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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the FAOM. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voneiff et al (US20030022271A1 published 01/30/2003; hereinafter Voneiff) and Bolles (US Pat No. 5,746,855A published 05/05/1998) which is incorporated by reference in its entirety by Voneiff (Paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 21, Voneiff teaches a method for tracking samples in microtomy, the method comprising:
reading identifying data from a tissue block (a sample block's code must be read before it can be processed – paragraph 38);
cutting one or more tissue sections from the tissue block (sample block is moved to blade assemblies for cutting – paragraph 87);
printing one or more labels for one or more slides (information may be bar coded, and may be printed on the slide directly, or printed on a label and then affixed to the slide – paragraph 66), the one or more labels comprising information associating the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides with the tissue block (include information regarding the sample slice sequence where several sample slices are taken e.g., "slice 7 of 20" – paragraph 66);
transferring the one or more tissue sections to the one or more slides (the histologic grade slice is transferred to a suitable receiving medium, which may be a slide – paragraph 60) and labeling the one or more slides with the one or more labels (information may be bar coded, and may be printed on the slide directly, or printed on a label and then affixed to the slide – paragraph 66); and
comparing the one or more tissue sections in or on the one or more slides (a bar code on the slide with information regarding the tissue sample – paragraph 66) to the one or more tissue sections on the tissue block (a bar code on the sample block with information about the sample – paragraph 76) to confirm association between the identifying data from the tissue block and the one or more labels on the one or more slides (a system controller 316 matches the code on the sample block with the codes on the slide – paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 22, Voneiff teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising cutting additional one or more tissue sections (histologic grade slices are produced from sample blocks that have been brought to the desired depth for producing histologic grade slices – paragraph 53) only after the one or more tissue sections are placed on the one or more slides and labeled with the one or more labels (a given or pre-set number of histologic grade slices are automatically taken from the sample block's working surface – paragraph 53) (Voneiff teaches multiple sample blocks and takes slices from a sample block after a previous sample block has been sliced and mounted to slides – paragraph 53 and Figs. 1A-B).
Regarding claim 23, Voneiff teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the comparing the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides to the one or more tissue sections in or on the tissue block is based on a size (Slices are removed until the sensor determines that a sufficient cross-sectional area of the tissue sample – paragraph 52), a shape (a sufficient cross-sectional area of the tissue sample is a shape – paragraph 52), and an outline (a sufficient cross-sectional area of the tissue sample comprises an outline – paragraph 52) of a tissue sample in the one or more tissue sections.
Regarding claim 24, Voneiff teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the one or more labels are printed individually for the one or more tissue sections (information may be bar coded, and may be printed on the slide directly, or printed on a label and then affixed to the slide – paragraph 66).
Regarding claim 25, Voneiff teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the one or more slides are labeled with the one or more labels prior to transferring the one or more tissue sections to the one or more slides (When system 300 is ready to process a given sample block, the corresponding slides will be sequentially labeled with some or all of this information – paragraph 106).
Regarding claim 26, Voneiff teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the identifying data comprises at least one of an accession number, a block ID, a patient name, a date when a specimen contained in the tissue block was obtained, a number of tissue sections to be cut from the tissue block (include information regarding the sample slice sequence where several sample slices are taken e.g., "slice 7 of 20" – paragraph 66), or a thickness of the one or more tissue sections to be cut.
Regarding claim 27, Voneiff teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the information associating the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides with the tissue block is the identifying data (include information regarding the sample slice sequence where several sample slices are taken e.g., "slice 7 of 20" – paragraph 66).
Regarding claim 28, Voneiff teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the identifying data from the tissue block is read with a barcode reader (information may be fixed to the block in machine-readable form. For example, this information may be provided in a scannable bar code – paragraph 37) (the slices that are removed from the sample block and monitored by a sensor – paragraph 52) while the one or more tissue sections are cut from the tissue block (the histologic grade slice taken from the sample block is then applied directly to a transfer roller mechanism – paragraph 54).
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.
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 29-31 and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voneiff in view of Stephens et al (US20070141711A1 published 06/21/2007; hereinafter Stephens).
Regarding claim 29, Voneiff teaches the method of claim 21.
However, Voneiff does not teach further comprising marking a transfer medium with markings indicative of the identifying data, wherein: the markings are configured to associate the one or more tissue sections with the tissue block; and the one or more tissue sections are transferred to the one or more slides via the transfer medium.
Stephens teaches laboratory information systems comprising methods for sample processing comprising marking a transfer medium (a tissue cassette – paragraph 19) with markings indicative of the identifying data (The cassettes must have some form of data element written or encoded upon them in either indelible ink, or in a machine-readable label such as a barcode – paragraph 32), wherein:
the markings are configured to associate the one or more tissue sections with the tissue block (cassette must have at least one unique identifier such as a cassette number, case number, accession no., or a combination of the them in order for the lab to track the tissue sample within – paragraph 32); and
the one or more tissue sections are transferred to the one or more slides via the transfer medium (the tissue cassette is placed into a microtome for subsequent cutting operations – paragraph 27) (the histologic grade slices part of a sample in the tissue cassette, and the tissue cassette is used to transfer the sample to the microtome and then histologic grade slices are cut and transferred to the slide – paragraphs 27-28) (the tissue cassette is therefore interpreted as a part of the system that transfers tissue sections to slides). Stephens teaches to use a computer controlled LIS to process more/better/faster samples while unambiguously tracking samples so that mix-ups and errors do not occur (paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the microtomy method, as taught by Voneiff, with the tissue cassette and computer controlled LIS, taught by Stephens, for more/better/faster sample processing while tracking samples so that mix-ups and errors do not occur. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Voneiff and Stephens teach systems for processing sliced tissue sections.
Regarding claim 30, Voneiff, modified by Stephens, teaches the method of claim 29, further comprising verifying correspondence between each of the identifying data from the tissue block, the one or more labels for the one or more slides, and the markings (a software-driven electronic network for connecting lab instruments and computers so that at a minimum their statuses may be monitored through one or more centrally-located computers. Elements of the software allow common control and communication amongst a group of instruments – paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 31, Voneiff teaches the method of claim 21.
However, Voneiff does not teach further comprising transferring the one or more tissue sections to the one or more slides using a transfer medium and comparing the one or more tissue sections in or on the transfer medium and the one or more tissue sections in or on the tissue block to the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides to confirm association of the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides to the one or more tissue sections on the tissue block and the one or more tissue sections on the transfer medium.
Stephens teaches further comprising transferring the one or more tissue sections to the one or more slides using a transfer medium (a tissue cassette – paragraph 19) and comparing (cassette must have at least one unique identifier such as a cassette number, case number, accession no., or a combination of the them in order for the lab to track the tissue sample within – paragraph 32) the one or more tissue sections on the transfer medium and the one or more tissue sections on the tissue block to the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides to confirm association of the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides to the one or more tissue sections on the tissue block and the one or more tissue sections on the transfer medium (a software-driven electronic network for connecting lab instruments and computers so that at a minimum their statuses may be monitored through one or more centrally-located computers. Elements of the software allow common control and communication amongst a group of instruments – paragraph 28). Stephens teaches to use a computer controlled LIS to process more/better/faster samples while unambiguously tracking samples so that mix-ups and errors do not occur (paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the microtomy method, as taught by Voneiff, with the tissue cassette and computer controlled LIS, taught by Stephens, for more/better/faster sample processing while tracking samples so that mix-ups and errors do not occur. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Voneiff and Stephens teach systems for processing sliced tissue sections.
Regarding claim 34, Voneiff teaches a method for tracking samples in microtomy, the method comprising:
reading identifying data from a tissue block (a sample block's code must be read before it can be processed – paragraph 38);
cutting one or more tissue sections from the tissue block (sample block is moved to blade assemblies for cutting – paragraph 87);
printing one or more labels for one or more slides (information may be bar coded, and may be printed on the slide directly, or printed on a label and then affixed to the slide – paragraph 66), the one or more labels comprising information associating the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides with the tissue block (include information regarding the sample slice sequence where several sample slices are taken e.g., "slice 7 of 20" – paragraph 66);
transferring, via a transfer medium (retain the cut section on the tape and subsequently transfer the section to a microscope slide – Bolles column 2 lines 3-4 and 7-8), the one or more tissue sections to one or more slides (the histologic grade slice is transferred to a suitable receiving medium – paragraph 60) and labeling the one or more slides with the one or more labels (information may be bar coded, and may be printed on the slide directly, or printed on a label and then affixed to the slide – paragraph 66), wherein the transfer medium is a movable tape (the sample may be transferred from the first or second transfer roller to the tape in a similar fashion as described above – paragraph 62); and
confirming association of the one or more tissue sections wherein the markings are configured to associate the one or more tissue sections with the tissue block (include information regarding the sample slice sequence where several sample slices are taken e.g., "slice 7 of 20" – paragraph 66).
However, Voneiff does not teach marking the transfer medium with markings indicative of the identifying data.
Stephens teaches a laboratory information systems comprising methods for transferring, the one or more tissue sections via a transfer medium (a tissue cassette – paragraph 19) (cassette must have at least one unique identifier such as a cassette number, case number, accession no., or a combination of the them in order for the lab to track the tissue sample within – paragraph 32). Stephens teaches to use a computer controlled LIS to process more/better/faster samples while unambiguously tracking samples so that mix-ups and errors do not occur (paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tape, as taught by Voneiff, with the marking computer controlled LIS, taught by Stephens, for more/better/faster sample processing while tracking samples so that mix-ups and errors do not occur. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Voneiff and Stephens teach systems for processing sliced tissue sections.
Regarding claim 35, Voneiff, modified by Stephens, teaches the method of claim 34, wherein:
the markings on the transfer medium comprise location markings (at least one unique identifier such as a cassette number, case number, accession no., or a combination of the them in order for the lab to track the tissue sample within – Stephens paragraph 32); and
the identifying data from the tissue block is associated with a location marking on the transfer medium at a point that a tissue section of the one or more tissue sections is transferred to the transfer medium (at least one unique identifier such as a cassette number, case number, accession no., or a combination of the them in order for the lab to track the tissue sample within – Stephens paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 36, Voneiff, modified by Stephens, teaches the method of claim 34, wherein the transfer medium is marked via at least one of thermal inkjet printing (data element written or encoded upon them in either indelible ink – Stephens paragraph 32), continuous inkjet printing, or a thermal transfer print unit.
Regarding claim 37, Voneiff, modified by Stephens, teaches the method of claim 34, further comprising:
associating the identifying data on the tissue block with the markings on the transfer medium (at least one unique identifier such as a cassette number, case number, accession no., or a combination of the them in order for the lab to track the tissue sample within – Stephens paragraph 32); and
following associating the identifying data on the tissue block with the markings on the transfer medium, associating the markings on the transfer medium with the one or more labels printed on the one or more slides (information may be bar coded, and may be printed on the slide directly, or printed on a label and then affixed to the slide – Voneiff paragraph 66) (a system controller 316 matches the code on the sample block with the codes on the slide – Voneiff paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 38, Voneiff, modified by Stephens, teaches the method of claim 34, further comprising verifying correspondence between each of the identifying data from the tissue block, the one or more labels for the one or more slides, and the markings (a system controller 316 matches the code on the sample block with the codes on the slide – Voneiff paragraph 81) (a software-driven electronic network for connecting lab instruments and computers so that at a minimum their statuses may be monitored through one or more centrally-located computers. Elements of the software allow common control and communication amongst a group of instruments – Stephens paragraph 28).
Claims 32 and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voneiff in view of Walter et al (US20100118133A1 published 05/13/2010; hereinafter Walter).
Regarding claim 32, Voneiff teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising comparing the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides (an optical imaging system, may be provided to determine the location of the sample slice relative to a slide – paragraph 61) and the one or more tissue sections on the tissue block (Optical imaging system 348 in conjunction with a robotic clamp 350 adjusts the paraffin block's working surface relative to blades at the next processing station to level the tissue sample and formulate its depth from the working surface of the surface of the paraffin block – paragraph 85) to confirm association between the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides, the one or more tissue sections on the tissue block, and the tissue block (a software-driven electronic network for connecting lab instruments and computers so that at a minimum their statuses may be monitored through one or more centrally-located computers. Elements of the software allow common control and communication amongst a group of instruments – paragraph 28).
However, Voneiff does not teach a baseline image of a tissue sample in the tissue block generated by imaging the tissue block prior to removing the one or more tissue sections from the tissue block.
Walter teaches a, evaluation device 26 for producing thin sections and evaluating the image of the sections comparing the one or more tissue sections (acquiring at least one image of a surface generated by sectioning of the sample by means of a camera 24 – paragraph 6) with a baseline image of a tissue sample in the tissue block generated by imaging the tissue block prior to removing the one or more tissue sections from the tissue block (a trimming depth is reached at which the sectioned area of sample 16 is equal to at least 80% of its maximum cross-sectional area – paragraph 39) (before cutting a shadow image of the sample is presented to camera 24 within its sensing region 48 and is maximum cross-sectional area 44 of the sample – paragraph 54 and Figs. 16-18). Walter teaches to use the evaluation device 26 to gain the ability to determine sufficient precut and switchover to thin-section mode for producing samples (paragraphs 39-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method, as taught by Voneiff, with the evaluation device 26, taught by Walter, to determine sufficient precut and switchover to thin-section mode for producing samples. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Voneiff and Walter teach microtomy methods for producing thin sections.
Regarding claim 39, Voneiff teaches a method for tracking samples in microtomy, the method comprising:
reading identifying data from a tissue block (a sample block's code must be read before it can be processed – paragraph 38);
cutting one or more tissue sections from the tissue block (sample block is moved to blade assemblies for cutting – paragraph 87);
subsequently to cutting (printing in step 114 is after cutting in step 110 – Fig. 1A and paragraphs 60), printing one or more labels for one or more slides (in step 114 slides are printed to correspond to a given sample block before adding sample slice – paragraphs 60-61), the one or more labels comprising information associating the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides with the tissue block (slides are printed to correspond to a given sample block and the number of slide samples required of that sample block – paragraphs 81 and 100);
transferring the one or more tissue sections to one or more slides (the histologic grade slice is transferred to a suitable receiving medium, which may be a slide – paragraph 60) and labeling the one or more slides with the one or more labels (affix a label containing some or all of the information on the side – paragraph 37).
image one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides (Optical imaging technology may also be used to assist in the placement of the sample slice on the slide – paragraph 32).
However, Voneiff does not teach comparing a tissue sample in one or more first images of the tissue block to one or more tissue samples in one or more second images of the one or more tissue sections.
Walter teaches a, evaluation device 26 for producing thin sections and evaluating the image of the sections that comparing (a trimming depth is reached at which the sectioned area of sample 16 is equal to at least 80% of its maximum cross-sectional area – paragraph 39) a tissue sample in one or more first images of the tissue block (before cutting a shadow image of the sample is presented to camera 24 within its sensing region 48 and is maximum cross-sectional area 44 of the sample – paragraph 54 and Figs. 16-18) to one or more tissue samples in one or more second images of the one or more tissue sections (at each sectioning operation to produce a thin section, an image of the surface generated by the sectioning of sample 16 is automatically acquired with the aid of camera 24 – paragraph 40) (the surface imagine is compared to the shadow image to determine 80% maximum cross-sectional area – paragraph 46). Walter teaches to use the evaluation device 26 to gain the ability to determine sufficient precut and switchover to thin-section mode for producing samples (paragraphs 39-40 and 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method, as taught by Voneiff, with the evaluation device 26, taught by Walter, to determine sufficient precut and switchover to thin-section mode for producing samples. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Voneiff and Walter teach microtomy methods for producing thin sections.
Regarding claim 40, Voneiff, modified by Walter, teaches the method of claim 39, further comprising cutting additional one or more tissue sections (histologic grade slices are produced from sample blocks that have been brought to the desired depth for producing histologic grade slices – paragraph 53) only after the one or more tissue sections are placed on the one or more slides and labeled with the one or more labels (a given or pre-set number of histologic grade slices are automatically taken from the sample block's working surface – paragraph 53) (Voneiff teaches multiple sample blocks and takes slices from a sample block after a previous sample block has been sliced and mounted to slides – paragraph 53 and Figs. 1A-B).
Regarding claim 41, Voneiff, modified by Walter, teaches the method of claim 39, wherein printing the one or more labels for the one or more slides (information may be bar coded, and may be printed on the slide directly, or printed on a label and then affixed to the slide – Voneiff paragraph 66) is based on the comparison of the tissue sample in the one or more first images of the tissue block to the one or more tissue samples in the one or more second images of the one or more tissue sections (the slides a labeled after the sample slices are made – Voneiff paragraph 60).
Claims 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voneiff in view of Walter and Stephens.
Regarding claim 33, Voneiff teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising comparing the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides (an optical imaging system, may be provided to determine the location of the sample slice relative to a slide – paragraph 61), the one or more tissue sections on the tissue block (Optical imaging system 348 in conjunction with a robotic clamp 350 adjusts the paraffin block's working surface relative to blades at the next processing station to level the tissue sample and formulate its depth from the working surface of the surface of the paraffin block – paragraph 85),.
However, Voneiff does not teach the one or more tissue sections on a transfer medium to confirm association between the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides, the one or more tissue sections on the tissue block, the tissue block, and the one or more tissue sections on the transfer medium; a baseline image of a tissue sample in the tissue block generated by imaging the tissue block prior to removing the one or more tissue sections from the tissue block
Walter teaches a, evaluation device 26 for producing thin sections and evaluating the image of the sections comparing the one or more tissue sections (acquiring at least one image of a surface generated by sectioning of the sample by means of a camera 24 – paragraph 6) with a baseline image of a tissue sample in the tissue block generated by imaging the tissue block prior to removing the one or more tissue sections from the tissue block (a trimming depth is reached at which the sectioned area of sample 16 is equal to at least 80% of its maximum cross-sectional area – paragraph 39) (before cutting a shadow image of the sample is presented to camera 24 within its sensing region 48 and is maximum cross-sectional area 44 of the sample – paragraph 54 and Figs. 16-18). Walter teaches to use the evaluation device 26 to gain the ability to determine sufficient precut and switchover to thin-section mode for producing samples (paragraphs 39-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method, as taught by Voneiff, with the evaluation device 26, taught by Walter, to determine sufficient precut and switchover to thin-section mode for producing samples. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Voneiff and Walter teach microtomy methods for producing thin sections.
However, Voneiff modified by Walter, does not teach the one or more tissue sections on a transfer medium to confirm association between the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides, the one or more tissue sections on the tissue block, the tissue block, and the one or more tissue sections on the transfer medium.
Stephens teaches the one or more tissue sections on a transfer medium ("cassette data" refers to the unique identifying number for the cassette, if any. Cassette data would be used by the histology lab to track cassettes – paragraph 33) to confirm association between the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides, the one or more tissue sections on the tissue block, the tissue block, and the one or more tissue sections on the transfer medium (a software-driven electronic network for connecting lab instruments and computers so that at a minimum their statuses may be monitored through one or more centrally-located computers. Elements of the software allow common control and communication amongst a group of instruments – paragraph 28). Stephens teaches to use a computer controlled LIS to process more/better/faster samples while unambiguously tracking samples so that mix-ups and errors do not occur (paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the microtomy method, as taught by Voneiff as modified by Walter, with the tissue cassette and computer controlled LIS, taught by Stephens, for more/better/faster sample processing while tracking samples so that mix-ups and errors do not occur. One of ordinary skill would have expected that this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success because Voneiff, Walter, and Stephens teach systems for processing sliced tissue sections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Point 1: The Applicant’s argument regarding claims 21 and 29-33 that “Voneiff is entirely silent with respect to "comparing the one or more tissue sections on the one or more slides to the one or more tissue sections in or on the tissue block to confirm association between the identifying data from the tissue block and the one or more labels on the one or more slides" is not persuasive.
The examiner points out that Voneiff teaches comparing the one or more tissue sections in or on the one or more slides (a bar code on the slide with information regarding the tissue sample – paragraph 66) to the one or more tissue sections on the tissue block (a bar code on the sample block with information about the sample – paragraph 76) to confirm association between the identifying data from the tissue block and the one or more labels on the one or more slides (a system controller 316 matches the code on the sample block with the codes on the slide – paragraph 81).
Point 2: The Applicant’s argument regarding claims 34-38 that Voneiff, Walter, and Stephens fail to teach "wherein the transfer medium is a movable tape" is not persuasive.
The examiner points out that Voneiff teaches “wherein the transfer medium is a movable tape” (the sample may be transferred from the first or second transfer roller to the tape in a similar fashion as described above – paragraph 62).
Point 3: The Applicant’s argument regarding claims 39-41 that “Voneiff does not appear to disclose, "subsequently to cutting, printing one or more labels for one or more slides" is not persuasive.
The examiner points out that Voneiff teaches the limitation with the histologic grade slice have been made cut and then the slides are printed (printing in step 114 is after cutting in step 110 – Fig. 1A and paragraphs 60) to correspond to a given sample block (paragraph 60). Furthermore, Voneiff uses “printed” to indicate an action of printing and labeling slides (paragraphs 81 and 100).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINGCHEN SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at 5712727129. 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.
/T.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796