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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
1. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2018025512 to Kawai et al. (cited by applicant) in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2020533585 to Robinson et al. (cited by applicant).
Kawai et al. discloses a sealing apparatus (cover film sticking device 30) that is configured to stick a cover slip that is a cover film 10 or cover glass 80 on a specimen disposed on a glass slide 22 to seal the specimen. [0011], [0024], [0030], [0037], [0039]-[0041], [0042]-[0044], [0050] and [0084] (English translation) and Fig. 2.
The apparatus includes:
A starting bath (dipping tank 32) in which a cleaning agent (penetrating agent) is stored and the slide glass on which the specimen before attachment is accommodated to be dipped in the cleaning agent. [0024] (English translation), Fig. 2
A sealing bottle that is configured to store a sealing agent (mounting agent from solvent bottle 55) to be dispensed onto the slide glass taken out from the starting bath. [0030] (English translation), Fig. 2
A storage unit configured to store information on compatibility between types of cover slips and the cleaning agent applied and the type of the sealing agent. “storage unit 65 that stores information on the type of penetration agent currently stored in the dipping tank, and the matching information between the type of penetrant and the type of cover film.” [0039] (English translation) “information stored in the storage unit 65 is information on whether or not the type of penetration agent stored in the dipping tank 32 and the type of a plurality of mounting agents are compatible with each other.” [0040] (English translation) and
A control unit configured to perform control of determining when the sealing agent bottle is replaced, whether the type of sealing agent is compatible with the types of cover slips and the cleaning agent currently applied, stored in the storage unit (control unit 64; [0037], [0039]-[0041] (English translation) and upon determining incompatibility, making a notification unit issue a notification indicating incompatibility. (“the control unit 64 notifies the operator via that alarm unit 68.” [0042]-[0044], [0050], [0084] (English translation).
While Kawai et al. teaches confirming compatibility of the type of sealing agent, cover slips and cleaning agent, Kawai et al. does not teach providing bottle 55 with a readable tag (recording unit) that can be used to identify the sealing agent.
Robinson et al. teaches attaching machine-readable tags (recording units) to reagent containers that allow verification of the contents of the reagent containers and the expiration date. [0015], [0041], [0045] (English translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Kawai et al. to include machine-readable tags (“recording units”) on bottles 55 for purposes of providing machine-readable information regarding the contents of the bottle including the expiration date as taught by Robinson et al. for purposes of determining compatibility as taught by Kawai et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. renders all the limitations of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that an expiry date of the sealing agent stored in the sealing agent bottle is recorded in the recording unit, and the control unit performs, when the sealing agent bottle is replaced, control of comparing the expiry date read from the recording unit with a current date based on a calendar function to determine whether the current date is after the expiry date, and of making, when at least the current date is after the expiry date, the notification unit issue a notification indicating that the expiry date is in past.
Kawai et al. teaches concerns with monitoring the expiration dates of the cover films. [0017] (English translation).
As noted above, Robinson et al. teaches using the machine-readable tags to monitor the expiration date of the reagent containers. [0041] (English translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. to include expiration date information on the machine-readable tags (“recording units”) to monitor the expiration of the sealing agent and provide a notification if the expiration date is past.
Therefore, Kawai et a. in view of Robinson et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites a reading mechanism configured to read information recorded in the recording unit, wherein the reading mechanism is provided to a lid portion configured to close the sealing agent bottle, and the information becomes readable from the recording unit when the sealing agent bottle is closed by the lid portion.
Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. does not teach a reading mechanism configured to read information recorded in the recording unit, wherein the reading mechanism is provided to a lid portion configured to close the sealing agent bottle, and the information becomes readable from the recording unit when the sealing agent bottle is closed by the lid portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. to provide a reading mechanism to read the machine-readable tags in any convenient location, including on a lid of the bottle 55 when the machine-readable tag is provided on the lid. Note, the arrangement of parts is considered a matter of design choice when the overall operation is not modified. (MPEP2144.04(VI)(C)).
Therefore, Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites a reading mechanism configured to read information recorded in the recording unit, wherein the reading mechanism is provided in a predetermined position in periphery of the sealing agent bottle, and the information becomes readable from the recording unit when the sealing agent bottle is disposed in the sealing apparatus.
In Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide the machine-readable tags (“recording units”) on any location of the bottles 55, including on a periphery of the bottles and a reading machine positioned to read the machine-readable tags (“recording units”). Note, the arrangement of parts is considered a matter of design choice when the overall operation is not modified. (MPEP2144.04(VI)(C)).
Therefore, Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. renders claim 4 obvious
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites a reading mechanism configured to read information recorded in the recording unit, wherein the reading mechanism is placed on a base where the sealing agent bottle is placed, and the information becomes readable from the recording unit when the sealing agent bottle is placed on the base.
In Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide a reading mechanism configured to read information recorded in the machine-readable tags (“recording unit”), wherein the reading mechanism is placed on a base (support surface) where the sealing agent bottles 55 are placed, and the information becomes readable from the recording unit when the sealing agent bottle is placed on the base.
Therefore, Kawai et al. in view of Robinson et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
Conclusion
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.
/MICHAEL STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights