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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 March 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-25 were originally filed.
Claims 3, 7, 11, 16, and 22 were canceled by the preliminary amendment filed 01 January 2024.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-19, 21, and 23-25 were amended by the preliminary amendment filed 01 January 2024.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-21, and 23-25 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph1:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the uniform mixing mechanism…” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. — Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Re claim 19, while it does include all of the limitations of claim 1, it fails to further limit its subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ju et al., US20200292565 (hereinafter “JU”).
Re claim 1, JU discloses a sample processing apparatus, comprising a uniform mixing mechanism and a magnetic attraction mechanism, wherein
the sample processing apparatus further comprises at least one of a sample tube and a reaction tube [0110];
the uniform mixing mechanism is configured to perform uniform mixing processing on a biological sample in the sample tube and/or a biological sample in the reaction tube [0110]; and
the magnetic attraction mechanism comprises a magnet capable of moving relative to the sample tube and/or the reaction tube so as to perform magnetic attraction processing on the biological sample in the sample tube and/or the biological sample in the reaction tube [0110]
Re claim 2, JU discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. JU further discloses:
wherein the uniform mixing mechanism comprises a uniform mixing driving motor and a tube holder, the uniform mixing driving motor being in transmission connection with the tube holder [0085];
the tube holder is connected to a rotating shaft of the uniform mixing driving motor [0085];
the sample tube and/or the reaction tube are provided in the tube holder [0085]; and
the uniform mixing driving motor is capable of driving the tube holder to rotate axially, so as to drive the biological sample in the sample tube and/or the biological sample in the reaction tube to undergo uniform mixing processing [0085]
Re claim 4, JU discloses the apparatus of claim 2, as shown above. JU further discloses:
wherein a side wall of the tube holder is provided with at least one notch [0076]; and
the uniform mixing mechanism further comprises a position monitoring component configured to monitor a rotational position of the tube holder such that when the tube holder stops rotating, the at least one notch faces the magnet [0076]
Re claim 14, JU discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. JU further discloses:
a plurality of sample tubes and a plurality of reaction tubes [Fig.11 and associated text], wherein the sample processing apparatus comprises a plurality of processing channels arranged at intervals, each processing channel comprising one of the sample tubes and at least one of the reaction tubes [0067]
Re claim 17, JU discloses the apparatus of claim 14, as shown above. JU further discloses:
wherein the magnet of the magnetic attraction mechanism is capable of covering the plurality of processing channels so as to perform magnetic attraction processing on the biological samples in the plurality of sample tubes and/or the biological samples in the plurality of reaction tubes of the plurality of processing channels [0067-0069]
Re claim 18, JU discloses the apparatus of claim 14, as shown above. JU further discloses:
wherein the magnetic attraction mechanism comprises a plurality of magnets, each magnet being configured to perform magnetic attraction processing on the biological sample in the sample tube and/or the biological sample in the reaction tube in one of the processing channels [Fig.11 and associated text]
Re claim 19, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re claim 20, JU discloses the device of claim 19, as shown above. JU further discloses:
a pipetting apparatus and a portal frame, wherein the portal frame comprises a base and a moving beam capable of moving relative to the base; and the sample processing apparatus is provided on the base, and the pipetting apparatus is provided on the moving beam and configured to implement a pipetting operation on the sample tube and/or the reaction tube [0067-0068]
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JU in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Re claim 5, JU discloses the apparatus of claim 4, as shown above.
JU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the position monitoring component comprises a photoelectric sensor and a baffle; the photoelectric sensor is fixed relative to a housing of the uniform mixing driving motor, and the baffle is fixed relative to the tube holder; and the photoelectric sensor is configured to detect a position of the baffle and thus detect the rotational position of the tube holder
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the use of photoelectric sensors to determined a location of a baffle or similar structure was old and well-known at the time of filing of the instant invention.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify JU to include such a well-known feature. One would have been motivated to do so in order to design a system to analyze biological samples that is efficient and avoids cross-contamination (see at least JU [0003]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the Examiner’s assertion merely teaches that it is well-known to include such a feature in a biological sampling system. Since the Examiner’s assertion discloses a well-known feature in the art of biological sampling, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JU in view of Pais et al., AU2016297922A1 (hereinafter “PAIS”).
Re claim 6, JU discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above.
JU further discloses herein the magnetic attraction mechanism comprises a first magnetic attraction mechanism, the first magnetic attraction mechanism comprising a first magnet and a first magnetic attraction driving motor, wherein the first magnet is in transmission connection with the first magnetic attraction driving motor [Fig.11 and associated text]
JU fails to explicitly disclose the first magnet is provided between the sample tube and the reaction tube; and the first magnetic attraction driving motor is capable of driving the first magnet to move between the sample tube and the reaction tube, so as to perform magnetic attraction processing on the biological sample in the sample tube and/or the biological sample in the reaction tube
However, PAIS, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a magnetic biological sampling system wherein a magnet is provided between a sample tube and a reaction tube; and a first magnetic attraction driving motor is capable of driving the magnet to move between the sample tube and the reaction tube, so as to perform magnetic attraction processing on the biological sample in the sample tube and/or the biological sample in the reaction tube [p.22/ll.1-28]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify JU to include well-known design features of PAIS. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a simple, low-power, automated process of biological sampling (see at least PAIS [Abstract]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, PAIS merely teaches that it is well-known to include such a feature in a biological sampling system. Since the Examiner’s assertion discloses a well-known feature in the art of biological sampling, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 9, JU/PAIS renders obvious the apparatus of claim 6, as shown above.
JU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first magnetic attraction mechanism further comprises a second magnetic attraction driving motor; and the second magnetic attraction driving motor is configured to drive the first magnet to move in a vertical direction
However, PAIS, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a magnetic biological sampling system wherein a first magnetic attraction mechanism further comprises a second magnetic attraction driving motor; and the second magnetic attraction driving motor is configured to drive the first magnet to move in a vertical direction [p.22/ll.1-28]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify JU to include well-known design features of PAIS. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a simple, low-power, automated process of biological sampling (see at least PAIS [Abstract]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, PAIS merely teaches that it is well-known to include such a feature in a biological sampling system. Since the Examiner’s assertion discloses a well-known feature in the art of biological sampling, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claims 8, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JU/PAIS in further view of Hoyer, US20170259277 (hereinafter “HOYER”).
Re claim 8, JU/PAIS renders obvious the apparatus of claim 6, as shown above.
JU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first magnetic attraction mechanism further comprises a magnetic shield; the first magnet comprises an upper-layer sub-magnet and a lower-layer sub-magnet arranged in a vertical direction; and the magnetic shield is provided between the upper-layer sub-magnet and the reaction tube
However, HOYER, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a magnetic biological sampling system wherein a magnetic attraction mechanism further comprises a magnetic shield; the magnet comprises an upper-layer sub-magnet and a lower-layer sub-magnet arranged in a vertical direction; and the magnetic shield is provided between the upper-layer sub-magnet and the reaction tube [Figs.42-43 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify JU to include well-known magnetic shielding features of HOYER. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the characteristics of the magnetic field generated by the magnets (see at least HOYER [0005]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, HOYER merely teaches that it is well-known to include a particular magnetic shielding design in a biological sampling system. Since the Examiner’s assertion discloses a well-known feature in the art of biological sampling, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 10, JU/PAIS renders obvious the apparatus of claim 6, as shown above.
JU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic attraction mechanism further comprises a second magnetic attraction mechanism, the second magnetic attraction mechanism comprising a second magnet and a third magnetic attraction driving motor, wherein the second magnet is in transmission connection with the third magnetic attraction driving motor; the second magnet and the first magnet are provided on two opposite sides of the reaction tube; and the third magnetic attraction driving motor is capable of driving the second magnet to move relative to the reaction tube, so as to perform magnetic attraction processing on the biological sample in the reaction tube
However, PAIS, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a magnetic biological sampling system wherein a magnetic attraction mechanism further comprises a second magnetic attraction mechanism, the second magnetic attraction mechanism comprising a second magnet and a third magnetic attraction driving motor, wherein the second magnet is in transmission connection with the third magnetic attraction driving motor [p.22/ll.1-28]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify JU to include well-known design features of PAIS. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a simple, low-power, automated process of biological sampling (see at least PAIS [Abstract]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, PAIS merely teaches that it is well-known to include such a feature in a biological sampling system. Since the Examiner’s assertion discloses a well-known feature in the art of biological sampling, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Moreover, HOYER, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a magnetic biological sampling system wherein a second magnet and a first magnet are provided on two opposite sides of a reaction tube; and a magnetic attraction driving motor is capable of driving the second magnet to move relative to the reaction tube, so as to perform magnetic attraction processing on the biological sample in the reaction tube [Figs.42-43 and associated text]
Further still, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify JU to include well-known magnet structures of HOYER. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the characteristics of the magnetic field generated by the magnets (see at least HOYER [0005]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, HOYER merely teaches that it is well-known to include a particular magnetic structure design in a biological sampling system. Since the Examiner’s assertion discloses a well-known feature in the art of biological sampling, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 12, JU/PAIS/HOYER renders obvious the apparatus of claim 10, as shown above.
JU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic attraction action area of the second magnet is less than that of the first magnet; and when the second magnet approaches the reaction tube, the second magnet approaches the bottom of the reaction tube
Moreover, HOYER, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a magnetic biological sampling system wherein the magnetic attraction action area of the second magnet is less than that of the first magnet; and when the second magnet approaches the reaction tube, the second magnet approaches the bottom of the reaction tube [Figs.42-43 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify JU to include well-known magnet structure designs of HOYER. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the characteristics of the magnetic field generated by the magnets (see at least HOYER [0005]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, HOYER merely teaches that it is well-known to include a particular magnetic structure design in a biological sampling system. Since the Examiner’s assertion discloses a well-known feature in the art of biological sampling, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 13, JU/PAIS/HOYER renders obvious the apparatus of claim 10, as shown above.
JU fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second magnetic attraction mechanism further comprises a fourth magnetic attraction driving motor; and the fourth magnetic attraction driving motor is configured to drive the second magnet to move in the vertical direction.
However, PAIS, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a magnetic biological sampling system wherein a magnetic attraction mechanism further comprises a magnetic attraction driving motor; and the magnetic attraction driving motor is configured to drive a second magnet to move in the vertical direction. [p.22/ll.1-28]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify JU to include well-known design features of PAIS. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a simple, low-power, automated process of biological sampling (see at least PAIS [Abstract]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, PAIS merely teaches that it is well-known to include such a feature in a biological sampling system. Since the Examiner’s assertion discloses a well-known feature in the art of biological sampling, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21 and 23-25 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re claims 15 and 21, Applicant recites, as best understood within the context of the claimed invention as a whole, limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art. In particular, the feature of a sampling system with individually controllable mixing motors (claim 15), as well as the method of operating such a system appear to be allowable over the prior art (claim 21).
For example, Ju et al. (US20200292565, “JU”) discloses a magnetic sample analysis system. However, JU, as best understood by the Examiner, fails to disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious the particular claim limitations highlighted above, in view of the claimed invention as a whole.
Furthermore, Pais et al. (AU2016297922A1, “PAIS”) discloses a similar magnetic sampling system using linear and rotational actuation. However, like JU, PAIS, as best understood by the Examiner, fails to disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious the particular claim limitations highlighted above, in view of the claimed invention as a whole.
Further still, Hoyer (US20170259277, “HOYER”) discloses a magnetic system for use in a biological sampling system. However, like JU and PAIS, HOYER, as best understood by the Examiner, fails to disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious the particular claim limitations highlighted above, in view of the claimed invention as a whole.
Accordingly, independent claim 21 is deemed allowable over the prior art. Dependent claims 23-25 are each allowable based at least on their respective dependency to claim 21.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US20190270084, Zhou – magnetic biological sampling system
US20190039034, Siow et al. – biological sampling system using mixing and heating mechanisms
KR20220110514A, Saarelainen – sampling apparatus using magnetic rods
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
1 MPEP § 2181, subsection I