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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0048] reads “"pipette tips are used to aspirate and dispensed sample and/or reagents". Applicant may correct this by replacing "dispensed" with "dispense".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 15-16, 25, 28-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, l. 1 recites the limitation “a least”. Applicant may amend the claim to read “at least”.
Regarding claim 15, l. 2 recites the limitation “same of different”. Applicant may amend the claim by replacing “of with “or” to read “same or different”.
Regarding claim 16, l. 10 recites the limitation “align”. Applicant may amend the claim to read “aligns” to agree with the singular subject “each adapter”.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 19. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding claim 28, l. 1 recites the limitation “The adapter of claim 16”. Applicant may amend the claim to read “The apparatus of claim 16”.
Regarding claim 29, l. 1 recites the limitation “The adapter of claim 28”. Applicant may amend the claim to read “The apparatus of claim 28”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20-22, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, l. 5 recites the limitation “the insert”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may amend the claim to read “the adapter”.
Claims 21-22, and 27 are rejected based on dependency of all of the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 25, l. 2 recites the limitation “the aperture”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may amend the claim to read “the entry aperture”. See duplicate claim objection above.
Regarding claim 25, l. 2 recites the limitation “a beveled surface”. It is unclear whether this is a new beveled surface or the first or second beveled surface of claims 19 and 18 from which claim 25 depends. See duplicate claim objection above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims contain limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed invention. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114. Note that functional limitations are emphasized in italics herein.
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 1-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 20220091145 A1, EFD 2019-10-09) in view of Itoh (US 20030215370 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki teaches an adapter (adapter 25A; [0070]; Fig. 2-5) comprising:
a first end and a second end (“The cylinder 25a has openings 25b and 25c open at an upper end and a lower end in the axial direction,” wherein “the lower end includes an annular portion 25h”; [0070],[0082]; Figs. 2-5);
a tubular body (cylinder 25a; [0070]; ]; Figs. 2-5) extending from the first end to the second end and including an interior (Cylinder 25a defines an internal cavity bounded by circumferential surface 25e for receiving a test tube. Paragraphs [0078] and [0082] explain that cylinder 25a extends along the axial direction and that “the lower end includes an annular portion 25h that is substantially circular,” thereby describing a tubular member with an internal cavity extending between two ends); and
an aperture providing access to the interior of the tubular body (opening 25b at the upper end of the cylinder 25a which leads to inner circumferential surface 25e where the test tube is inserted; See [0070], [0085] and Figs. 2-5),
the interior of the tubular body dimensioned to receive and retain a tube (by forming the taper 25l, when the test tube 15 (see FIG. 2) is inserted from above, the test tube 15 can be easily guided into the adapter 25A; [0085]),
Miyazaki fails to teach a rim formed on the first end of the adapter and including a first beveled surface, wherein when the second end of the adapter is inserted into a chamber of a receptacle of a tube rack, the first beveled surface is configured to contact a beveled surface defining an opening of the receptacle to position the adapter in coaxial alignment with the chamber.
Itoh teaches a rim (flange section 101; [0031]; Figs. 2B-3) formed on the first end of an adapter and including a first beveled surface (see the sloped surface of flange section 101 at upper end of test tube holding adapter 100 in Fig. 2B wherein “the adapter 100 is shaped like a funnel as a whole”; [0031]),
wherein when the second end of the adapter is inserted into a chamber of a receptacle of a tube rack, the first beveled surface is configured to contact a beveled surface defining an opening of the receptacle to position the adapter in coaxial alignment with the chamber (The test tube rack is not positively recited in the claim and the first beveled surface of the adapter is structurally capable of satisfying this limitation when a tube rack is provided with the complimentary beveled orientation)(The test tube holding adapter 100 is inserted into the opening 12 of the holder 10 in order to fit the test tube holding adapter 100 in the conveying test tube holder 10. Thus, the annular section 102 is fitted in the opening 12 and the flange section 101 contacts the end face of the opening 12…Consequently, the test tube holding adapter 100 is stably held in the axial position of the opening 12 of the test tube holder 10”; [0034]; See equally sloped beveled surface of the opening 12 of holder 10 in Fig. 2B).
Itoh is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for test tube adapters for sample racks. Itoh teaches that its flange and annular section cooperate with the tube holder opening to firmly and stably seat the adapter within the holder ([0031]-[0035]), while Miyazaki likewise seeks to stably hold and retain its adapter within the specimen rack using cooperative engagement features so that “the adapter 25A is prevented from being unexpectedly separated from the specimen rack main body 16a” ([0101])(accommodation portions, [0075], [0079], [0089], [0092]; notches and protrusions, [0084]; tapering in the upper end, [0085]; [0089]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the adapter taught by Miyazaki by incorporating Itoh’s flange configuration because this would have improved the seating and stability of the adapter within the specimen rack, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 1, wherein the rim includes a second beveled surface defining the aperture, the second beveled surface is configured to guide the tube into the interior of the tubular body (“A taper 25l of which diameter increases toward the upper end is formed at the upper end of the inner circumferential surface 25e of the cylinder 25a. As described above, by forming the taper 25l, when the test tube 15 (see FIG. 2) is inserted from above, the test tube 15 can be easily guided into the adapter 25A,” which would now become a part of the internal circumference of the flange section 101 (rim) taught by Itoh; Miyazaki, [0085]; Itoh, [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 1, further comprising at least one rib (rotation preventing plate 25f (protrusion portion); Miyazaki, [0079]; Figs. 3-4) extending from an outer wall of the tubular body toward an exterior of the adapter (A radial outer side of the rotation preventing plate 25f is formed in a substantially rectangular shape in a top view, and protrudes outward in the radial direction from the outer circumferential surface 25d; Miyazaki, [0079]; Figs. 3-4),
wherein at least a portion of the at least one rib is configured to contact an interior wall of the chamber of the tube rack to maintain the coaxial alignment between the adapter and the chamber and retain the adapter in the chamber (fitted to the side opening 16d (see FIG. 2), to prevent the adapter 25A from rotating in the accommodation portion 16b; Miyazaki, [0079]).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 3, wherein the at least one rib includes a first edge extending in parallel with a central longitudinal axis of the tubular body (A radial outer side of the rotation preventing plate 25f is formed in a substantially rectangular shape in a top view, and protrudes outward in the radial direction from the outer circumferential surface 25d; Miyazaki, [0079]; Figs. 3-4),
wherein at least a portion of the first edge is configured to contact the interior wall of the chamber of the tube rack (fitted to the side opening 16d (see FIG. 2), to prevent the adapter 25A from rotating in the accommodation portion 16b; Miyazaki, [0079]).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 4.
Modified Miyazaki fails to teach the at least one rib includes a second edge that tapers from the first edge to the outer wall of the tubular body, the second edge is configured to guide the adapter into the chamber of the tube rack.
Itoh teaches at least one rib includes a second edge that tapers from a first edge to the outer wall of a tubular body, the second edge is configured to guide the adapter into the chamber of the tube rack (“A projection 106 is formed on the outer surface of a distal end portion of each of the contact pieces 105 and falls into the concave portion V,” wherein “Consequently, the test tube holding adapter 100 is stably held in the axial position of the opening 12 of the test tube holder 10”; Miyazaki, [0033]-[0034]; Fig. 4).
Itoh is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for test tube adapters for sample racks. Itoh teaches that its flange and annular section cooperate with the tube holder opening to firmly and stably seat the adapter within the holder ([0031]-[0035]), while Miyazaki likewise seeks to stably hold and retain its adapter within the specimen rack using cooperative engagement features so that “the adapter 25A is prevented from being unexpectedly separated from the specimen rack main body 16a” ([0101])(accommodation portions, [0075], [0079], [0089], [0092]; notches and protrusions, [0084]; tapering in the upper end, [0085]; [0089]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the adapter taught by Miyazaki in view of Itoh by further incorporating Itoh’s second rib edge because this would have improved the seating and stability of the adapter within the specimen rack, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 3, wherein the at least one rib is a deformable rib comprising a slot (“the upward plate portion 25n1 is formed by notching the circumferential wall of the cylinder 25a in an inverted U shape,” wherein “the upward plate portion 25n1 is elastically deformed outward in the radial direction”; Miyazaki, [0112], [0119]; Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 3, wherein the at least one rib comprises a plurality of ribs spaced apart equidistantly about an outer circumference of the tubular body (the protrusions 25n2 of the plate spring portions 25n adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction are installed at equal intervals of 120°; Miyazaki, [0127]; Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 1, wherein the chamber of the tube rack has a first diameter for receiving a first type of tube and the interior of the adapter has a second diameter for receiving a second type of tube, wherein the first diameter is larger than the second diameter (“The cylinder 25a has an outer circumferential surface 25d having an outer diameter substantially the same as the inner diameter of the insertion hole 16c of the specimen rack 16 (see FIG. 2),” wherein the tube rack fits a standard test tube (ϕ16 mm) without the adapter and a smaller test tube (ϕ13 mm) with the adapter; Miyazaki, [0078],[0099]).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 1, wherein the first beveled surface of the adapter is shaped to correspond to a shape of the beveled surface of the receptacle of the tube rack (The test tube rack is not positively recited in the claim and the first beveled surface of the adapter is structurally capable of satisfying this limitation when a tube rack is provided with the complimentary beveled orientation)(See contact of flange section 101 with equally sloped beveled surface of the opening 12 of holder 10 in Fig. 2B of Itoh).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 1, wherein the tube is a sample collection tube and the tube rack is a sample collection tube rack (This claim is directed to an intended use limitation that does not further structurally limit the adapter of parent claim 1 since the tube and test tube rack is not positively recited. For compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the adapter of Miyazaki in view of Itoh as structurally capable of receiving the tube and being inserted into the tube rack when the tube and tube rack are being used to collect a sample; MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 15, The adapter of claim 3, wherein the tubular body, the rim, and the rib are made of the same of [sic] different materials (The adapter of Miyazaki in view of Itoh satisfies this claim limitation because the tubular body, rim, and rib of the adapter necessarily are made of either the same or different materials, thereby satisfying the claimed alternative).
Claims 11-13, 16-23, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 20220091145 A1, EFD 2019-10-09) in view of Itoh (US 20030215370 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chiu et al. (US 20210178398 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 1.
Modified Miyazaki fails to teach the adapter is made of a thermoplastic.
Modified Miyazaki, however, does state that “the cylinder 25a is made of an elastically deformable material such as resin” (Miyazaki, [0070]).
Chiu teaches an adapter made of a thermoplastic (“the tray insert can be made of polypropylene,” wherein the insert includes “tube receiving recesses” or adapter portions; [0016]).
Chiu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for test tube adapters for sample racks. Miyazaki teaches that “the cylinder 25a is made of an elastically deformable material such as resin” (Miyazaki, [0070]), whereas Chiu teaches that the tray insert can be injection molded from thermoplastic resins during manufacture ([0016]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have tried to modify the adapter material taught by Miyazaki in view of Itoh by specifying the type of resin to be a thermoplastic because there are a finite number of identified, predictable deformable resin options from which to choose and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success when using polypropylene to produce a functional laboratory adapter (See MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 11, wherein the thermoplastic is selected from the group consisting of polystyrene (PS), low density polyethylene (LDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), polypropylene (PP) (the tray insert can be made of polypropylene; Chiu, [0016]), and polylactic acid (PLA).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 11, wherein a [sic] least a portion of the adapter is made of a rigid thermoplastic (polycarbonate with styrene acrylonitrile (PC/SAN) and polycarbonate with acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (PC/ABS); Chiu, [0016])(PC/SAN and PC/ABS are known rigid engineering thermoplastics).
Regarding claim 16, Miyazaki teaches an adapter (adapter 25A; [0070]; Fig. 2-5) comprising:
a first end and a second end (“The cylinder 25a has openings 25b and 25c open at an upper end and a lower end in the axial direction,” wherein “the lower end includes an annular portion 25h”; [0070],[0082]; Figs. 2-5);
a tubular body (cylinder 25a; [0070]; ]; Figs. 2-5) extending from the first end to the second end and including an interior (Cylinder 25a defines an internal cavity bounded by circumferential surface 25e for receiving a test tube. Paragraphs [0078] and [0082] explain that cylinder 25a extends along the axial direction and that “the lower end includes an annular portion 25h that is substantially circular,” thereby describing a tubular member with an internal cavity extending between two ends); and
an entry aperture providing access to the interior of the tubular body (opening 25b at the upper end of the cylinder 25a which leads to inner circumferential surface 25e where the test tube is inserted; See [0070], [0085] and Figs. 2-5),
the interior of the tubular body dimensioned to receive and retain a tube (by forming the taper 25l, when the test tube 15 (see FIG. 2) is inserted from above, the test tube 15 can be easily guided into the adapter 25A; [0085]),
the adapter is insertable into a chamber of a corresponding receptacle of a tube rack (the adapter 25A is inserted through the insertion hole 16c of the specimen rack 16 (see FIG. 2); [0089]).
Miyazaki fails to teach an apparatus comprising: a plurality of adapter portions,
a rim formed on the first end of the adapter, and
at least one connection member that joins the plurality of adapters such that each adapter of the plurality of adapters align with a chamber of a corresponding receptacle of a tube rack.
Itoh teaches a rim (flange section 101; [0031]; Figs. 2B-3) formed on the first end of the adapter (see the sloped surface of flange section 101 at upper end of test tube holding adapter 100 in Fig. 2B wherein “the adapter 100 is shaped like a funnel as a whole”; [0031]),
Itoh is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for test tube adapters for sample racks. Itoh teaches that its flange and annular section cooperate with the tube holder opening to firmly and stably seat the adapter within the holder ([0031]-[0035]), while Miyazaki likewise seeks to stably hold and retain its adapter within the specimen rack using cooperative engagement features so that “the adapter 25A is prevented from being unexpectedly separated from the specimen rack main body 16a” ([0101])(accommodation portions, [0075], [0079], [0089], [0092]; notches and protrusions, [0084]; tapering in the upper end, [0085]; [0089]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the adapter taught by Miyazaki by incorporating Itoh’s flange configuration because this would have improved the seating and stability of the adapter within the specimen rack, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Miyazaki fails to teach an apparatus comprising:
a plurality of adapter portions, and
at least one connection member that joins the plurality of adapters such that each adapter of the plurality of adapters align with a chamber of a corresponding receptacle of a tube rack.
Chiu teaches an apparatus (multipurpose tray 20; [0140]; Figs. 3-4) comprising:
a plurality of adapter portions (tube receiving recesses; [0019]), and
at least one connection member that joins the plurality of adapters such that each adapter of the plurality of adapters align with a chamber of a corresponding receptacle of a tube rack (Paragraph [0140] of Chiu teaches that universal tray insert 200 forms a releasable push-in connection with base module 100 via engagement recesses 210 and protrusions 110, while fiducial markers 220 provide clear allocation of each tube-receiving recess. As such, the tray insert is structurally capable of aligning the adapter portions with a corresponding receptacle of a tube rack; [0140]; Figs. 3-4).
Chiu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for test tube adapters for sample racks. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the individual adapter taught by Miyazaki in view of Itoh by arranging a plurality of such adapters in the interconnected configuration taught by Chiu because this would enable simultaneous installation and handling of a plurality of samples thereby increasing the efficiency of automated laboratory sample processing, and this involves duplication of parts and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 17, The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the tube is a sample collection tube and the tube rack is a sample collection tube rack (This claim is directed to an intended use limitation that does not further structurally limit the apparatus of parent claim 161 since the tube and test tube rack is not positively recited. For compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the apparatus of Miyazaki in view of Itoh and Chiu to be structurally capable of receiving and retaining the tube and being aligned with and inserted into the tube rack when the tube and tube rack are being used to collect a sample; MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 18, The apparatus of claim 16.
Modified Miyazaki fails to teach the rim of each adapter includes a first beveled surface and the second end of each adapter is configured for insertion into a corresponding chamber of the tube rack,
the first beveled surface of each adapter is configured to contact a corresponding beveled surface of each receptacle to position each adapter in coaxial alignment with the corresponding chamber in the tube rack.
Itoh teaches a rim (flange section 101; [0031]; Figs. 2B-3) formed on the first end of the adapter and including a first beveled surface (see the sloped surface of flange section 101 at upper end of test tube holding adapter 100 in Fig. 2B wherein “the adapter 100 is shaped like a funnel as a whole”; [0031]),
the first beveled surface of each adapter is configured to contact a corresponding beveled surface of each receptacle to position each adapter in coaxial alignment with the corresponding chamber in the tube rack (The test tube rack is not positively recited in the claim and the first beveled surface of the adapter is structurally capable of satisfying this limitation when a tube rack is provided with the complimentary beveled orientation)(The test tube holding adapter 100 is inserted into the opening 12 of the holder 10 in order to fit the test tube holding adapter 100 in the conveying test tube holder 10. Thus, the annular section 102 is fitted in the opening 12 and the flange section 101 contacts the end face of the opening 12…Consequently, the test tube holding adapter 100 is stably held in the axial position of the opening 12 of the test tube holder 10”; [0034]; See equally sloped beveled surface of the opening 12 of holder 10 in Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the rim of each adapter includes a second beveled surface disposed around the entry aperture, the second beveled surface being configured to guide the tube into the interior of the tubular body when inserted therein (“A taper 25l of which diameter increases toward the upper end is formed at the upper end of the inner circumferential surface 25e of the cylinder 25a. As described above, by forming the taper 25l, when the test tube 15 (see FIG. 2) is inserted from above, the test tube 15 can be easily guided into the adapter 25A,” which would now become a part of the internal circumference of the flange section 101 (rim) taught by Itoh; Miyazaki, [0085]; Itoh, [0031]).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein each adapter comprises:
at least one rib (rotation preventing plate 25f (protrusion portion); [0079]; Figs. 3-4) extending from an outer wall of the tubular body toward an exterior of the adapter (A radial outer side of the rotation preventing plate 25f is formed in a substantially rectangular shape in a top view, and protrudes outward in the radial direction from the outer circumferential surface 25d; Miyazaki, [0079]; Figs. 3-4) and
wherein at least a portion of the at least one rib is configured to contact an interior wall of the corresponding chamber and to maintain the coaxial alignment between the adapter and the chamber and to retain the insert in the chamber (fitted to the side opening 16d (see FIG. 2), to prevent the adapter 25A from rotating in the accommodation portion 16b; Miyazaki, [0079]).
Regarding claim 21, Modified Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the adapter comprises a plurality of ribs spaced apart about an exterior portion of the tubular body (the protrusions 25n2 of the plate spring portions 25n adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction are installed at equal intervals of 120°; Miyazaki, [0127]; Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 22, Modified Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the adapter comprises a plurality of ribs spaced apart equidistantly about an exterior portion of the tubular body (the protrusions 25n2 of the plate spring portions 25n adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction are installed at equal intervals of 120°; Miyazaki, [0127]; Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 23, Modified Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the at least one connection member is a sheet of material that connects the plurality of adapters (universal tray insert 200 and can be provided in the form of a grid consisting of alphabetic characters and/or numbers, for identifying each tube receiving recess in the universal tray insert 200; Chiu, [0140]; Figs. 3-4) .
Regarding claim 25, Modified Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claims 23, wherein the rim of each adapter includes a beveled surface disposed around the aperture, the beveled surface is configured to guide the tube into the interior of the tubular body (The limitations of claim 25 are met by the prior art for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 19. See duplicate claim objection above)(“A taper 25l of which diameter increases toward the upper end is formed at the upper end of the inner circumferential surface 25e of the cylinder 25a. As described above, by forming the taper 25l, when the test tube 15 (see FIG. 2) is inserted from above, the test tube 15 can be easily guided into the adapter 25A,” which would now become a part of the internal circumference of the flange section 101 (rim) taught by Itoh; Miyazaki, [0085]; Itoh, [0031]).
Regarding claim 26, Modified Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein each chamber of the tube rack includes a first diameter for receiving a first type of tube and the interior of the tubular body of each adapter includes a second diameter for receiving a second type of tube,
wherein the first diameter is larger than the second diameter (“The cylinder 25a has an outer circumferential surface 25d having an outer diameter substantially the same as the inner diameter of the insertion hole 16c of the specimen rack 16 (see FIG. 2),” wherein the tube rack fits a standard test tube (ϕ16 mm) without the adapter and a smaller test tube (ϕ13 mm) with the adapter; Miyazaki, [0078],[0099]).
Regarding claim 27, Modified Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the tubular body, the rim, the connection member and the rib are made of the same or different materials (The adapter of Miyazaki in view of Itoh and Chiu satisfies this claim limitation because the tubular body, rim, and rib of the adapter necessarily are made of either the same or different materials, thereby satisfying the claimed alternative)..
Regarding claim 28, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 16.
Modified Miyazaki fails to teach the adapter is made of a thermoplastic.
Modified Miyazaki, however, does state that “the cylinder 25a is made of an elastically deformable material such as resin” (Miyazaki, [0070]).
Chiu teaches an adapter made of a thermoplastic (the tray insert can be made of polypropylene; [0016]).
Chiu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for test tube adapters for sample racks. Miyazaki teaches that “the cylinder 25a is made of an elastically deformable material such as resin” (Miyazaki, [0070]), whereas Chiu teaches that the tray insert can be injection molded from thermoplastic resins during manufacture ([0016]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have tried to modify the adapter material taught by Miyazaki in view of Itoh by specifying the type of resin to be a thermoplastic because there are a finite number of identified, predictable deformable resin options from which to choose and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success when using polypropylene to produce a functional laboratory adapter (See MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 29, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 28, wherein the thermoplastic is selected from the group consisting of polystyrene (PS), low density polyethylene (LDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), polypropylene (PP) (the tray insert can be made of polypropylene; Chiu, [0016]), and polylactic acid (PLA).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 20220091145 A1, EFD 2019-10-09) in view of Itoh (US 20030215370 A1) and Chiu et al. (US 20210178398 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Knight (US 20140272989 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Miyazaki teaches the adapter of claim 11.
Modified Miyazaki fails to teach at least a portion of the adapter is made of a flexible thermoplastic.
Knight teaches at least a portion of a laboratory component is made of flexible thermoplastic ( LDPE is a softer, more malleable material than HDPE, the softness of LDPE provides flexibility in the locking arms 250 of the cap 200 to securably engage the lip 155 of the receptacle 100. And, while a cap made of HDPE is more rigid than one made of LDPE, this rigidity tends to make an HDPE cap more difficult to penetrate than one made of LDPE; [0056]).
Knight is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting a thermoplastic material having desired flexibility or rigidity for a laboratory sample handling component. Miyazaki teaches that upward plate portion 25n1 is elastically deformed outward when contacted by test tube 15, thereby permitting the protrusion portion 25n2 to resiliently engage the test tube ([0119]). Knight teaches that LDPE is softer and more malleable than HDPE, and that this softness provides flexibility in locking arms that resiliently engage another component ([0056]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the adapter taught by Miyazaki in view of Itoh and Chiu by manufacturing at least a portion of the adapter from a flexible thermoplastic because it would provide the necessary flexibility for resilient engagement of the test tube, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 20220091145 A1, EFD 2019-10-09) in view of Itoh (US 20030215370 A1) and Chiu et al. (US 20210178398 A1), as applied to claim 23 above, and in further view of Liu (US 20020170867 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Modified Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 23.
Modified Miyazaki fails to teach the sheet is flexible.
Liu teaches a flexible test tube rack insert sheet (the flexible sheet (300) is superposed between the flexible sandwich plate (310) and the tray set of receiving cups (320) with starlike and radial holding holes (331,332) mounted thereon relative to the said through holes (311,312); [0018]; Fig. 3).
Liu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for laboratory test tube support structures. Liu teaches that a flexible sheet provides two stable positions for a test tube ([0019]). When a test tube is gently placed, the flexible sheet supports the tube in a raised position, whereas when the test tube is pressed downward, the flexible holding holes deform, allowing the tube to pass into the receiving cup and assume a lower position ([0019]). Liu further teaches that these different tube positions serve as visual indicators of the processing status of the test tubes, enabling an operator to readily distinguish examined and unexamined tubes and efficiently resume an interrupted examination ([0019]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the test tube adapter apparatus taught by Miyazaki in view of Itoh and Chiu by replacing (PC/SAN)/(PC/ABS) (Chiu, [0007]) with the flexible material taught by Liu when manufacturing the connection member sheet because this would improve laboratory workflow and sample handling while maintaining the interconnected arrangement of the plurality of adapters, and this involves simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALERIE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (703)756-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. 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.
/V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights