DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-20 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 1 recites applying a first force to a top end of the receptacle and applying a second force to the bottom end of the receptacle wherein the second force is less than the first force. However, this is unclear how the second force is less than the first force as if the second force is less than the first force, the receptacle would be accelerating in the direction of the first force, however, the claim recites that the receptacle is provided to a receptacle well and therefore implies that the receptacle is stationary and not accelerating as the claim seems to imply. Claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 (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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 6,144,448, hereinafter Mitoma.
Regarding claim 1, Mitoma teaches a method (figure 2) comprising: providing a receptacle (item 7) to a receptacle well (the opening in item 9 where item 7 is) of a thermally-conductive receptacle holder (column 6, lines 21-30), wherein a through hole extends from an inner surface of the receptacle well to an outer surface of the receptacle holder (figure 2); applying a first force to a top end of the receptacle disposed within the receptacle well (figure 2, gravity would be applying first force at the top end); contacting a bottom end of the receptacle disposed within the receptacle well with an end of an optical fiber disposed within the through hole (figure 2); and applying a second force to the bottom end of the receptacle with the end of the optical fiber, wherein the second force is less than the first force (figure 2, the optical fiber is held in place by item 11 and therefore would be applying a second force to the bottom end of the receptacle).
Regarding claim 2, Mitoma teaches the receptacle holder includes a plurality of receptacle wells (column 5, lines 62-66), and the through hole extends from an inner surface of each receptacle well to the outer surface of the receptacle holder (figure 2), wherein providing a receptacle to a receptacle well comprises providing each of a plurality of receptacles to an associated one of the plurality of receptacle wells (figure 2), and wherein applying a first force to a top end of the receptacle disposed within the receptacle well comprises simultaneously applying the first force to the top end of each of the plurality of receptacles disposed within its associated receptacle well (figure 2, gravity would simultaneously applying the first force to the top end of each receptacle).
Regarding claim 3, Mitoma teaches wherein contacting the receptacle disposed within the receptacle well with the end of the optical fiber disposed within the through hole comprises contacting each receptacle disposed within its associated receptacle well with an end of an associated optical fiber disposed within the through hole of the associated receptacle well (figure 2), and wherein applying a second force to a bottom end of the receptacle with the end of the optical fiber comprises applying the second force to a bottom end of each receptacle disposed within its associated receptacle well with the end of the associated optical fiber disposed within the through hole of the associated receptacle well (figure 2, the optical fiber is held in place by item 11 and therefore would be applying a second force to the bottom end of the receptacle).
Regarding claim 4, Mitoma teaches further comprising adding a reaction mixture to the receptacle (column 7, lines 17-21) and closing the receptacle with a cap that is situated above a top surface of the receptacle holder when the receptacle is disposed within the receptacle well (column 6, lines 21-30).
Regarding claim 5, Mitoma teaches further comprising at least one of transmitting an excitation signal from an excitation signal source through the optical fiber and to the receptacle (column 3, lines 42-51) and transmitting an emission signal from the receptacle through the optical fiber to an emission signal detector (columns 3-4, lines 52-8).
Regarding claim 7, Mitoma teaches further comprising altering a temperature of the receptacle holder to thereby alter a temperature of the contents of the receptacle disposed within the receptacle well (columns 4-5, lines 52-3).
Regarding claim 9, Mitoma teaches wherein providing the receptacle to the receptacle well of the thermally-conductive receptacle holder comprises transferring the receptacle to the receptacle well with a receptacle transport mechanism (column 7, lines 17-35).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 6 and 16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitoma in view of United States Application Publication No. 2011/0312102, hereinafter Jo.
Regarding claim 6, Mitoma teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Mitoma fails to teach the first force is applied to the top end of the receptacle with a cover that is movable between an open position and a closed position relative to the receptacle holder, and wherein the first force is applied by moving the cover to the closed position to contact the top end of the receptacle.
Jo teaches a PCR device which utilizes a top cover (Jo, item 1150) which cover the tubes which can maintain a predetermined temperature by heating the tubes during a temperature change period for nucleic acid amplification, thereby preventing a liquid sample from being evaporated and blurred during the nucleic acid amplification which interrupts detection of the emission light (Jo, paragraph [0167]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized a cover which is movable between an open position and a closed position relative to the receptacle holder which applies the first force because it would maintain a predetermined temperature by heating the tubes during a temperature change period for nucleic acid amplification, thereby preventing a liquid sample from being evaporated and blurred during the nucleic acid amplification which interrupts detection of the emission light (Jo, paragraph [0167]).
Regarding claim 16, Mitoma teaches all limitations of claim 3; however, Mitoma fails to teach the first force is applied to the top end of each of the plurality of receptacles with a cover that is movable between an open position and a closed position relative to the receptacle holder, wherein the first force is applied by moving the cover to the closed position to contact the top end of each of the plurality of receptacles.
Jo teaches a PCR device which utilizes a top cover (Jo, item 1150) which cover the tubes which can maintain a predetermined temperature by heating the tubes during a temperature change period for nucleic acid amplification, thereby preventing a liquid sample from being evaporated and blurred during the nucleic acid amplification which interrupts detection of the emission light (Jo, paragraph [0167]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized a cover which is movable between an open position and a closed position relative to the receptacle holder which applies the first force because it would maintain a predetermined temperature by heating the tubes during a temperature change period for nucleic acid amplification, thereby preventing a liquid sample from being evaporated and blurred during the nucleic acid amplification which interrupts detection of the emission light (Jo, paragraph [0167]).
Claims 8, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitoma in view of WO 2012/012779, hereinafter Wilson.
Regarding claim 8, Mitoma teaches all limitations of claim 7; however, Mitoma fails to teach altering the temperature of the receptacle holder comprises applying a current across a thermal element disposed between the receptacle holder and a thermally-conductive support.
Wilson teaches a cartridge heater with thermal elements (Wilson, each of items 3027 in figure 20(b) which provides thermal energy though the lateral side surface to each of the plurality of receptacle wells and one or more force-applying bodies positioned to provide a compressive force to a second lateral side surface (Wilson, paragraph [00519], the left hand heater, item 3027, and the force applying body on the right side) with the thermal element coupled to a lateral side surface of a support (Wilson, item 3007(b)) extending up from a base (Wilson, figure 20(a)). The left hand heater component and the force applying bodies allow for the heater to be opened and closed and to press the cartridge against the left hand heater component (Wilson, paragraphs [00519] and [00520]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the both of the thermal elements, with one of the thermal elements coupled to a first support in sliding arrangement with the receptacle holders of Wilson in the device of Jo to apply heat to the side of the of the receptacle holder because it would allow for the heater to be opened and closed and to press the cartridge against the left hand heater component (Wilson, paragraphs [00519] and [00520]).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Mitoma teaches all limitations of claim 8; however, Mitoma fails to teach dissipating heat from the support with a heat sink in thermal communication with the support and the support comprises a base portion and an upright portion, the base portion having a plurality of through-holes, wherein each of the through-holes of the base portion is in alignment with a corresponding one of the through-holes of the receptacle holder, wherein the thermal element is positioned between a side surface of the upright portion and an opposed side surface of the receptacle holder, and wherein the base portion of the support is disposed on a top surface of the heat sink, and wherein the heat sink comprises a plurality of through-holes, each of the through-holes of the heat sink being in alignment with one of the through-holes of the receptacle holder, and wherein each of the optical fibers passes through a corresponding one of the through-holes of the heat sink.
Wilson teaches a cartridge heater with thermal elements (Wilson, each of items 3027 in figure 20(b) which provides thermal energy though the lateral side surface to each of the plurality of receptacle wells and one or more force-applying bodies positioned to provide a compressive force to a second lateral side surface (Wilson, paragraph [00519], the left hand heater, item 3027, and the force applying body on the right side) with the thermal element coupled to a lateral side surface of a support (Wilson, item 3007(b)) extending up from a base (Wilson, figure 20(a)). The left hand heater component and the force applying bodies allow for the heater to be opened and closed and to press the cartridge against the left hand heater component (Wilson, paragraphs [00519] and [00520]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the both of the thermal elements, with one of the thermal elements coupled to a first support in sliding arrangement with the receptacle holders of Wilson in the device of Jo to apply heat to the side of the of the receptacle holder because it would allow for the heater to be opened and closed and to press the cartridge against the left hand heater component (Wilson, paragraphs [00519] and [00520]).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitoma in view of United States Patent No. 5,804,144, hereinafter Tervamkl.
Regarding claim 10, Mitoma teaches all limitations of claim 9; however, Mitoma fails to teach the receptacle transport mechanism is a pipettor.
Tervamkl teaches a piston pipette which has a body (Tervamkl, item 1) having a plunger slidingly disposed therein (Tervamkl, item 3); one or more limbs hingedly attached to the body (Tervamkl, item 6) and positioned in sliding communication with a knob fixedly attached to the plunger (Tervamkl, item 12), wherein when the plunger is in a first position, a lower portion of the one or more limbs are proximal to the body (Tervamkl, figure 7), and wherein when the plunger is in a second position, the lower portion of the one or more limbs are extended in a radial outward direction relative to the body (Tervamkl, figure 6). The pipette is designed to be gripped like a pencil and therefore liquid can be dosed very precisely with the pipette to very small places (Tervamkl, column 1, lines 55-61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have added the piston pipette of Tervamkl to the device of modified Jo because the pipette can be gripped like a pencil and therefore liquid can be dosed very precisely with the pipette to very small places (Tervamkl, column 1, lines 55-61).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitoma in view of United States Application Publication No. 2008/0022808, hereinafter Owen.
Regarding claim 11, Mitoma teaches all limitations of claim 9; however, Mitoma fails to teach further comprising removing the receptacle from the receptacle transport mechanism with a stripper plate, wherein the stripper plate is mounted to be moveable with respect to the receptacle holder between an unlocked position and a locked position, wherein a receptacle can be transferred to or removed from the receptacle well when the stripper plate is in the unlocked position, and wherein a receptacle disposed in the receptacle well is inhibited from removal from the receptacle well when the stripper plate is in the locked position, and wherein removing the receptacle from the receptacle transport mechanism with the stripper plate comprises moving stripper plate from the unlocked position to the locked position after the receptacle has been transferred to the receptacle well by the receptacle transport mechanism and before the receptacle transport mechanism is withdrawn from the receptacle well.
Owen teaches a tube holder which has a stripper plate which moves between two positions which either hold the tubes in position or allows the tubes to be removed from their position so that the tubes can be held in place when desired (Owen, paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have added a movable stripper plate which can either lock or unlock the receptacles in their respective holder so that it would allow for the receptacles to be moved and/or held in place as desired (Owen, paragraph [0045]).
Claims 12, 14 and 15 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitoma and Jo as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2005/0206895, hereinafter Salmelainen.
Regarding claim 12, Mitoma and Jo teach all limitations of claim 6; however, they fail to teach applying the second force to the bottom end of the receptacle with the end of the optical fiber comprises moving the end of the optical fiber within the through hole into contact with the bottom end of the-receptacle disposed within the receptacle well, and wherein the method comprises associating movement of the optical fiber within the through hole with movement of the cover from the open position to the closed position.
Salmelainen teaches making the optical fiber movable as it would allow the height position of the end of the optical fiber to be adjusted to a distance from the sample so that the conical light beam coming from the optical fiber produces on the bottom of the sample well a light spot exactly the size of the bottom (Salmelainen, paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the optical fiber movable and therefore move when the cover is opened or closed because it would allow the height position of the end of the optical fiber to be adjusted to a distance from the sample so that the conical light beam coming from the optical fiber produces on the bottom of the sample well a light spot exactly the size of the bottom (Salmelainen, paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 14, Mitoma and Jo teach all limitations of claim 6; however, they fail to teach applying the second force to the bottom end of the receptacle with the end of the optical fiber comprises moving the end of the optical fiber within the through hole into contact with the bottom end of the receptacle disposed within the receptacle well prior to, during, or after moving the cover to the closed position.
Salmelainen teaches making the optical fiber movable as it would allow the height position of the end of the optical fiber to be adjusted to a distance from the sample so that the conical light beam coming from the optical fiber produces on the bottom of the sample well a light spot exactly the size of the bottom (Salmelainen, paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the optical fiber movable and therefore move when the cover is opened or closed because it would allow the height position of the end of the optical fiber to be adjusted to a distance from the sample so that the conical light beam coming from the optical fiber produces on the bottom of the sample well a light spot exactly the size of the bottom (Salmelainen, paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 15, Mitoma and Jo teach all limitations of claim 6; however, they fail to teach applying the second force to the bottom end of the receptacle with the end of the optical fiber comprises moving the end of the optical fiber within the through hole into contact with the bottom end of the receptacle disposed within the receptacle well, and wherein movement of the end of the optical fiber within the through-hole of the receptacle well is caused by movement of the cover to the open position or by movement of the cover to the closed position.
Salmelainen teaches making the optical fiber movable as it would allow the height position of the end of the optical fiber to be adjusted to a distance from the sample so that the conical light beam coming from the optical fiber produces on the bottom of the sample well a light spot exactly the size of the bottom (Salmelainen, paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the optical fiber movable and therefore move when the cover is opened or closed because it would allow the height position of the end of the optical fiber to be adjusted to a distance from the sample so that the conical light beam coming from the optical fiber produces on the bottom of the sample well a light spot exactly the size of the bottom (Salmelainen, paragraph [0079]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights