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 Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract employs legal phraseology such as “comprises” . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the hoses connected to the quick coupling connection (claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation Content of Specification (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS : See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p). The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”. A claim is only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus, "[i] nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus. It is noted that the claims mention samples and fluids. However no samples nor fluids are positively claimed as elements of the apparatus. The samples and fluids are articles/materials intended be, can be worked upon, used with the apparatus. However, it is noted that the claims are directed to an apparatus and the apparatus is not required to be used in any process with any unclaimed materials/articles. It is presumed that the phrase “the drawer” refers to the movable drawer. It is suggested that consistent language be employed throughout the claims. Claim Objections Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. 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). It appears that all of the structures recited as defining the automated analyzer system of claim 12 are recited as defining the system of claim 1. It is unclear what is the structural distinction of claim 12 from claim 1. The name of the system of claim 12, “an automated analyzer system” does not provide for any structural distinction because the system is defined by the positively claimed structural elements, listed in the body of the claim. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-12 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. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. As to claim 1, it is unclear which/what structures are intended to define the invention/system because the language and formatting of the claim. Therefore, it is confusing as what is the scope of the claim. It is presumed that the term “comprising” is directed to the system. Therefore, it appears as if the claim should read as “A system comprising… As to claim 1 it is unclear if the system is intended comprise a plurality of containers because such are not clearly listed as elements of the invention. The phrase “ for receiving a plurality of containers with samples ” recited in the preamble is directed to the intended use of the entire system. It is presumed that the term “with” is intended to be “containing”. The phrase “ for receiving a plurality of containers ” recited in line 2 of the claim is directed to the intended use of the frame. However, it is noted that such plurality of containers are not recited as containing samples. Therefore, such plurality of containers are not the same as the plurality of containers recited in the preamble of the claim. As to claim 1, it is unclear if applicant intends for the system to comprise a housing because reciting that the (movable) drawer is connected to a housing does not clearly establish that the system comprises such housing. It is unclear what comprises the first longitudinal inner side wall. It is presumed that the first longitudinal inner side wall is an element of the movable drawer. To clearly establish what structural elements define (the scope of) the system which is consistent with the specification and drawings, it appears as if the claim should read as: 1. A system comprising: a plurality of containers , each of the plurality of containers containing a sample; a housing comprising two longitudinal sides ; two pull-out rails; a movable drawer comprising : a frame for receiving the plurality of containers ; a plurality of longitudinal inner side walls ; and a plurality of vertically arranged spacers on a first longitudinal inner side wall of the plurality of longitudinal inner side walls separating the frame into compartments, wherein a respective container of the plurality of containers is located within a respective compartment of the compartment s , and wherein the movable drawer is connected to the housing by the two pull-out rails respectively located on the two longitudinal sides of the housing that is located below and connected to the frame of the movable drawer; wherein each respective container of the plurality of containers containing a sample comprises: ( ….provide for further language consistent with that above , such as) two slanted corners that are configured to allow each respective container of the plurality of containers to be located within a respective compartment of the compartments in only a single orientation of the respective container in the respective compartment; a first access point and a second access point (each structurally defined in the claim) for adding and removing fluids; {wherein the first access point is a coupling connection and the second access point is a funnel-shaped opening on a surface of…); and a bottom surface including a bent part , dome that projects inwards towards an interior of the respective container ; and the housing is arranged below the movable drawer, and the housing further compr ises a respective ultrasonic sensor arranged below each dome of each respective container of the plurality of containers. Although the examiner has provided for suggested amendments, it is requested that applicant verify that such amendments and/or any amendments made by applicate are supported by and are consistent with the originally filed specification. As to claim 1, it is unclear if the frame actually comprises compartments and if a container is actually located in each of the compartments because the phrases “ for separating the frame into compartments ” and “ configured to receive a container ” are directed to intended use. See above suggested claim language. Claim 1 recites the limitation "both sides of the housing" in the last line of the first paragraph . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No housing has been positively claimed nor recited as comprising and longitudinal sides. As to claim 1, 5, and 9, i t is unclear which/what containers are being referenced “the plurality of containers” because as noted above , claim 1 provides for two prior recitations of “a plurality of containers”. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the container in the compartment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No container has been recited nor claimed as being located in any compartment. I t is unclear which/what container is being referenced by the phrase “the container” recited in claims 1, 3, and 7 because as noted above claim 1 provides for two prior recitations of “a plurality of containers”. As to claim 1, i t is unclear which/what container is being referenced by the phrase “the c ompartment ” because the claim previously recites “compartments”. As to claim 1, it is unclear what is structurally required to define “first and second access points” because such “points” are not defined as being any specific structure in the claim. It is noted that “for adding and removing fluids” is directed to intended use of such unspecified “ points ” . Claim 1 recites the limitation "their bottom surface" and “the container’s bottom surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what the pronoun “their” is intended to reference and what/which container is being referenced by “the container’s” because the claim does not clearly provide for such. It is noted that no container nor anything else has been claimed as comprising any bottom surface. Furthermore, it is unclear if it is intended for a specific structure (bottom surface of each of the plurality of containers) to comprise a dome . If so, the claim should clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “inwards” because there is no relative basis provided for in the claim to indicate what is “inwards”. As to claim 1, in the last paragraph, it is unclear what comprises an ultrasonic sensor because the claim as drafted does not clearly indicate such. Claim 1 recites the limitation "each dome of a container…" in the last line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See also above rejections. Claims 2-11 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim. As to claim 2, the claim is directed to the housing which is not positively claimed as an element of the system. Furthermore, neither of the self-closing mechanism and locking mechanism have been specifically defined as being any specific structure in the claim. It is unclear what is required to be a self-closing mechanism and a locking mechanism because the housing has not been established as comprising any structures that can be opened, closed, and locked. Nor is there indication as to how anything can close itself. As to claims 3 and 9, it is unclear what is structurally required of a connection to be “a quick coupling connection” because such connection is not defined in the claims as being any specific structure. The term “ quick ” in claim s 3 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim s indefinite. The term “ quick ” is not defined by the claim s , the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although no connecting step is ever required to be performed, there is no indication as to what amount time is considered as “quick”. What may be considered as quick to one person may not be considered as such to another and vice versa. As to claim 3, it is unclear if it is intended for the suction lance to be an element of the invention, if is intended for the system or a positively claimed element to comprise a suction lance because the claim does not clearly recite such. Reciting that a claimed structure is connected to a suction lance not previously claimed does not require the suction lance to be an element of the invention (any specific container). See also rejection above directed to “the container”. As to claim 4, it is unclear what upper surface of what is being referenced in the claim because the claim does not clearly recite such. As to claim 5, it is unclear what is meant by “different volume(s)” because it is unclear if such refers to volumetric capacities or volumetric content of the at least two containers because the claim does not provide for such. See also rejections above directed to “the plurality of containers”. As to claim 6, it is unclear what is the structural nexus/relationship, connectivity of the funnel shaped opening and T-shaped handle to prior positively claimed elements of claim 1 because the claim does not clearly recite such. As to claim 7, in addition to the prior applicable rejections above, it is unclear if the recess or any other positively claimed element is required to comprise a spring (located in the recess) because the claim does not clearly provide for such. The “for accommodating…” clause is directed to intended use of the recess. Claim 7 recites the limitation " the drawer's longitudinal side walls ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation " the drawer's position ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitations "the hoses" and “the quick coupling connection…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. As to claim 9, it is unclear what is structurally required of chain to be an “energy” chain because the claim does specifically recite such. It is presumed that the system is intended to comprise a chain comprising individual chain links for accomodating hoses (not claimed as elements; nor required to be present and connected to any claimed structures); wherein the chain is connected to and between the movable drawer and the housing. If so, the claim should clearly recite such and if it is intends for each of the plurality of containers comprise a coupling connection and the system to comprise a hose connected to each of the coupling connections of the plurality of containers, wherein each hose is accommodated in a respective one of the individual chain links, then the claim should clearly recite such. As to claim 10, it is unclear if it is intended for the system, drawer, or housing to comprise a damped self-closing mechanism, what is structurally required to be considered as such a mechanism, and such mechanism closes because the claim does not recite such. As to claim 11, it is unclear if it is intended for the system or drawer to comprise a bolt because the claim does not recite such. It is unclear what the pronoun “it” references (presumptively “the drawer”). It is further noted that the “when” clause is directed to a condition that is never required to occur. There is no indication in the claim the drawer comprises any structure that can be opened and close nor that the drawer can be closed/opened relative to any other positively claim structure (allows some structure to be opened and closed via the drawer). It is noted that claim 12 employs the same or similar language of claim 1. Therefore, applicant should see prior applicable rejections of claim 1 above. As to claim 12, it is unclear how the positively claimed elements define “an automated analy zer system” because there are no structures positively claimed that can provide for automated analysis of anything. It is unclear what structures recited in claim 12 are intended to define the system because the language and formatting of the claim does not provide for a clear indication of such so as to determine what is the scope of the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. This is based upon the examiners interpretation of what scope of claim 1 intended to be. See suggested claim amendments of claim 1 above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record while teaching drawers (or structural equivalents) does not disclose a system comprising the elements as provided for above in the suggested amendment s/interpretation of the intended scope of claim 1. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baggio; Fabian et al., VanSickler ; Michael T. et al.; TIDD; Jennifer L. et al.; YAMASHITA; Taichiro et al.; KANG; Junghun et al.; TSUJIMURA; Naoto et al.; OPALSKY; David et al.; Shoham; Gilad; Huber; David et al.; MARTINELL GISPERT-SAUCH; ENRIQUE et al.; Brennan; Joseph et al.; BUSE; David A. et al.; Brennan; Joseph et al.; Johns; Charles W.; Hajrovic ; Midhat et al.; Miller; Jonathan Matthew et al.; Hughes; Thomas Fergus, Favuzzi ; John A. et al.; Tseung; Ken K. et al.; Vent, Albert et al.; Tseung, Ken K. et al.; and Jordan; Willie W. et al. disclose devices/systems comprising drawers or equivalent, similar structures. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1258 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Charles Capozzi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /BRIAN R GORDON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798