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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kopf-Sill et al. (US 5590052, cited on IDS filed 8/24/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches a rotor (rotor 40, see Fig. 16) for use in an apparatus for characterizing analytes in a fluid (rotor used for analyzing fluid samples, see Col. 1, Lines 5-11), the rotor comprising a plurality of cuvette-receiving chambers each configured to receive a cuvette containing one or more selected reagent (receptacle holders within rotor that hold cuvettes 1 containing reagents, see Col. 7, Lines 1-30 and 65-67);
and a plurality of cuvette marks (cuvette marks 50, see Fig. 16 and Col. 17, Lines 13-45), the rotor having a cuvette mark to cuvette-receiving chamber ratio other than 1:1 (chambers 2 and 3 use one marker 50, marker to cuvette ratio is 1:2, see Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 11, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of cuvette marks have the same dimensions (the cuvette marks 50 have a constant expected shape, see Figs. 15-16 and col. 5, Lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 12, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 1, wherein a first mark of the plurality of cuvette marks has a first width (indexing mark 52, see Fig. 16 and Col. 17, Lines 25-45), and the remaining marks of the plurality of cuvette marks have a second width, the first width being larger than the second width (remaining cuvette markers 50 have a second width where the indexing mark 52 is twice the width of markers 50, see Fig. 16 and Col. 17, Lines 25-45).
Regarding claim 13, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 12, wherein the remaining marks each have the same dimensions (remaining cuvette markers 50 have a second consistent width, see Fig. 16 and Col. 17, Lines 25-45).
Regarding claim 14, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches a rotor (rotor 40, see Fig. 16) for use in an apparatus for characterizing analytes in a fluid (rotor used for analyzing fluid samples, see Col. 1, Lines 5-11), the rotor comprising a plurality of cuvette-receiving chambers each configured to receive a cuvette containing one or more selected reagent (receptacle holders within rotor that hold cuvettes 1 containing reagents, see Col. 7, Lines 1-30 and 65-67);
and a plurality of cuvette marks (cuvette marks 50, see Fig. 16 and Col. 17, Lines 13-45), the rotor having a cuvette mark to cuvette-receiving chamber ratio greater than or equal to about 1:8 to less than or equal to about 1:1 (mark 50 corresponds to cuvette 1, see Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 16, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 14, wherein the rotor includes greater than or equal to about 4 to less than or equal to about 30 cuvette marks (29 cuvette marks are shown, see Fig. 16 and Col. 17, Lines 25-45) and greater than or equal to about 30 to less than or equal to about 60 cuvette-receiving chambers (there are 30 cuvette chambers shown, see Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 17, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 14, wherein a first mark of the plurality of cuvette marks has a first width (indexing mark 52, see Fig. 16 and Col. 17, Lines 25-45), and the remaining marks of the plurality of cuvette marks have a second width, the first width being larger than the second width (remaining cuvette markers 50 have a second width where the indexing mark 52 is twice the width of markers 50, see Fig. 16 and Col. 17, Lines 25-45).
Regarding claim 18, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 17, wherein the remaining marks each have the same dimensions (remaining cuvette markers 50 have a second consistent width, see Fig. 16 and Col. 17, Lines 25-45).
Regarding claim 19, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches a rotor (rotor 40, see Fig. 16) for use in an apparatus for characterizing analytes in a fluid (rotor used for analyzing fluid samples, see Col. 1, Lines 5-11),
the rotor comprising: one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers, each of the cuvette-receiving chambers defining the one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers configured to receive a cuvette containing one or more selected reagent (receptacle holders within rotor that hold cuvettes 1 containing reagents, see Col. 7, Lines 1-30 and 65-67); and a plurality of cuvette marks (cuvette marks 50, see Fig. 16 and Col. 17, Lines 13-45), an angular separation between adjacent cuvette-receiving chambers defining each of the one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers being greater than or equal to about 6 degrees to less than or equal to about 15 degrees (the separation between each cuvette is about 12° (360°/30 chambers), see Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 20, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 19, wherein a first mark of the plurality of cuvette marks has a first width (indexing mark 52, see Fig. 16 and Col. 17, Lines 25-45), and the remaining marks of the plurality of cuvette marks have a second width, the first width being larger than the second width (remaining cuvette markers 50 have a second width where the indexing mark 52 is twice the width of markers 50, see Fig. 16 and Col. 17, Lines 25-45).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopf-Sill et al. (US 5590052, cited on IDS filed 8/24/2023).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 16
Regarding claim 2, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cuvette-receiving chambers includes one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers wherein a single group of the one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers is disposed between consecutive cuvette marks of the plurality of cuvette marks (see annotated Fig. 16), but does not teach that the angular separation between adjacent cuvette-receiving chambers defining each of the one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers is about 6 degrees.
While Kopf-Sill et al. teaches an angular displacement of 12° (360°/30 chambers), as opposed to the 6° required by the claim, the claimed amount of displacement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize the amount of cuvettes located around a rotor to increase sample analysis throughput and taking into consideration the physical limitations of the disk and its dimensions, the amount of sample that can enter the rotor, and the size of the cuvettes disposed about the rotor.
Regarding claim 5, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cuvette-receiving chambers includes one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers, wherein a single group of the one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers is disposed between consecutive cuvette marks of the plurality of cuvette marks (see annotated Fig. 16), but does not teach that wherein an angular separation between adjacent cuvette-receiving chambers defining each of the one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers is about 7.5 degrees.
While Kopf-Sill et al. teaches an angular displacement of 12° (360°/30 chambers), as opposed to the 7.5° required by the claim, the claimed amount of displacement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize the amount of cuvettes located around a rotor to increase sample analysis throughput and taking into consideration the physical limitations of the disk and its dimensions, the amount of sample that can enter the rotor, and the size of the cuvettes disposed about the rotor.
Regarding claim 8, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cuvette-receiving chambers includes one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers, wherein a single group of the one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers is disposed between consecutive cuvette marks of the plurality of cuvette marks (see annotated Fig. 16), but does not teach that wherein an angular separation between adjacent cuvette-receiving chambers defining each of the one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers is about 10 degrees.
While Kopf-Sill et al. teaches an angular displacement of 12° (360°/30 chambers), as opposed to the 10° required by the claim, the claimed amount of displacement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize the amount of cuvettes located around a rotor to increase sample analysis throughput and taking into consideration the physical limitations of the disk and its dimensions, the amount of sample that can enter the rotor, and the size of the cuvettes disposed about the rotor.
Regarding claim 15, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 14, wherein the plurality of cuvette-receiving chambers includes one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers (receptacle holders correspond to plurality of receptacles around rotor 40, see Fig. 16), wherein a single group of the one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers is disposed between consecutive cuvette marks of the plurality of cuvette marks (see Fig. 16), and wherein an angular separation between adjacent cuvette-receiving chambers defining each of the one or more groups of cuvette-receiving chambers is greater than or equal to about 5 degrees to less than or equal to about 10 degrees (the separation between each cuvette is about 12° (360°/30 chambers), see Fig. 16).
While Kopf-Sill discloses a 12° separation between adjacent chambers, the claimed degrees of separation (5-10°) between adjacent cuvette chambers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize analysis speed and amount of overflow sample allowed to flow through the cuvettes of the rotor while also considering the limitation of the parameters of the size of the rotor, the size of the cuvettes, and the size of the cuvette marks, see MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopf-Sill et al. (US 5590052, cited on IDS filed 8/24/2023) as applied above, and further in view of Downs et al. (US 20020132354 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 2, but Kopf-Sill et al. does not teach a device wherein the rotor includes 12 cuvette marks and 48 cuvette-receiving chambers.
However, in the analogous art of centrifugal rotors, Downs et al. teaches a rotor comprising indexes 40, analogous to marks of Kopf-Sill et al., with clusters of 2-10 cuvettes with any 8-40 clusters available on the rotor, see [0036], where the cuvettes are clustered based on containing the same sample, see [0043].
Kopf-Sill et al. discloses the invention using certain cuvette marks that determine the functionality of a rotor, where the cuvette marks are used to reflect light between cuvette chambers to determine which cuvette is being analyzed. The rotor of the system is also not limited to
Although neither Kopf-Sill et al. and Downs et al. specifically teach an arrangement where 12 cuvette marks are used with 4 cuvettes located between each mark, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify a rotor disk to accommodate more samples for centrifuging a larger amount of sample and fewer markers as the samples are grouped into clusters for analysis, see [0010] – [0012] and [0083] in Downs et al.
Because Downs et al. discloses a device where 1-40 cuvette marks are used to note 2-10 cuvettes (see [0014] and [0092]), the claimed amount of 12 cuvette marks with 4 cuvettes between each mark (48 total cuvettes) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize the total amount of sample centrifuged by a single rotor while also considering the limitation of the parameters of the size of the rotor, the size of the cuvettes, and the size of the cuvette marks, see MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 4, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 2, but does not teach that the rotor has a cuvette mark to cuvette-receiving chamber ratio of 1:4.
However, in the analogous art of centrifugal rotors, Downs et al. teaches a rotor comprising indexes 40, analogous to marks of Kopf-Sill et al., with clusters of 2-10 cuvettes between, see [0036], where the cuvettes are clustered based on containing the same sample, see [0043].
Kopf-Sill et al. discloses the invention using certain cuvette marks that determine the functionality of a rotor, where the cuvette marks are used to reflect light between cuvette chambers to determine which cuvette is being analyzed. The rotor of the system is also not limited to
Although neither Kopf-Sill et al. and Downs et al. specifically teach an arrangement where a single cuvette mark is used with 4 cuvettes located between each mark, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify a rotor disk to accommodate more samples for centrifuging a larger amount of sample and fewer markers as the samples are grouped into clusters for analysis, see [0010] – [0012] and [0083] in Downs et al.
Because Downs et al. discloses a device where each cuvette mark is used to note 2-10 cuvettes (see [0014] and [0092]), the claimed amount of one mark with 4 cuvettes between each mark would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize the total amount of sample centrifuged by a single rotor while also considering the limitation of the parameters of the size of the rotor, the size of the cuvettes, and the size of the cuvette marks, see MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 6, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 5, but does not teach that the rotor includes 6 cuvette marks and 42 cuvette-receiving chambers.
However, in the analogous art of centrifugal rotors, Downs et al. teaches a rotor comprising indexes 40, analogous to marks of Kopf-Sill et al., with clusters of 2-10 cuvettes with any 8-40 clusters available on the rotor, see [0036], where the cuvettes are clustered based on containing the same sample, see [0043].
Kopf-Sill et al. discloses the invention using certain cuvette marks that determine the functionality of a rotor, where the cuvette marks are used to reflect light between cuvette chambers to determine which cuvette is being analyzed. The rotor of the system is also not limited to
Although neither Kopf-Sill et al. and Downs et al. specifically teach an arrangement where 6 cuvette marks are used with 7 cuvettes located between each mark, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify a rotor disk to accommodate more samples for centrifuging a larger amount of sample and fewer markers as the samples are grouped into clusters for analysis, see [0010] – [0012] and [0083] in Downs et al.
Because Downs et al. discloses a device where 1-40 cuvette marks are used to note 2-10 cuvettes (see [0014] and [0092]), the claimed amount of 6 cuvette marks with 7 cuvettes between each mark (42 total cuvettes) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize the total amount of sample centrifuged by a single rotor while also considering the limitation of the parameters of the size of the rotor, the size of the cuvettes, and the size of the cuvette marks, see MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 7, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 5, but does not teach that the rotor has a cuvette mark to cuvette-receiving chamber ratio of 1:7.
However, in the analogous art of centrifugal rotors, Downs et al. teaches a rotor comprising indexes 40, analogous to marks of Kopf-Sill et al., with clusters of 2-10 cuvettes between, see [0036], where the cuvettes are clustered based on containing the same sample, see [0043].
Kopf-Sill et al. discloses the invention using certain cuvette marks that determine the functionality of a rotor, where the cuvette marks are used to reflect light between cuvette chambers to determine which cuvette is being analyzed. The rotor of the system is also not limited to
Although neither Kopf-Sill et al. and Downs et al. specifically teach an arrangement where a single cuvette mark is used with 7 cuvettes located between each mark, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify a rotor disk to accommodate more samples for centrifuging a larger amount of sample and fewer markers as the samples are grouped into clusters for analysis, see [0010] – [0012] and [0083] in Downs et al.
Regarding claim 9, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 8, but does not teach that the rotor includes 4 cuvette marks and 32 cuvette-receiving chambers.
However, in the analogous art of centrifugal rotors, Downs et al. teaches a rotor comprising indexes 40, analogous to marks of Kopf-Sill et al., with clusters of 2-10 cuvettes with any 8-40 clusters available on the rotor, see [0036], where the cuvettes are clustered based on containing the same sample, see [0043].
Kopf-Sill et al. discloses the invention using certain cuvette marks that determine the functionality of a rotor, where the cuvette marks are used to reflect light between cuvette chambers to determine which cuvette is being analyzed. The rotor of the system is also not limited to
Although neither Kopf-Sill et al. and Downs et al. specifically teach an arrangement where 4 cuvette marks are used with 8 cuvettes located between each mark, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify a rotor disk to accommodate more samples for centrifuging a larger amount of sample and fewer markers as the samples are grouped into clusters for analysis, see [0010] – [0012] and [0083] in Downs et al.
Because Downs et al. discloses a device where 1-40 cuvette marks are used to note 2-10 cuvettes (see [0014] and [0092]), the claimed amount of 4 cuvette marks with 8 cuvettes between each mark (32 total cuvettes) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize the total amount of sample centrifuged by a single rotor while also considering the limitation of the parameters of the size of the rotor, the size of the cuvettes, and the size of the cuvette marks, see MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 10, Kopf-Sill et al. teaches the rotor of claim 8, but does not teach that the rotor has a cuvette mark to cuvette-receiving chamber ratio of 1:8.
However, in the analogous art of centrifugal rotors, Downs et al. teaches a rotor comprising indexes 40, analogous to marks of Kopf-Sill et al., with clusters of 2-10 cuvettes between, see [0036], where the cuvettes are clustered based on containing the same sample, see [0043].
Kopf-Sill et al. discloses the invention using certain cuvette marks that determine the functionality of a rotor, where the cuvette marks are used to reflect light between cuvette chambers to determine which cuvette is being analyzed. The rotor of the system is also not limited to
Although neither Kopf-Sill et al. and Downs et al. specifically teach an arrangement where a single cuvette mark is used with 8 cuvettes located between each mark, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify a rotor disk to accommodate more samples for centrifuging a larger amount of sample and fewer markers as the samples are grouped into clusters for analysis, see [0010] – [0012] and [0083] in Downs et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5:00PM (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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SAMUEL P SIEFKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights