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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 20th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 fail to meet the requirements of both KSR and Graham, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that Cowles, Williams, Guntram, Baril, Lei and Chin is/are non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Cowles is analogous art because it is directed to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Alternatively, even if not from the same field on endeavor, Cowles is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by the claimed invention because it teaches the moving of a cryogenic specimen/tank, which addresses the same or similar problem of lifting a cryogenic specimen. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered Cowles, Williams, Guntram, Baril, Lei and/or Chin, when seeking a solution.
In response to applicant's argument that Cowles does not disclose “a lifting mechanism for a placement of a cryogenic specimen in a cryogenic storage chamber or dewar vessel”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1 and 14. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a lifting mechanism for a placement of a cryogenic specimen in a cryogenic storage chamber or dewar vessel”, is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they contain new matter. The limitation “wherein the backboard comprises a width that is less that the width of the cryogenic storage chamber or Dewar vessel into which it is placed” is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, including the specification, claims and drawings. The amendment therefore introduces subject matter that was not reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as being in the inventor’s possession on the original filing date, and thus constitutes impermissible new matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowles (US 20180340813 A1) in view of Chin (US 20040102804 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cowles discloses a lifting mechanism for a cryogenic specimen as claimed in claim 1, comprising: an upper member (see annotated Fig. 4b below) comprising: a handle (see annotated Fig. 4b below), an upper shaft (see annotated Fig. 4b below) coupled to the handle at a first end, and a lower member (see annotated Fig. 4b below) coupled at a second end of the upper shaft comprising: an attachment point (66; see Fig. 2f), a backboard (see annotated Fig. 4b below) coupled to the attachment point by a lower shaft (250; see Fig. 4d) and configured to support the cryogenic specimen (see Fig. 4a for lower shaft supporting cryogenic specimen).
PNG
media_image1.png
763
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cowles fails to disclose a locking mechanism.
However, Chin teaches an apparatus for surgical procedures wherein the handle comprises a locking mechanism (313; see Fig. 14 and Para. 0189).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce a locking mechanism on the handling mechanism of Cowles, as taught by Chin, in order to easily and comfortably manipulate the handling mechanism (see Para. 0185).
Regarding claim 11, Cowles, in view of Chin, discloses the lifting apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the handle comprises a pair of arms that extend outwardly from the attachment location of the handle to the upper end of the upper shaft (see Fig. 4b for arms extending outwardly).
Regarding claim 12, Cowles, in view of Chin, discloses the lifting apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the backboard (see annotated Fig. 4b below) further comprises a specimen support plate (255; see Fig. 4b) having an elongated body with a lower support (see Fig. 4b for elongated body with lower support) and a pair of side supports (255A see Fig. 4b) that are configured to attach the cryogenic specimen to the backboard (see Fig. 4a for cryogenic specimen attached to backboard).
PNG
media_image2.png
715
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Cowles discloses a lifting mechanism for a placement of a cryogenic specimen in a cryogenic storage chamber or Dewar vessel, comprising: an upper member (see annotated Fig. 4b below) comprising: a handle (see annotated Fig. 4b below), an upper shaft (see annotated Fig. 4b below) coupled to the handle at a first end, and a lower member (see annotated Fig. 4b below) coupled at a second end of the upper shaft comprising: an attachment point (66; see Fig. 2f), a backboard (see annotated Fig. 4b below) coupled to the attachment point by a lower shaft (250; see Fig. 4d) and configured to support the cryogenic specimen (see Fig. 4a for lower shaft supporting cryogenic specimen).
PNG
media_image1.png
763
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cowles fails to disclose a locking mechanism, and a sleeve configured to receive the locking mechanism to couple the lower member to the upper member.
However, Chin teaches an apparatus for surgical procedures wherein the handle comprises a locking mechanism (313; see Fig. 14 and Para. 0189) and a sleeve configured to receive the locking mechanism to couple the lower member to the upper member (see annotated Fig. 14 below). See motivation of claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
336
639
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowles (US 20180340813 A1) in view of Chin (US 20040102804 A1), further in view of Lei (CN 202681822 U).
Regarding claim 2, Cowles, in view of Chin, discloses the lifting mechanism as claimed in claim 1.
Cowles fails to disclose wherein a lever coupled to the upper shaft at the first end of the upper shaft; an internal rod coupled to the lever at a first end and received within the upper shaft; and an eccentric cam lock coupled to a second end of the internal rod.
However, Lei teaches a window cleaner comprising a holder, wherein a lever (I; lever arm; see Fig. 4) coupled to the upper shaft at the first end of the upper shaft (see annotated Fig. 4 below); an internal rod coupled to the lever at a first end and received within the upper shaft (see annotated Fig. 4 below); and an eccentric cam lock (12; see Fig. 4) coupled to a second end of the internal rod (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
375
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein a lever coupled to the upper shaft at the first end of the upper shaft; an internal rod coupled to the lever at a first end and received within the upper shaft; and an eccentric cam lock coupled to a second end of the internal rod on the handling mechanism of Cowles, as modified by Chin, as taught by Lei, in order to easily control and include angle of arm through eccentric cam (see Para. 0004).
Regarding claim 3, Lei further teaches wherein the attachment point comprises a sleeve (2; see Fig. 4) configured to receive the eccentric cam lock (12; see Fig. 4). See motivation of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Lei further teaches wherein the eccentric cam lock (12; see Fig. 4) comprises a tip (see annotated Fig. 1-3), which projects outwardly from a lower end of the sleeve when the upper member is coupled to the lower member (see annotated Fig. 1-3). See motivation of claim 2.
PNG
media_image5.png
609
681
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lei further teaches wherein the lever rotates the eccentric cam lock from a first position to a second position to couple the upper member to the lower member (see Abstract and annotated Fig. 1-3 below). See motivation of claim 2.
PNG
media_image6.png
609
681
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lei further teaches wherein upon rotation of the lever the eccentric cam lock rotates and offsets to couple the upper member to the lower member (see Abstract and annotated Fig. 1-3 below). See motivation of claim 2.
PNG
media_image6.png
609
681
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Cowles, in view of Chin and Lei, discloses the lifting mechanism as claimed in claim 3, further disclosing wherein the attachment point includes an attachment plate with at least one aperture (see annotated Fig. 4b-4c below).
PNG
media_image7.png
720
648
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowles (US 20180340813 A1) in view of Chin (US 20040102804 A1) and Lei (CN 202681822 U), further in view of Baril (US 20200352551 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Cowles, in view of Chin and Lei, discloses the lifting mechanism as claimed in claim 7.
Cowles fails to disclose wherein the upper shaft comprises a cam located proximate to the second end, wherein the cam comprises at least one projection to be received within the at least one aperture when the upper member is coupled to the lower member.
However, Baril teaches a specimen containment device wherein the upper shaft comprises a cam located proximate to the second end (see annotated Fig. 8), wherein the cam comprises at least one projection (540; see Fig. 8) to be received within the at least one aperture (see annotated Fig. 8) when the upper member is coupled to the lower member.
PNG
media_image8.png
718
649
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the upper shaft comprises a cam located proximate to the second end, wherein the cam comprises at least one projection to be received within the at least one aperture when the upper member is coupled to the lower member on the lifting mechanism of Cowles, in view of Chin and Lei, as taught by Baril, in order to selectively lock the holding assembly in a first position (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Baril further teaches a specimen containment device wherein the attachment plate comprises multiple apertures and the cam comprises the same amount of projections, which are received within the multiple apertures when the upper member is coupled to the lower member (see annotated Fig. 8 for same amount of projections received within same amount of apertures). See motivation of claim 8.
PNG
media_image9.png
718
649
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowles (US 20180340813 A1) in view of Chin (US 20040102804 A1), further in view of Guntram (EP 0429811 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Cowles, in view of Chin, discloses the lifting apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Cowles fails to disclose wherein the upper member further comprises a hoist point.
However, Guntram teaches a lifting apparatus wherein the upper member further comprises a hoist point (see Page 2, Para. 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the upper member further comprises a hoist point on the lifting apparatus of Cowles, in view of Chin, as taught by Guntram, so that the device can be raised and raised keep safe (see Page 2, Para. 1).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowles (US 20180340813 A1) in view of Chin (US 20040102804 A1), further in view of Williams (US 20060006682 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Cowles, in view of Chin discloses the lifting apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Cowles fails to disclose wherein the cryogenic specimen is coupled to the backboard by straps.
However, Williams teaches a lifting device wherein the cryogenic specimen is coupled to the backboard by straps (18; see Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the cryogenic specimen is coupled to the backboard by straps on the lifting apparatus of Cowles, in view of Chin, as taught by Williams, so that specimens of various sizes may be easily accommodated (see Para. 0010).
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowles (US 20180340813 A1) in view of Chin (US 20040102804 A1), further in view of Lei (CN 202681822 U).
Regarding claim 15, Cowles, in view of Chin, discloses the lifting mechanism as claimed in claim 14.
Cowles fails to disclose wherein a lever coupled to the upper shaft at the first end; an internal rod coupled to the lever at a first end and received within the upper shaft; and an eccentric cam lock coupled to a second end of the internal rod.
However, Lei teaches a window cleaner comprising a holder, wherein a lever (I; lever arm; see Fig. 4) coupled to the upper shaft at the first end (see annotated Fig. 4 below); an internal rod coupled to the lever at a first end and received within the upper shaft (see annotated Fig. 4 below); and an eccentric cam lock (12; see Fig. 4) coupled to a second end of the internal rod (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
375
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein a lever coupled to the upper shaft at the first end of the upper shaft; an internal rod coupled to the lever at a first end and received within the upper shaft; and an eccentric cam lock coupled to a second end of the internal rod on the handling mechanism of Cowles, as modified by Chin, as taught by Lei, in order to easily control and include angle of arm through eccentric cam (see Para. 0004).
Regarding claim 16, Lei further teaches wherein the eccentric cam lock (12; see Fig. 4) comprises a tip (see annotated Fig. 1-3), which projects outwardly from a lower end of the sleeve when the upper member is coupled to the lower member (see annotated Fig. 1-3). See motivation of claim 15.
PNG
media_image5.png
609
681
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Lei further teaches wherein the lever rotates the eccentric cam lock from a first position to a second position to couple the upper member to the lower member (see Abstract and annotated Fig. 1-3 below). See motivation of claim 15.
PNG
media_image6.png
609
681
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Lei further teaches wherein upon rotation of the lever the eccentric cam lock rotates and offsets to couple the upper member to the lower member (see Abstract and annotated Fig. 1-3 below). See motivation of claim 15.
PNG
media_image6.png
609
681
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowles (US 20180340813 A1) in view of Chin (US 20040102804 A1), further in view of Badalyan (CN 115776844 A).
Regarding claim 19, Cowles, in view of Chin, discloses the lifting mechanism as claimed in claim 1.
Cowles, as modified by Chin, fails to disclose wherein the backboard comprises a width that is less that the width of the cryogenic storage chamber or Dewar vessel into which it is placed.
However, Badalyan discloses a lifting mechanism wherein the backboard comprises a width that is less that the width of the cryogenic storage chamber or Dewar vessel into which it is placed (see annotated Fig. 1-2 below).
PNG
media_image10.png
598
590
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the backboard comprises a width that is less that the width of the cryogenic storage chamber or Dewar vessel into which it is placed on the lifting mechanism of Cowles, as modified by Chin, as taught by Badalyan, to hold the specimen in a nested configuration (see Page 5, Para. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Cowles, in view of Chin, discloses the lifting mechanism as claimed in claim 14.
Cowles, as modified by Chin, fails to disclose wherein the backboard comprises a width that is less that the width of the cryogenic storage chamber or Dewar vessel into which it is placed.
However, Badalyan discloses a lifting mechanism wherein the backboard comprises a width that is less that the width of the cryogenic storage chamber or Dewar vessel into which it is placed (see annotated Fig. 1-2 below).
PNG
media_image10.png
598
590
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the backboard comprises a width that is less that the width of the cryogenic storage chamber or Dewar vessel into which it is placed on the lifting mechanism of Cowles, as modified by Chin, as taught by Badalyan, to hold the specimen in a nested configuration (see Page 5, Para. 5).
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.
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 REHMAN A QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-6262. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/REHMAN A QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights