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 with traverse of group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 2/9/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden absent restriction because non-elected claim 14 is a linking claim and must be examined with the elected claims. This is not found persuasive because claim 14 is dependent upon claim 10. The claims are independent and distinct because Invention I (claims 1-9) and II (claims 10-20) are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product of group I (claims 1-9) can be used in a materially different process such as using the diagnostic tools to inspect the samples. Further, the search burden is due to the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, and the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different class/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1-9 being examined and claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
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 6 and 8 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the tubular legs reciprocate on the vertical shafts as the sample platform raises and lowers" in lines 6-7. The limitation is unclear as to whether the Applicant is claiming the tubular legs to be a part of the vertical shafts, separate from the vertical shafts, or the same as the vertical shafts. Specifically, the instant specification only describes the tubular legs in paragraph 82. There are not drawings that depict the structural element. Claim 6 recites that a plurality of vertical shafts extending upwardly from a floor and a plurality of tubular legs extends downwardly from the sample platform. Thus, it is unclear if the two structures meet to form one structure or are separate structures. For purpose of prosecution, the examiner interprets the two limitations to be one structure that is capable of lowering and raising the sample platform.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the lifting linkage” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thus the limitation is unclear. The Applicant recites that claim 8 is dependent upon claim 6, but claim 7 introduces the claimed structure. For purpose of prosecution, the examiner interprets that claim 8 is depends on claim 7.
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 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) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Novak et al (US 20230245850 A1; hereinafter “Novak”; priority filed on 1/31/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Novak teaches an isolation transfer vessel (Novak; Abstract), comprising:
a base (Novak; Fig. 9; para [63]; The sample transfer capsule 801);
a cover (Novak; Fig. 8, 9; para [62]; The sample transfer capsule 801 further comprises a platform or lid 815 adapted to cover and seal the sample volume 912 of the container 808);
a drive system that, in use, translates the cover between an open position and a closed position relative to the base (Novak; para [62]; The sample transfer capsule 801 further comprises a motor 850 coupled to the lid 815, where the motor 850 is controllable to adjust the lid 815 between the first, closed configuration depicted in FIG. 8 and the second, open configuration depicted in FIG. 9),
a sample platform disposed within the base (Novak; Fig. 6, 10; the sample transfer capsule 801 may be coupled to the stage via the stage platform adaptor 1032; the examiner interprets the sample platform to be the stage which is described through para [49-55]); and
a mechanical lift that raises the sample platform as the cover translates to the open position and permits the sample platform to lower as the cover translates to a closed position (Novak; para [51-52, 63]; The sample transfer capsule 801 further comprises a stage platform 830 with a stage adaptor 1032 for securely coupling the sample transfer capsule 801 to a stage; The examiner interprets the stage as the mechanical lift as it moves the sample capsule which in the z-axis as described by paragraphs 51-52).
Regarding claim 2, Novak teaches the isolation transfer vessel of claim 1, wherein: the base is a basin defining a top opening (Novak; Fig. 9; para [62]; the sample volume 912; examiner interprets the basin to be the open area within the device); the basin includes a lip at a top thereof, the lip defining a continuous recess circumscribing the opening for the basin; and a sealing element is disposed within the recess to hermetically seal the juncture between the cover and the base when the cover is in the closed position (Novak; para [62]; The sample transfer capsule 801 further comprises a platform or lid 815 adapted to cover and seal the sample volume 912 of the container 808 in the first, closed configuration, where in some examples a gasket (not shown) such as an O-ring may be placed in the cavity 913). The sealing element is interpreted as the O-ring/gasket.
Regarding claim 3, Novak teaches the isolation transfer vessel of claim 1, wherein: the base is a skeletonized framework (Novak; Fig. 9; para [62]; the sample volume 912; examiner interprets the skeletonized framework to be the open area within the device; the instant specification describes “skeletonized” as having significant amounts of material removed for weight and cost savings, the examiner notes that the interior is hollow thus meeting the limitation); the sample platform defines a continuous recess circumscribing a portion thereof including the sample stage (Novak; Fig. 10; para [66]; the sample transfer capsule is positioned on the stage or positioning system which provides a recess as seen in Fig. 10); and a sealing element is disposed within the recess to hermetically seal the juncture between the cover and the base when the cover is in the closed position (Novak; para [62]; The sample transfer capsule 801 further comprises a platform or lid 815 adapted to cover and seal the sample volume 912 of the container 808 in the first, closed configuration, where in some examples a gasket (not shown) such as an O-ring may be placed in the cavity 913). The sealing element is interpreted as the O-ring/gasket.
Regarding claim 4, Novak teaches the isolation transfer vessel of claim 1, further comprising an observation window positioned over the sample platform when the cover is in the closed position (Novak; para [62]; The lid 815 may include a window 817 comprising vacuum-sealed glass).
Regarding claim 5, Novak teaches the isolation transfer vessel of claim 4, wherein the observation window comprises: a window opening defined by the cover; and a translucent pane closing the window opening to maintain the hermetic seal when the cover is in the closed position (Novak; para [62]; The lid 815 may include a window 817 comprising vacuum-sealed glass).
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 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak in view of Chowdhury et al (US 20220336182 A1; hereinafter “Chowdhury”).
Regarding claim 6, Novak teaches the isolation transfer vehicle of claim 1, wherein the base is a basin.
Novak does not teach the basin includes a plurality of vertical shafts extending upwardly from a floor of thereof; a plurality of tubular legs extends downwardly from the sample platform; and the tubular legs reciprocate on the vertical shafts as the sample platform raises and lowers.
However, Chowdhury teaches an analogous art of a lifting apparatus (Chowdhury; Abstract) comprising a plurality of vertical shafts extending upwardly from a floor of thereof (Chowdhury; Fig. 1, 6; para [25]; The substrate support 124 includes a lift apparatus 126 for raising or lowering multiple components disposed above the substrate support 124); a plurality of tubular legs extends downwardly from a sample platform (Chowdhury; Fig. 1, 6; para [25]; The substrate support 124 includes a lift apparatus 126 for raising or lowering multiple components disposed above the substrate support 124; and the tubular legs reciprocate on the vertical shafts as the sample platform raises and lowers (Chowdhury; para [25]; The lift apparatus 126 generally includes an actuator 130 coupled to a plurality of first lift pin assemblies 138 and a plurality of second lift pin assemblies 148 to advantageously lift both the substrate 122). As stated above in the 112(b) rejection, the examiner interprets the plurality of vertical shafts to be the same structure as the plurality of tubular legs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the sample platform of Novak to comprise the plurality of vertical shafts/the plurality of tubular legs as taught by Chowdhury, because Chowdhury teaches that the multiple pins allow the substrate to be lifted with a single actuator (Chowdhury; para [25]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak in view of Black (https://web.archive.org/web/20220318054502/https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/1080/worm-gears).
Regarding claim 9, Novak teaches the isolation transfer vehicle of claim 1, wherein the drive system comprises: a vacuum-compatible motor (Novak; para [62]; a motor 850 coupled to the lid 815). The examiner notes that the “vacuum-compatibility” is interpreted as intended use of the motor. Thus, if the motor is capable of being operated under a vacuum, the limitation is met. The examiner notes that the sample transfer capsule operates in a vacuum chamber.
Novak does not teach a worm screw engaging the vacuum-compatible motor and the cover to drive the cover between the open position and the closed position.
However, Black teaches an analogous art of a motor wherein the motor comprises a worm screw (Black; How Worm Gears Work; An electric motor or engine applies rotational power via to the worm. The worm rotates against the wheel, and the screw face pushes on the teeth of the wheel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the motor of Novak to comprise the worm gear as taught by Black, because Black teaches that worm gears greatly increase torque or reduce speed which would reduce the failure of hermetically sealing the cover. Thus, modified Novak teaches the worm screw engaging the vacuum-compatible motor and the cover to drive the cover between the open position and the closed position as the motor of Novak closes and opens the lid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Novak in view of Yu in view of Chowdhury does not disclose the limitation wherein the mechanical lift comprises a lifting linkage pivotably mounted to the base and engaging the cover and the sample platform; and the lifting linkage pivots as the cover translates between the open position and the closed position to lift the sample platform and to permit the sample platform to lower.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1116. 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.
/A.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796