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
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 and 12 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 2012/0002276 A1; hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a bracket (U-shaped clip 52; paragraphs 74 – 80; figures 4 – 7B) suitable or capable for use with a biological sample analyser, the bracket comprising:
a base (52a and 52b) and an arm (52c) extending from the base, the base (52a and 52b) being engageable with a platform (41) of a biological sample analyser,
wherein, when the base is engaged with the platform (41), the arm (52c) extends into a sample plate bay of the biological sample analyser prohibiting access to a portion of the bay (figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches the bracket according to claim 1, wherein the arm provides a surface with which orientation markers of a sample plate are able to be aligned when loading the sample plate into the sample plate bay (paragraphs 75 and 76; figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches the bracket according to claim 1, wherein the arm includes a section orientated at an angle relative to the base (paragraphs 75 and 76; figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches the bracket according to claim 1, further comprising a first transitional surface at a join between a side of the arm and the base (paragraphs 75 and 76; figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches the bracket according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the arm extends outwardly from the base providing an overhang (paragraphs 75 and 76; figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki teaches the bracket according to claim 1, wherein the base has at least one through-bore through which a bolt of the platform is able to pass in use (e.g., hole 52e; paragraphs 76 – 78; figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki teaches the bracket according to claim 1, wherein the base and the arm are integral to a single piece of material (figures 6a and 6b).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki teaches a biological sample analyser (15) comprising:
a bay (41c) in which a sample plate (glass SG) is loadable in use; and
a bracket (52) according to any one of the preceding claims, the bracket having a base and an arm extending from the base, the bracket being engaged with a platform at the bay, the arm extending into the bay prohibiting access to a portion of the bay (paragraphs 51 – 55; figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki teaches the biological sample analyser according to claim 14, wherein the arm extends into a corner of the bay (arm 52c extends into a corner of bay 41c; figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki teaches the biological sample analyser according to claim 14, wherein there is a void between the arm and a base of the bay (arm 52c extends into a corner of bay 41c and there is a void between the arm 52c and the base of the bay 41c; figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki teaches the biological sample analyser according to claim 14, wherein the base of the bracket is engaged with at least one bolt projecting outwardly from the platform (base (52a and 52b) is engaged through the hole (52e) with one bolt (65) projected from the base (41); paragraphs 76 – 78 and figure 5).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2012/0002276 A1; hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki does not specifically teach the bracket according to claim 4, wherein the first transitional surface is a chamfer.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki does not specifically teach the bracket according to claim 6, further comprising a second transitional surface at a join between an underside of the overhang and the base.
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki does not specifically teach the bracket according to claim 7, wherein the second transitional surface is a fillet.
However, these technical design features are considered design features that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been considered to be an obvious design choice depending on specific bracket design specifications. The rationale to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle (see MPEP § 2144.02). Furthermore, the prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Claim(s) 9 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2012/0002276 A1; hereinafter “Suzuki”) in view of Webster (US 4,282,182; hereinafter “Webster”).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki does not specifically teach the bracket according to claim 1, wherein the bracket is made of acetal.
However, Webster teach mechanical apparatus incorporating a structural material comprising acetal resin (e.g., col. 3, lines 27 – 61). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the bracket is made of acetal.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Suzuki does not specifically teach the recited base height and width dimensions. However, these base dimensions would have been considered to be an obvious design choice depending on specific bracket design specifications. The rationale to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle (see MPEP § 2144.02). Furthermore, the prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J. SINES whose telephone number is (571)272-1263. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM EST M-F.
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, Elizabeth A Robinson can be reached at (571) 272-7129. 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.
BRIAN J. SINES
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/BRIAN J. SINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796