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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 24, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10, 13, 14 and 16-21 remain pending wherein claims 9, 10, 13, 14 and 18-21 remain withdrawn, as acknowledged by Applicant. Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 5, 8. 9. 14, 16, 17, 20 and 21. Applicant amended the abstract.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 24, 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the patentability of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that independent claim 1 is patentable over the combination of Neeper and Li because Li does not disclose that “size information read from an information carrier of a support specifies…an overall height of the support including an auxiliary agent carried by the support.” Remarks 12. According to Applicant, the size information taught by the combination merely refers to the height of the support, not the height of the support PLUS the auxiliary agent. Remarks 13. The argument is not persuasive for multiple reasons:
First, Li discloses that the size information of a support can be measured by a sensor (see [0150]). In other words, the size information is not a predetermined value. Rather, it is a dimension that can be measured right before the support is stored, wherein the measured value is combined with a “preset safety” dimension (e.g. clearance) stored in the information carrier. Naturally, the combination of Neeper and Li would arrive at a method in which the overall height of a support read from an information carrier accounts for the height of the contents of the support, for example the height of “an auxiliary agent” carried by the support, as recited in claim 1.
Second, the limitations “supports” and “auxiliary agent for treating biological cell cultures” are abstract. On their own, they do not convey structures comprising specific sizes or dimensions. According to the specification, the limitation “support” intends to encompass microplates, which comprise wells, and the limitation “auxiliary agent for treating biological cell culture” intends to encompass liquids. For such a combination, the “auxiliary agent for treating biological cell culture” would not add additional height to the support (the liquid would be held in the wells of the microplate). Consequently, Applicant’s argument that the claimed method is patentable over the combination of Neeper and Li because the combination does not account for the additional height of the “auxiliary agent for treating biological cell culture” is not persuasive. Based on the claim language, the “overall height” is not inherently greater than the height of the support. That said, to reject claim 1, prior art need not teach a method that accounts for additional height apart from the height of the support.
For the foregoing reasons, the outstanding rejection is maintained, albeit it has been updated to address the amended claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it muddies the definition of the limitation “storage height”. The claim explicitly distinguishes “support” from “auxiliary agent”, and the preamble of the claim explicitly defines “storage height” as a dimension corresponding to the support. Yet, the body of the claim later redefines “storage height” as “overall height of the support including the respective auxiliary agent carried by the support”. The scope of the limitation “storage height” is unclear, rendering claim 1 indefinite.
Claims not explicitly rejected are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Interpretation
The claimed invention is directed to a method. A method is defined by the step(s) recited in the body of the claim. In this instance, while the preamble of claim 1 in general provides context and some limitations even further limit the steps recited in claim 1, many of the limitations in the preamble are directed to subject matter unrelated to the steps recited in the body of claim 1. Consequently, the limitations are considered recitation of intended use, meaning prior art need not teach said limitations to reject the claim. The claims will be examined accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neeper et al. (“Neeper”) (US 2020/0333364 A1) in view of Li et al. (“Li’) (US 2023/0286750 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Neeper discloses a method for handling supports (tray 326 plus article 328/329/330 supported on tray 326) (see [0012] and Fig. 3c), each of which carries a respective auxiliary agent (e.g. a chemical, see [0002]-[0003]) for treating biological cell cultures*, wherein the method is performed using one or more modules (see [0046]), at least one module (modules 102 and 160) comprising a handling device 120 and 150 (see Fig. 1), wherein each support rests with edges thereof on support elements 324 (see Fig. 3c), the support elements 324 being allocated to each other in pairs (see Fig. 3c) and protruding in a horizontal direction from opposing sidewalls 322 of a storage device (see Fig. 3c), the pairs of support elements 324 being arranged at a vertical distance from each other (see Fig. 3c), wherein the supports have respective storage heights that are different from one another (see [0012] and [0049]; see also Fig. 3c), some of which are greater than one or more times the vertical distance (height of each slot, see Fig. 3c), and wherein each support has an information carrier (see [0045]), the method comprising:
reading by a reading device 165 information from each of the information carriers (see [0053]),
evaluating by a computing device 170 the information from each of the information carriers (see [0053]; and
using the details contained in the information (see [0053]) to move, by handling devices 120 and 150, each support from a respective first position to a storage place, and placing the support on a respective pair of the support elements 324 (see [0049]).
The method taught by Neeper differs from the claimed invention in that Neeper does not disclose that the information in the information carriers contain details about the respective storage heights of the supports. Naturally, the method does not select a storage space for each support based on the height of the support, as recited in the claim.
Li discloses an automated system for storing and retrieving goods of differing sizes (see abstract), wherein the system uses identification codes (e.g. barcodes) to coordinate the storage and retrieval of the goods (see [0151]). To optimize usage of storage space (see [0136]), the identification codes convey size information of the goods (see [0150]-[0152]) such that the system can determine the most efficient manner of using storage space (see [0136] and [0160]). In light of the disclosure of Li and given that the method taught by Neeper involves storing supports of different sizes (see [0012] and [0049]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the information carriers taught by Neeper with details about the storage heights of the respective supports (including “safety” height), and configure the computing device 170 to use the details when storing the supports. The modification would optimize storage space usage. If the modification is made, then the method would comprise the steps of:
selecting, for each support, a storage space in the storage device comprising a vertical arrangement of one or more free compartments sufficient to accommodate the respective storage height of the support, and
moving each support to the selected storage space.
*The limitation “for treating biological cell cultures” is recitation of intended use. Absent the claim specifying the identity of the auxiliary agent or further specifying how the agent “treats” biological cell cultures, any agent (e.g. a chemical) that can be used to “treat” a cell culture is sufficient to anticipate the limitation.
With respect to claim 2, to enable easy optical access, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the information carrier on a base section/frame of each well plate or rack, for example. Moreover, for a support in the form of a well plate or a rack (see [0054]), such support comprises two support shoulders (sidewalls) that are slid into and supported by support elements 324 of the storage device (see [0049]) of Neeper), such that the information can be read from a removal side of the storage device (see [0045] disclosing that the supports are oriented uniformly for predictable access to the information carrier).
With respect to claim 3, Neeper does not disclose that the handling device has the claimed proximity sensor.
Li discloses a sensor associated with a handling device for detecting empty storage spaces to enable the system to ascertain whether goods can be stored therein (see [0012] and [0014]-[0016]). In light of the disclosure of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the handling device taught by Neeper with a proximity sensor for determining whether a slot is occupied by another support and to confirm whether an unoccupied slot is large enough to accommodate a support to be added to the storage device.
With respect to claim 4, if the method taught by Neeper is modified pursuant to the teachings of Li (see rejection of claims 1 and 3), then the method would further comprise the steps of using the reading device 165 and the proximity sensor to recognize occupied compartments and free compartments (see rejection of claim 3), and to identify a vertical arrangement of free compartments sufficient to accommodate each support (see rejection of claim 3).
With respect to claim 5, the vertical arrangement of free compartments would be found exclusively by using the reading device 165 (obtaining storage height of the support) and the proximity sensor (determining whether free compartments have sufficient height to accommodate the support).
With respect to claim 6, in the event that unoccupied storage space is insufficient to accommodate goods to be stored, Li further discloses a step of rearranging stored goods to increase the size of the unoccupied storage space (see [0207]). Based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the system taught by Neeper to rearrange stored supports to adjust the heights of unoccupied compartments. The modification would optimize the number of supports that can be stored by the system. If the modification is made, then the modified method would comprise the steps of:
removing supports arranged in the storage device from compartments to which they are allocated and allocating the supports to other compartments in such a way as to form new arrangements of compartments, in which a number of free compartments arranged one directly above another is increased.
With respect to claim 7, the storage device 110 is arranged in a housing 102 between a loading opening (left side of Fig. 1) and the handling device (track 120) (see Figs. 1 and 3a), the method further comprising:
keeping a vertical area (storage space) of the storage device free, a height of the vertical area being greater than a height of the loading opening (see Fig. 3a illustrating the loading opening situated at the bottom of the housing 102, meaning the location of the vertical area is above the loading opening) which corresponds to a largest one of the respective storage heights of the supports arranged in the housing (the height of the loading opening must at least equal the height of the largest support stored by the system; otherwise the support would not fit inside the storage device).
With respect to claim 8, the reading device 165 is arranged in module 164 of the system (see Fig. 3a and [0053]), and wherein each module 164 and 102 is configured to contain the supports (see Fig. 1 and [0053]).
With respect to claim 16, each information carrier comprises a barcode, and the reading device is a barcode scanner (see [0053]-[0054]).
With respect to claim 17, to enhance optical access to the information carriers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided each support with multiple redundant information carriers. See also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), in which the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
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 PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights