8, which shows container 82 resting inside the lip of the base structure, supported on panel 80);
The claimed “a light source disposed in said first container and spaced apart from said translucent panel” has been read on the taught (Column 6, line 24, “Base 10 includes mount structure here comprising a mount secured in any suitable way to a portion of the base for mounting a light bulb, such as 50, preferably in an upward position such that it will direct light or be pointed toward an overlying container bottom wall, (FIGS. 13 and 15) to illuminate the interior of the container when it is supported by the base or when the base is secured to or onto the bottom of the container.”).
Tucker et al does not explicitly disclose details of the second container, including a second container having a first open end, sides, and a second end opposing said first open end, said second end having at least one hole adapted to receive a biopsy specimen cup up to the specimen cup’s outer annular flange, wherein a bottom of the specimen cup is suspended above said translucent panel when said first open end of said second container rests on said translucent panel and wherein said second container is made from opaque materials.
In the analogous art of specimen cup holders, Katou et al teaches;
“A second container having a first open end, sides, and a second end opposing said first open end” has been read on the taught ([0076], “…the base member 1 is in the form of a container including a first tubular portion 11 and a bottom portion 12 and having an opening 110 at an upper end of the first tubular portion 11… the bottom portion 12 has a circular through hole 121 that passes through the bottom portion 12…”; Base member 1 reads on a container. Tubular portion 11 reads on sides. Bottom portion 12 reads on a first open end. Opening 110 reads on a second end opposing said first open end.);
The claimed “said second end having at least one hole adapted to receive a biopsy specimen cup up to the specimen cup’s outer annular flange” has been read on the taught ([0080], “…the container body 3 has the bottom wall portion 31, the side wall portion 32 that rises from the peripheral edge of the bottom wall portion 31, and the flange 33.”; [0089], “…the flange 33 of the container body 3 is clamped between the peripheral edge portion of the opening 110 of the base member 1….”; Container body 3 reads on a biopsy specimen cup. Flange 33 reads on an annular flange of the specimen cup. The flange resting on opening 110 reads on the second end having one hole adapted to receive a biopsy cup; See also Figure 4.).
Additionally, Katou et al teaches illuminating the specimen container, as read on the taught ([0160], “…the state in the culture portion 41 of the device 4 can be observed through the transparent bottom portion 12 (the base member 1) and the thin portion 311… irradiation light can be transmitted, and therefore, the cells can be observed using various types of microscopes including an optical microscope and a phase-contrast microscope.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lighting device for a cup as taught by Tucker et al with the specimen cup holding system as taught by Katou et al, for the benefit of observing specimens using transmitted light (Katou et al, [0160], “With such a configuration, regardless of whether a light source is placed above or below the container, irradiation light can be transmitted, and therefore, the cells can be observed using various types of microscopes including an optical microscope and a phase-contrast microscope.”).
The embodiment taught by Katou et al discloses the use of a transparent material for the second container (see [0078]) for the stated purpose of allowing the container contents to be viewed from the outside (see [0148]). According to MPEP 2144.04(II), the omission of an element is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. In the case of the instant invention, if the ability to view a sample through a side wall is not desired, then it would be obvious to eliminate the use of a transparent material in the second container. This would furthermore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of lighting objects given Tucker et al, which teaches that opaque or reflective elements may be used to direct light in a desired direction (see for instance column 4 line 1, which teaches the use of a conical reflector).
However, Tucker et al in view of Katou et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second containers are rectangular.
According to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), changes in shape are not sufficient to distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. Please see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As such, the claimed “a first rectangular container having a floor and four walls extending from said floor” and “a second rectangular container” are obvious over Tucker et al in view of Katou et al.
However, Tucker et al in view of Katou et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the translucent panel has a notch in an edge, and wherein said notch is adjacent to a third wall of said four walls or a fourth wall of said four walls, wherein the light source is remotely-controllable, or a remote control to control said light source.
In the analogous art of lighting devices, Budike teaches;
Wherein a lighting device has a housing, and a hole is provided in the housing has been read on the taught ([0012], “The control module may include one or more power supply lines which exit the housing through a first hole and the interface cable may exit the housing through a second hole.”).
The claimed “a remotely-controllable light source” and “ a remote control operable to control said light source” have been read on the taught ([0087], “FIGS. 6A-6B illustrate exemplary arrangements of controls for a lighting system… the wireless signal can come from a remote wireless control device (e.g. […] handheld remote…”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container lighting device as taught by Tucker et al in view of Katou et al with the hole and remote control as taught by Budike. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Tucker et al in view of Katou et al contains a “base” device of a light configured to hold a container, and a specimen container configured to be lit. The claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” by the inclusion of a notch in the support panel and a remote control. The prior art of Budike teaches a “comparable” device of a lighting device including a housing, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention by the inclusion of a notch/hole in the housing and a remote control. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known technique in the same way to the “base” device, for the predictable result of allowing an external cable to enter the base, and for remote control of the device.
Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike does not explicitly disclose wherein the notch is in a panel edge, or wherein said notch is adjacent to a specific wall of the first container. However, this is held to be mere rearrangement of parts, and is prima facie obvious absent some teaching that the location of the notch either modifies the operation of the device or leads to an unexpected result—please see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Accordingly, the device of claim 12 is obvious over Tucker et al in view of Katou et al and further in view of Budike.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30pm 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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (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 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.
/ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/ROBERT J EOM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797