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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8, 16 and 17 in the reply filed on April 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9, 10, 13, 14 and 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 31, 2023 and April 8, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the legal term “means”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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. Specifically, the steps in claim 1 only require the provision of, and interaction with, the supports and the information carriers provided on the supports. Consequently, prior art need not teach biological cell cultures/auxiliary agents, the support elements, the storage device, the one or more modules, or the handling device, to reject the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the last line of claim 4, the limitation “a storage device” should be changed to “the storage device”. Claim 1 establishes antecedent basis for the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 recites “the opposing side walls of a storage device”. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation. The claim impermissibly presumes the existence of opposing side walls and that they don’t need any context.
Claim 1 recites “a device for handling…has a handling device (22)”. The nomenclature employed in the recitation renders the scope of the “device for handling” and/or the “handling device” indefinite.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it recites “the modules”. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation. Claim 1 recites “one or more modules”. Additionally, it is unclear whether the last clause of the claim is attributed to the alterative language, or whether it intends to further limit the method regardless of the alternative language. Based on the fact that it refers back to “the modules” recited in the second alternative language, which is the only instance of the limitation, it will be presumed that the clause refers to the second alternative language.
Claims not explicitly rejected are rejected due to dependency.
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 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 (e.g. sample containers/well plates disposed on trays) (see [0012]), which are used to carry biological cell cultures or auxiliary agents for treating biological cell cultures (well plates and sample containers are used for this purpose), the supports having respective storage heights that are different from one another (see [0012] and [0049]), some of which are greater than one or more times a standardized vertical distance (height of each slot 324, see Fig. 3c) defined within a storage device (storage compartment) (see abstract), and wherein the supports each have 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
handling the supports using the details contained in the information (see [0053]).
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.
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 [0151]-[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, and configure the computing device 170 to use the details when storing the supports. The modification would optimize storage space usage.
As discussed above (see “claim interpretation” section), the preamble of claim 1 recites subject matter that is not evident in the method steps recited in the body of claim 1. Consequently, prior art need not teach the subject matter to reject the claim. If Applicant intends the subject matter to be part of the claimed method, then the subject matter should be incorporated into positively-recited method step(s) of claim 1 (e.g. further recite a step of “providing a device for handling the supports (1-9), the device comprising one or more modules…”).
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). Regarding the limitations not addressed in the rejection, they are considered recitation of intended use. Nevertheless, the supports (trays used to carry the well plates/racks) comprise shoulders (edges) that are slid into and supported by support elements (slots) of a storage device (storage compartment) (see [0049]), such that the information can be read from a removal side of a storage device (see [0045]).
With respect to claim 3, the method taught by Neeper is carried out by a system comprising a handling device (tray shuttle 150; carousel track 120) (see Fig. 1) and the storage device (storage compartment) (see abstract) comprising the support elements (slots) (see [0012]). However, 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 find a vertical arrangement of free compartments corresponding to at least a storage height of a support to be added in the storage device (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 module 164 is one of many modules, including module 102 that is configured to contain the supports (see Fig. 1).
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
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