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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/03/2026. Claims 16-30 are pending. Claims 16, 19 and 21 have been amended.
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 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.
1. Claims 16-18, 22-24 and 26-30 are ejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,419,722 to Meikle in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,580,686 to Coulter and U.S. Patent No. 6,333,007 to Svensson et al.
Meikle teaches a photometer arrangement in which a sample to be tested is supplied into cuvette 4 so that light from light source 13 passes through the sample and received by light receiver 14.
In Meikle the sample is drained from the bottom of cuvette 14 by a drain line 6 as shown in the sole figure.
Coulter teaches a system for absorbance measurements of samples that includes a cuvette 14 that is provided with a drain 26 at the bottom of the cuvette as shown in Fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Meikle to include a drain in the bottom of cuvette 4 as taught by Coulter for draining sample from the cuvette as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (MPEP2143(I))
In Meikle in view of Coulter the opposite sides of the cuvette through which the light passes are interpreted as being windows. Otherwise, it would have been obvious to position separate windows on opposite sides of the cuvette.
In Meikle in view of Coulter the light path would not be parallel to the sample inlet opening and the sample outlet opening.
Meikle in view of Coulter does not teach that the cuvette is movably supported by a cuvette body support element that is provided with a cuvette vibration device for vibrating the cuvette to thereby homogenously mix a liquid sample volume within the cuvette cavity. (Abstract)
Svensson et al. teaches a photometer and cuvette for mixing having a holder for the cuvette, which holder is mounted in bearings for vibration for purposes of mixing fluids in the cuvette.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Meikle in view of Coulter to include a holder for the cuvette that is configured for vibrating the cuvette as taught by Svensson et al. for purposes of mixing the contents of the cuvette.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders all the elements of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites that the cuvette vibration device generates a cuvette vibration frequency of 1 to 500 Hz.
Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. do not teach that the cuvette vibration device generates a cuvette vibration frequency of 1 to 500 Hz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine a suitable frequency at which to vibrate the cuvette in Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. based on the dimensions of the cuvette and the type of sample to be tested, including at a vibration frequency in the range of 1 to 500 Hz.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 17 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites that the cuvette vibration device generates a linear cuvette vibration, with a nominal vibration amplitude of 0.1 to 5.0 mm.
Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. do not teach that the cuvette vibration device generates a linear cuvette vibration, with a nominal vibration amplitude of 0.1 to 5.0 mm
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine a suitable nominal vibration amplitude at which to vibrate the cuvette in Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. based on the dimensions of the cuvette and the type of sample to be tested, including at a nominal vibration amplitude in the range of 0.1 to 5.0 mm.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 18 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 22, as noted above Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 22 depends.
Claim 22 recites that the cuvette cavity is fluidically closed.
The cuvette in Meikle is fluidically closed as show in the sole figure.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 22 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 23, as noted above, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 23 depends.
Claim 23 recites that the sample inlet opening and the sample outlet opening are defined by one single combined inlet and outlet opening.
Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. does not teach that sample inlet opening and the sample outlet opening are defined by one single combined inlet and outlet opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at applicant’s effective filing date to modify Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. to provides the sample inlet opening and the sample outlet opening as a single combined inlet and outlet opening as a matter of engineering design choice since it has been held that making separate parts integral is obvious. (MPEP2144.04(V)(B)).
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 23 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 24, as noted above Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 24 depends.
Claim 24 recites that the cuvette body is provided with a venting opening for providing an air cushion above the sample volume in the cuvette cavity during the cuvette vibration caused by the vibration device.
Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. does not teach that the cuvette body is provided with a venting opening for providing an air cushion above the sample volume in the cuvette cavity during the cuvette vibration caused by the vibration device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. by proving a venting opening on the cuvette for purposes of providing for air release when filling the cuvette with sample liquids to prevent airlock.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 24 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 26, as noted above Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 26 depends.
Claim 26 recites that the cuvette body is provided with a reagent inlet opening for directly applying a liquid reagent into the cuvette cavity.
Coulter teaches that reagents can be added into the cuvette. (column 3, lines 45-50)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. to include a reagent inlet for adding reagents into the cuvette as taught by Coulter. Alternatively, the sample inlet in Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. could be used to supply a reagent into the cuvette.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 26 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 27, as noted above Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 27 depends
Claim 27 recites that the cuvette body is provided with a flushing liquid opening.
Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. does not teach that the cuvette is provided with a flushing liquid opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to applicant’s effective filing date to modify Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. to include a flushing liquid opening for purposes of flushing/cleaning the cuvette after use. Alternatively, the sample inlet in Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. could be used to supply a flushing liquid to clean the cuvette.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 27 obvious.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 28, as noted above Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 28 depends.
Claim 28 recites that the cuvette cavity has a total volume of less than 0.5 ml.
Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. does not teach the volumes of the cuvette.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. with a cuvette of any suitable volume including a volume of less than 0.5 ml. Note, changes in size are not patentable if the change in size would not perform differently. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 28 obvious.
X.) Regarding applicant’s claim 29, as noted above Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 29 depends
Claim 29 recites that the photometer light inlet window and the photometer light outlet window are provided at sidewalls of the cuvette cavity.
Light passes through the opposite sides of the cuvette in Meikle in view of Coulter in view of Svensson et al. which opposite sides are interpreted as being photometer light inlet and outlet windows.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 29 obvious.
XI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 30, as noted above Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 30 depends.
Claim 30 recites a control unit with a sample filling level control unit being connected to a photometer unit for controlling the liquid sample filling level within the cuvette cavity.
Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. does not teach a control unit with a sample filling level control unit being connected to a photometer unit for controlling the liquid sample filling level within the cuvette cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. with a control unit with a sample filling level control unit being connected to a photometer unit for controlling the liquid sample filling level within the cuvette cavity, for purposes of preventing insufficient and/or overfilling of the wells.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 30 obvious.
2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of U.S. Design Patent No. D621,520 to Talmer et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 19, as noted above, Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 19 recites that the cuvette body defines at least one inclined interior side wall being inclined with an inclination angle of between 15° and 75° with respect to a vertical.
Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. does not teach that the cuvette body defines at least one inclined interior side wall being inclined with an inclination angle of between 15° and 75° with respect to a vertical.
Talmer et al. teaches a cuvette design that has at least one inclined interior side wall being inclined with an inclination angle of between 15° and 75° with respect to a vertical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. to configure the wells to have at least one inclined interior side wall being inclined with an inclination angle of between 15° and 75° with respect to a vertical as taught by Talmer et al. as a matter of design choice.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter, Svensson et al., and Talmer et al. renders claim 19 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 20, as noted above Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 20 depends.
Claim 20 recites that the cuvette body defines two opposite parallel vertical interior sidewalls and two opposite inclined interior side walls both being inclined to define a V-shaped funnel between the vertical interior sidewalls, wherein the liquid outlet opening is provided at the bottom of the V-shaped funnel.
Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. includes a liquid outlet in the bottom of the cuvette, but does not teach that the wells define a shape that has two opposite parallel vertical interior sidewalls and two opposite inclined interior side walls both being inclined to define a V-shaped funnel between the vertical interior sidewalls, wherein the liquid outlet opening is provided at the bottom of the V-shaped funnel.
Talmer et al. relied upon above teaches a cuvette that has two opposite parallel vertical interior sidewalls and two opposite inclined interior side walls both being inclined to define a V-shaped funnel between the vertical interior sidewalls.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. to configure the wells to have two opposite parallel vertical interior sidewalls and two opposite inclined interior side walls both being inclined to define a V-shaped funnel between the vertical interior sidewalls as taught by Talmer et al. as a matter of design choice and have liquid outlet in the bottom of the cuvette draining the fluids from the cuvette.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter, Svensson et al. and Talmer et al. renders claim 20 obvious.
3. Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0030906 to Friedman.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 21, as noted above Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 21 depends.
Claim 21 recites that the vibration device is a linear horizontal vibration device.
Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. vibrating the cuvette, but does not teach that the vibration device is a linear horizontal vibration device and the linear horizontal vibration axis is substantially lying in the V-plane and parallel to the vertical interior sidewalls.
Friedman teaches vibrating microwell plates in both vertically and horizontally for mixing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. to provide a linear horizontal vibration device to effect mixing in the cuvette.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter, Svensson et al. and Friedman renders claim 21 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 25, as noted above Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 25 depends.
Claim 25 recites that the cuvette vibration device is provided with an electromagnet which is driven by a frequency generator.
Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. does not teach that the cuvette vibration device is provided with an electromagnet which is driven by a frequency generator.
Friedman teaches an electromagnetic vibratory microplate shaker. (Title)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Meikle in view of Coulter and Svensson et al. to use a vibration device that is provided with an electromagnet which is driven by a frequency generator as taught by Friedman et al. as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, Meikle in view of Coulter, Svensson et al. and Friedman renders claim 25 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection that relies upon Meikle, Coulter and Svensson et al. in response to applicant amending claim 16 to recite that the photometer inlet window and the photometer outlet window define a light path through the cuvette body, wherein the light path is not parallel to the sample inlet opening and the sample outlet opening.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights