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 group I in the reply filed on 01/02/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2023, 09/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 are pending with claims 1-14 being examined, claim 15 is deemed withdrawn.
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 1-5, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cachelin (US 20080213080 A1; hereinafter “Cachelin already of record) in view of Esser et al. (US 20080035642 A1; hereinafter “Esser” previous of record).
Regarding claim 1, Cachelin teaches a microplate system (Cachelin; fig. 4. 21) comprising:
a microplate (Cachelin; [0049]); and
a plurality of containments (Cachelin; fig. 5. 22 and [0050), wherein
the microplate has a length in a range between about 127 mm and about 129 mm, between about 127.3 mm and about 128.3 mm or between 127.26 mm and 128.26 mm, or of about 127.76 mm (Cachelin [0050]),
the microplate has a width in a range between about 84 mm and about 86 mm, between about 84.9 mm and about 86 mm or between 84.98 mm and 85.98 mm, or of about 85.48 mm (Cachelin; [0050]),
the microplate has 384 or 1536 receptacles (Cachelin; [0050]),
each receptacle of the microplate extends through the microplate such that it has a first open end and a second open end (Cachelin; fig. 5. 21 and [0050]),
each receptacle of the microplate forms a seat to hold one of the plurality of containments (Cachelin; [0050] (tubes 22 can be placed in any select compartment”),
the plurality of containments and the receptacles of the microplate are shaped such that, in order to be arranged in the microplate, each of the plurality of containments is introducible through the first open end of the one of the receptacles into the one of the receptacles until it is held in the seat of the one of the receptacles (Cachelin; [0050] “tubes 22 can be placed in any select compartment,” and fig. 5. 25, [0050] “each containment can be pushed out through the second open end from above or from below: placement is executed by puncher 25”), and
the tube and the cap of each of the containments are configured to be multiply connected to each other and disconnected from each other (Cachelin; [0028] and fig. 6A. 21).
Cachelin fails to teach each of the plurality of containments comprises a cap and a tube shaped to be held in the seat of one of the receptacles of the microplate.
However, Esser teaches the analogous art of a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) that includes a plurality containments (Esser; fig. 1. 1 and fig. 5 illustrates a microplate system with a containment and [0041] “plurality of tubes”) wherein each of the plurality of containments comprises a cap (Esser; fig. 2A. 10) and a tube shaped to be held in the seat of one of the receptacles of the microplate (Esser; fig. 5).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Cachelin’s plurality of containments to comprise a cap and a tube shaped to be held in the seat of one of the receptacles of the microplate as taught by Esser because Esser teaches a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) that includes a plurality containments (Esser; fig. 1. 1 and fig. 5 illustrates a microplate system with a containment and [0041] “plurality of tubes”) wherein each of the plurality of containments comprises a cap (Esser; fig. 2A. 10) and a tube shaped to be held in the seat of one of the receptacles of the microplate (Esser; fig. 5).
This allows to hold multiple tubes in a closed connection with a cap that prevents contamination.
Regarding claim 2, modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 1 (see above) to include a cap and containment (see above).
Modified Cachelin fails to teach the cap of each containment comprises a first thread structure and the tube of each containment comprises a second thread structure corresponding to the first thread structure of the cap.
However, Esser teaches the analogous art of a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) that includes a plurality containments (Esser; fig. 1. 1 and fig. 5 illustrates a microplate system with a containment and [0041] “plurality of tubes”) and a cap (Esser; fig. 2A. 10) wherein the cap of each containment comprises a first thread structure (Esser; fig. 2A. 24) and the tube of each containment comprises a second thread structure corresponding to the first thread structure of the cap (Esser; fig. 4. 30).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Cachelin’s cap and containment to include a first thread structure and the tube of each containment comprises a second thread structure corresponding to the first thread structure of the cap as taught by Esser because Esser teaches a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) that includes a plurality containments (Esser; fig. 1. 1 and fig. 5 illustrates a microplate system with a containment and [0041] “plurality of tubes”) and a cap (Esser; fig. 2A. 10) wherein the cap of each containment comprises a first thread structure (Esser; fig. 2A. 24) and the tube of each containment comprises a second thread structure corresponding to the first thread structure of the cap (Esser; fig. 4. 30).
This allows a tight connection between the cap and the containment.
Regarding claim 3, modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 2 (see above), wherein the tube has an open end and a cap (Cachelin; fig. 5. 22).
Modified Cachelin fails to teach the cap has a stem section configured to be provided into the open end of the tube, the first thread structure is arranged at an outer boundary of the stem section of the cap, the second thread structure is arranged at an inner boundary of the tube and the first thread structure engages the second thread structure when the cap is connected to the tube.
However, Esser teaches the analogous art of a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) that includes a cap (Esser; fig. 2A. 10) wherein the cap has a stem section (Esser; fig. 2A. 26) configured to be provided into the open end of the tube (Esser; [0082]) plug part 26 configured to engage with the tube), the first thread structure is arranged at an outer boundary of the stem section of the cap (Esser; fig. 2A.24), the second thread structure is arranged at an inner boundary of the tube (Esser; fig. 4. 30) and the first thread structure engages the second thread structure when the cap is connected to the tube (Esser; [0082]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Cachelin’s tube has an open end and a cap wherein cap has a stem section configured to be provided into the open end of the tube, the first thread structure is arranged at an outer boundary of the stem section of the cap, the second thread structure is arranged at an inner boundary of the tube and the first thread structure engages the second thread structure when the cap is connected to the tube as taught by Esser because Esser teaches a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) that includes a cap (Esser; fig. 2A. 10) wherein the cap has a stem section (Esser; fig. 2A. 26) configured to be provided into the open end of the tube (Esser; [0082]) plug part 26 configured to engage with the tube), the first thread structure is arranged at an outer boundary of the stem section of the cap (Esser; fig. 2A.24), the second thread structure is arranged at an inner boundary of the tube (Esser; fig. 4. 30) and the first thread structure engages the second thread structure when the cap is connected to the tube (Esser; [0082]).
The modification allows a compact profile that eliminates external snag-prone rims.
Regarding claim 4, modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 2 (see above) to include a microplate and a tube (see above).
Modified Cachelin fails to teach wherein the seat of each receptacle of the microplate has a first mating formation, the tube of each containment has a second mating formation and the first mating formation of the seat of the receptacle cooperates with the second mating formation of the tube when the tube is arranged in the seat of the receptacle such that rotation of the tube relative to the microplate is prevented.
However, Esser teaches the analogous art of a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) that includes a microplate (Esser fig. 5. 50) and a tube (Esser; fig. 1. 1) wherein the seat of each receptacle of the microplate has a first mating formation (Esser; fig. 5. 56 and [0087] “end 56 of compartment is adapted to facilitate insertion and capture of the tube“), the tube of each containment has a second mating formation (Esser; fig. 1. 6) and the first mating formation of the seat of the receptacle cooperates with the second mating formation of the tube when the tube is arranged in the seat of the receptacle such that rotation of the tube relative to the microplate is prevented (Esser; [0081] “bead 6 cooperates with the sides of the rack to prevent tubes from unintentionally being removed”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Cachelin’s microplate and a tube wherein the seat of each receptacle of the microplate has a first mating formation, the tube of each containment has a second mating formation and the first mating formation of the seat of the receptacle cooperates with the second mating formation of the tube when the tube is arranged in the seat of the receptacle such that rotation of the tube relative to the microplate is prevented as taught by Esser because Esser teaches a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) that includes a microplate (Esser fig. 5. 50) and a tube (Esser; fig. 1. 1) wherein the seat of each receptacle of the microplate has a first mating formation (Esser; fig. 5. 56 and [0087] “end 56 of compartment is adapted to facilitate insertion and capture of the tube“), the tube of each containment has a second mating formation (Esser; fig. 1. 6) and the first mating formation of the seat of the receptacle cooperates with the second mating formation of the tube when the tube is arranged in the seat of the receptacle such that rotation of the tube relative to the microplate is prevented (Esser; [0081] “bead 6 cooperates with the sides of the rack to prevent tubes from unintentionally being removed”).
This allows mating the tube with the microplate to prevent mixing samples.
Regarding claim 5, modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 4 (see above) to include a microplate and a tube (see above).
Modified Cachelin fails to teach wherein the second mating formation of the tube comprises a protrusion and the first mating formation of the seat of the receptacle comprises a corresponding indentation configured to receive the protrusion of the second mating formation of the tube when the tube is arranged in the seat of the receptacle.
However, Esser teaches the analogous art of a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) that includes a microplate (Esser fig. 5. 50) and a tube (Esser; fig. 1. 1) wherein the second mating formation of the tube comprises a protrusion (Esser; [0009] “the one or more protrusions comprise a bead that covers the circumference of the tube”), and the first mating formation of the seat of the receptacle comprises a corresponding indentation configured to receive the protrusion of the second mating formation of the tube when the tube is arranged in the seat of the receptacle. Esser does not explicitly teach the first mating formation of the seat of the receptacle comprises a corresponding indentation however, Esser teaches “at some point during the insertion of the tube into a compartment the bead 6 has to be forced inside the compartment (Esser; [0087]).
It would have been obvious to include an indentation on the seat of the receptacle in order to provide a mating support for the tube to prevent the tubes from detaching from the microplate.
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Cachelin’s microplate and a tube teach wherein the second mating formation of the tube comprises a protrusion as taught by Esser because Esser teaches a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) that includes a microplate (Esser fig. 5. 50) and a tube (Esser; fig. 1. 1) wherein the second mating formation of the tube comprises a protrusion (Esser; [0009] “the one or more protrusions comprise a bead that covers the circumference of the tube”).
This allows a mating support for the tube to prevent the tubes from detaching from the microplate.
Regarding claim 10, modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 1 (see above) to include a cap and a tube (see above).
Modified Cachelin fails to teach the cap of each of the containments is made of a comparably elastically deformable material and the tube of each of the containments is made of a comparably rigid material.
However, Esser teaches the analogous art of a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) to include a tube (Esser; fig. 1. 1) and a cap (Esser; fig. 2A. 10) wherein the cap of each of the containments is made of a comparably elastically deformable material (Esser; [0039]) and the tube of each of the containments is made of a comparably rigid material (Esser; [0020]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Cachelin’s cap and a tube wherein the cap of each of the containments is made of a comparably elastically deformable material and the tube of each of the containments is made of a comparably rigid material as taught by Esser because Esser teaches a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) to include a tube (Esser; fig. 1. 1) and a cap (Esser; fig. 2A. 10) wherein the cap of each of the containments is made of a comparably elastically deformable material (Esser; [0039]) and the tube of each of the containments is made of a comparably rigid material (Esser; [0020]).
This allows to have a chemical resistance and protecting the contents with a tight coupling.
Regarding claim 11, modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 10 (see above) to include a tube and a cap (see above).
Modified Cachelin fails to teach the cap has an outer diameter, the tube has an inner diameter and the inner diameter of the tube is smaller than the outer diameter of the cap.
However, Esser teaches the analogous art of a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) to include a tube (Esser; fig. 1. 1) and a cap (Esser; fig. 2A. 10) wherein the cap has an outer diameter, the tube has an inner diameter and the inner diameter of the tube is smaller than the outer diameter of the cap (Esser; fig. 4. 30 and [0085]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Cachelin’s cap and a tube wherein the cap has an outer diameter, the tube has an inner diameter and the inner diameter of the tube is smaller than the outer diameter of the cap as taught by Esser because Esser teaches a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) to include a tube (Esser; fig. 1. 1) and a cap (Esser; fig. 2A. 10) wherein the cap has an outer diameter, the tube has an inner diameter and the inner diameter of the tube is smaller than the outer diameter of the cap (Esser; fig. 4. 30 and [0085]).
The modification allows for a connection between the tube and the cap.
Regarding claim 12, modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 10 (see above) to include a cap and a tube (see above).
Modified Cachelin fails to teach the tube has an open end and the cap is configured to be at least partially compressed when being forwarded into the tube through the open end of the tube.
However, Esser teaches the analogous art of a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) to include a tube (Esser; fig. 1. 1) and a cap (Esser; fig. 2A. 10) wherein the tube has an open end (Esser; fig. 4. 30) and the cap is configured to be at least partially compressed when being forwarded into the tube through the open end of the tube (Esser; fig. 4. 30 and Abstract “a cap for sealing a tube”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Cachelin’s cap and a tube wherein the tube has an open end and the cap is configured to be at least partially compressed when being forwarded into the tube through the open end of the tube as taught by Esser because Esser teaches a microplate system (Esser; fig. 5. 50) to include a tube (Esser; fig. 1. 1) and a cap (Esser; fig. 2A. 10) wherein the tube has an open end (Esser; fig. 4. 30) and the cap is configured to be at least partially compressed when being forwarded into the tube through the open end of the tube (Esser; fig. 4. 30 and Abstract “a cap for sealing a tube”).
The modification allows for a resealable connection between the tube and the cap.
Regarding claim 14, modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the plurality of containments and the receptacles of the microplate are shaped such that, in order to be removed from the microplate, each of the plurality of containments is pushable through the microplate out of the seat of the one of the receptacles through the second open end of the one of the receptacles (Cachelin; fig. 5. 55, 26 and [0020]).
Claims 6-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cachelin (US 20080213080 A1; hereinafter “Cachelin already of record) in view of Esser et al. (US 20080035642 A1; hereinafter “Esser” previous of record) further in view of Laugharn. et al. (US 20050132775 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 1 (see above) to include a tube and cap (see above).
Modified Cachelin fails to teach the cap of each of the containments comprises a first press-fit structure and the tube of each of the containments comprises a second press-fit structure corresponding to the first press-fit structure of the cap.
However, Laugharn teaches the analogous art of a system that includes a sample vessel (Laugharn; [0025]) and a cap (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 230) wherein the cap of each of the containments comprises a first press-fit structure (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 230) and the tube of each of the containments comprises a second press-fit structure corresponding to the first press-fit structure of the cap (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 227).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Cachelin’s tube and cap to include a first press-fit structure and the tube of each of the containments comprises a second press-fit structure corresponding to the first press-fit structure of the cap as taught by Laugharn because Laugharn teaches a system that includes a sample vessel (Laugharn; [0025]) and a cap (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 230) wherein the cap of each of the containments comprises a first press-fit structure (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 230) and the tube of each of the containments comprises a second press-fit structure corresponding to the first press-fit structure of the cap (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 227).
The modification allows a resealable connection between the cap and the tube.
Regarding claim 7, Modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 6 (see above) to include a press fit structures (see above).
Modified Cachelin fails to teach the first press-fit structure of the cap is pressed against the second press-fit structure of the tube, when the cap and the tube are connected.
However, Laugharn teaches the analogous art of a system that includes a sample vessel (Laugharn; [0025]) and a cap (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 230) wherein the first press-fit structure of the cap is pressed against the second press-fit structure of the tube, when the cap and the tube are connected (Laugharn; fig. 2A, second tube illustrates a first press-fit structure of the cap is pressed against the second press-fit structure of the tube, when the cap and the tube are connected).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Cachelin’s press fit structures wherein the first press-fit structure of the cap is pressed against the second press-fit structure of the tube, when the cap and the tube are connected as taught by Laugharn because Laugharn teaches a system that includes a sample vessel (Laugharn; [0025]) and a cap (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 230) wherein the first press-fit structure of the cap is pressed against the second press-fit structure of the tube, when the cap and the tube are connected (Laugharn; fig. 2A, second tube illustrates a first press-fit structure of the cap is pressed against the second press-fit structure of the tube, when the cap and the tube are connected).
The modification allows a resealable connection between the cap and the tube.
Regarding claim 8, modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 6 (see above) to include first press fit structures (see above).
Modified Cachelin fails to teach the first press-fit structure of the cap comprises a sealing bulge at an outer circumference of the cap.
However, Laugharn teaches the analogous art of a system that includes press fit cap (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 230) that includes first press fit structures (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 231) wherein the first press-fit structure of the cap comprises a sealing bulge at an outer circumference of the cap (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 231).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Cachelin’s first press fit structure of the cap to include a sealing bulge at an outer circumference of the cap as taught by Laugharn because Laugharn teaches a system that includes press fit cap (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 230) that includes first press fit structures (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 231) wherein the first press-fit structure of the cap comprises a sealing bulge at an outer circumference of the cap (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 231).
The modification allows a resealable connection between the cap and the tube.
Regarding claim 9, modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 8 (see above) to include a press fit structure and a cap (see above).
Modified Cachelin fails to teach the cap comprises a snap cavity with an opening accessible when the cap is connected to the tube.
However, Laugharn teaches the analogous art of a system that includes press fit cap (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 230) that includes first press fit structures (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 231) wherein the cap comprises a snap cavity with an opening accessible when the cap is connected to the tube (Laugharn; fig. 8. 403 and [0097] “cap may be modified by punching a fraction in through the port in the top”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious modify Cachelin’s press fit structure and a cap for the cap to include a snap cavity with an opening accessible when the cap is connected to the tube as taught by Laugharn because Laugharn teaches a system that includes press fit cap (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 230) that includes first press fit structures (Laugharn; fig. 2A. 231) wherein the cap comprises a snap cavity with an opening accessible when the cap is connected to the tube (Laugharn; fig. 8. 403 and [0097] “cap may be modified by punching a fraction in through the port in the top”).
The modification allows for modifying the cap to have a snap cavity flip top cap.
Regarding claim 13, modified Cachelin teaches the microplate system of claim 6 (see above) to include a tube (see above).
Modified Cachelin fails to teach the tube has an inner periphery equipped with a protrusion.
However, Laugharn teaches the analogous art of a system that includes a sample vessel (tube) (Laugharn; [0025]) wherein the tube has an inner periphery equipped with a protrusion (Laugharn; fig. 2B. 227).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Cachelin’s tube to have an inner periphery equipped with a protrusion as taught by Laugharn because Laugharn teaches a system that includes a sample vessel (tube) (Laugharn; [0025]) wherein the tube has an inner periphery equipped with a protrusion (Laugharn; fig. 2B. 227).
The modification allows for the cap to engage with the tube to form a seal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798