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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on July 17, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 4, the limitation “flowing sample are greater in the first direction that in the second direction … the sample are greater in the second direction that in the first direction,” should read “flowing sample are greater in the first direction than in the second direction … the sample are greater in the second direction than in the first direction.” Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the laboratory processing unit” should read “the processing unit” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, 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 paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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: “ a processing unit” in claims 1 and 13.
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: (1) 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 (2) 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(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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “generally” in claims 1 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-12 and 14-15 are included in this rejection by virtue of their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jahn et al (already of record, US 2015/0367351; hereinafter “Jahn”).
Regarding claim 1, Jahn discloses a laboratory processing tube assembly that mounts to a processing unit for dissociating an organically derived sample by an oscillating tube-assembly motion including an axially-reciprocal component (see [0003]-[0004], [0041]-[0042], [0064]-[0065]), the tube assembly comprising: a tube and a cap that removably couple together to form a tube chamber (see FIG. 24 disclosing a tube assembly (1610) with container (1614a) as tube and conventional end cap (1614b); [0087]) that has a longitudinal axis and that contains the sample during dissociation, wherein the tube has a peripheral inner surface (FIG. 24); and at least one internal thread extending inwardly from and peripherally about the inner surface of the tube in a helical arrangement (helical fins (944/1044) of any of the flow disrupter design alternatives of FIGS. 16-21; [0087]), wherein the internal helical thread includes a ridge defining two impact surfaces facing in generally opposite directions (for example, see two opposing impact surfaces (929/934) in figure 16) at a non-perpendicular angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the tube chamber and relative to the inner surface of the tube (said impact surfaces (929/934) disclosed in [0079] as ramped, "without any perpendicular surfaces"), and wherein a first one of the impact surfaces is impacted by the sample as the sample flows in a first axial direction in the tube chamber and a second one of the impact surfaces is impacted by the sample as the sample flows in a second opposite axial direction in the tube chamber during the axially-reciprocal tube-assembly motion to dissociate the sample (implicit to the axially-reciprocating shaking of the tube disclosed for example in aforementioned [0041] and [0064]). Furthermore, regarding the limitation “wherein a first one of the impact surfaces is impacted by the sample as the sample flows in a first axial direction in the tube chamber and a second one of the impact surfaces is impacted by the sample as the sample flows in a second opposite axial direction in the tube chamber during the axially-reciprocal tube-assembly motion to dissociate the sample,” the tube assembly of Jahn is structurally the same as the instant tube assembly and thus considered to meet said limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Jahn discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 1. Regarding the limitation “wherein the sample impacts against the impact surfaces of the internal helical thread during dissociation use and separates the sample into a dissociate of single intact cells, without using any enzymes or magnetic forces in the tube chamber, or with using a mild enzyme in the tube chamber,” the tube assembly of Jahn is structurally the same as the instant tube assembly and thus considered to meet said limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Jahn discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 1. Regarding the limitation “wherein the impact surfaces facing in directions that are angled from the longitudinal axis of the tube chamber results in blunt impact forces on the sample and shearing forces on the sample during dissociation use,” the tube assembly of Jahn is structurally the same as the instant tube assembly and thus considered to meet said limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Jahn discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 1. Regarding the limitation “wherein the internal helical thread induces angular flow of the sample, wherein the blunt impact forces imparted by the internal helical thread on the angularly flowing sample are greater in the first direction that in the second direction, and wherein the shearing forces imparted by the internal helical thread on the sample are greater in the second direction that in the first direction,” the tube assembly of Jahn is structurally the same as the instant tube assembly and thus considered to meet said limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Jahn discloses wherein the internal helical thread forms a single continuous ridge (at least one transverse fin with at least one ramped surface that at least partially defines at least one of the impact surfaces; [0008], [0076]; [0087] disclose that flow disruptors as shown in FIGS. 14-21 can be used with the embodiment as shown in FIG. 24).
Regarding claim 11, Jahn discloses wherein the internal helical thread is formed on a sleeve that inserts into the tube and forms the peripheral inner surface of the tube.
Regarding claim 12, Jahn discloses wherein the internal helical thread is formed by two ridges in a double helix arrangement (FIG. 18, three transverse fins each defining two opposing helical ramped impact surfaces; [0008], [0056], [0081]; flow disruptors as shown in FIGS. 14-21 can be used with the embodiment as shown in FIG. 24; [0087]).
Regarding claim 13, Jahn discloses laboratory dissociation system for dissociating a sample, comprising: a processing unit that produces an oscillating tube-assembly motion including an axially-reciprocal component ([0011], [0041], [0064]); and a tube assembly that mounts to the processing unit (see [0003]-[0004], [0041]-[0042], [0064]-[0065]), wherein the tube assembly includes a tube and a cap that removably couple together to form a tube chamber (see FIG. 24 disclosing a tube assembly (1610) with container (1614a) as tube and conventional end cap (1614b); [0087]) that has a longitudinal axis and that contains the sample during dissociation use, wherein the tube has a peripheral inner surface (FIG. 24) and at least one internal thread extending inwardly from and peripherally about the peripheral inner surface in a helical arrangement (helical fins (944/1044) of any of the flow disrupter design alternatives of FIGS. 16-21; [0087]), wherein the internal helical thread includes a ridge defining two impact surfaces facing in generally opposite directions (for example, see two opposing impact surfaces (929/934) in figure 16) at a non-perpendicular angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the tube chamber and relative to the inner surface of the tube (said impact surfaces (929/934) disclosed in [0079] as ramped, "without any perpendicular surfaces"), and wherein a first one of the impact surfaces is impacted by the sample as the sample flows in a first axial direction in the tube chamber and a second one of the impact surfaces is impacted by the sample as the sample flows in a second opposite axial direction in the tube chamber during the axially-reciprocal tube-assembly motion to dissociate the sample (implicit to the axially-reciprocating shaking of the tube disclosed for example in aforementioned [0041] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 14, Jahn discloses wherein the laboratory processing unit is a bead mill homogenizer ([0011], [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, Jahn discloses wherein the tube assembly motion produced by the bead mill homogenizer is a swashing motion including the axially-reciprocal component ([0011], [0041], [0064]).
Therefore, Jahn meets and anticipates the limitations set forth in claims 1-5 and 13-15.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carl (DE 597567-C; with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, ‘567 discloses a laboratory processing tube assembly that mounts to a processing unit for dissociating an organically derived sample by an oscillating tube-assembly motion including an axially-reciprocal component, the tube assembly comprising: a tube forming a tube chamber that has a longitudinal axis and that contains the sample during dissociation (FIGS. 1-2: tube assembly of ‘567 can container a sample during a dissociation), wherein the tube has a peripheral inner surface (FIGS. 1-2); and at least one internal thread extending inwardly from and peripherally about the inner surface of the tube in a helical arrangement (FIG. 1: helical ribs (7); [0003]), wherein the internal helical thread includes a ridge defining two impact surfaces facing in generally opposite directions at a non-perpendicular angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the tube chamber and relative to the inner surface of the tube (see FIG. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
594
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘567 does not explicitly disclose a cap that removably coupled to the tube together forming the tube chamber. However, 567 does disclose that the content in the tube is thoroughly mixed during slow, unidirectional rotation ([0003]). It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tube of ’567 with removable cap for the purpose of preventing contents within the tube from spilling during mixing. Furthermore, regarding the limitation “wherein a first one of the impact surfaces is impacted by the sample as the sample flows in a first axial direction in the tube chamber and a second one of the impact surfaces is impacted by the sample as the sample flows in a second opposite axial direction in the tube chamber during the axially-reciprocal tube-assembly motion to dissociate the sample,” the tube assembly of ‘567 is structurally the same as the instant tube assembly and thus considered to meet said limitation. See also [0003] of ‘567.
Regarding claim 2, modified ‘567 discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 1. Regarding the limitation “wherein the sample impacts against the impact surfaces of the internal helical thread during dissociation use and separates the sample into a dissociate of single intact cells, without using any enzymes or magnetic forces in the tube chamber, or with using a mild enzyme in the tube chamber,” the tube assembly of modified ‘567 is structurally the same as the instant tube assembly and thus considered to meet said limitation. See also [0003] of ‘567.
Regarding claim 3, modified ‘567 discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 1. Regarding the limitation “wherein the impact surfaces facing in directions that are angled from the longitudinal axis of the tube chamber results in blunt impact forces on the sample and shearing forces on the sample during dissociation use,” the tube assembly of modified ‘567 is structurally the same as the instant tube assembly and thus considered to meet said limitation. See also [0003] of ‘567.
Regarding claim 4, modified ‘567 discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 3. Regarding the limitation “wherein the internal helical thread induces angular flow of the sample, wherein the blunt impact forces imparted by the internal helical thread on the angularly flowing sample are greater in the first direction that in the second direction, and wherein the shearing forces imparted by the internal helical thread on the sample are greater in the second direction that in the first direction,” the tube assembly of modified ‘567 is structurally the same as the instant tube assembly and thus considered to meet said limitation. See also [0003] of ‘567.
Regarding claim 5, modified ‘567 discloses wherein the internal helical thread forms a single continuous ridge (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified ‘567 does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal helical thread extends along 80 percent to 90 percent of an entire length of the internal peripheral surface of the tube. However, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that the desired mixing efficiency depends on the internal helical thread in the tube. Thus, the size of the internal helical thread can be viewed as a variable which achieves the recognized result of mixing contents within the tube. It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have modified the internal helical thread size of the tube of modified ‘567 since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for purpose of achieving desired mixing of the content within the tube. Further, it is noted that the courts have held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 7, modified ‘567 does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal helical thread defines at least two complete revolutions about the peripheral inner surface of the tube. However, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that the desired mixing efficiency depends on the size of the internal helical thread in the tube. Thus, the size of the internal helical thread can be viewed as a variable which achieves the recognized result of mixing contents within the tube. It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have modified the internal helical thread of the tube of modified ‘567 to have any number of revolutions including the claimed revolution since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for purpose of achieving desired mixing of the contents within the tube.
Regarding claim 8, modified ‘567 does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal helical thread has a thread pitch of 15 threads per inch to 25 threads per inch. However, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that the desired mixing efficiency depends on the size of the internal helical thread in the tube. Thus, the size of the internal helical thread can be viewed as a variable which achieves the recognized result of mixing contents within the tube. It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have modified the internal helical thread of the tube of modified ‘567 to have any number of threads including the claimed threads since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for purpose of achieving desired mixing of the contents within the tube.
Claims 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chee (US 2014/0269160).
Regarding claim 6, Jahn discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 1. Jahn does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal helical thread extends along 80 percent to 90 percent of an entire length of the internal peripheral surface of the tube. Chee discloses a container assembly comprising a tube (FIGS. 17-18: tube (110); [0059)) and a mixing element comprising a ridge defining two impact surfaces facing in opposite direction (see FIGS. 17-18: fin (120) having a first (121) and a second (122) mixing faces; [0061]). Chee further discloses wherein the shape and angles of the two impact surfaces, as well as the length of the mixing fin are all variable which can be adjusted to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application ([0061]). In view of Chee, it would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have modified the length of the internal helical thread within the tube such that the internal helical thread extends along 80 percent to 90 percent of an entire length of the internal peripheral surface of the tube, because Chee discloses that the shape and angles of the two impact surfaces, as well as the length of the mixing fin are all variable which can be adjusted to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application ([0061]). One of ordinary skill in the would have made said modification in order to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application as disclosed by Chee ([0061]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for purpose of achieving desired mixing of the content within the tube. Further, it is noted that the courts have held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 9, Jahn discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 1. Jahn does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal helical thread has a square profile with a zero degree thread angle so the oppositely facing impact surfaces are parallel to each other. Chee discloses a container assembly comprising a tube (FIGS. 17-18: tube (110); [0059)) and a mixing element comprising a ridge defining two impact surfaces facing in opposite direction (see FIGS. 17-18: fin (120) having a first (121) and a second (122) mixing faces; [0061]). Chee further discloses wherein the shape and angles of the two impact surfaces, as well as the length of the mixing fin are all variable which can be adjusted to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application ([0061]). In view of Chee, it would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have modified the thread angle of the impact surfaces of the internal helical thread of Jahn, because Chee discloses that the shape and angles of the two impact surfaces, as well as the length of the mixing fin are all variable which can be adjusted to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application ([0061]). One of ordinary skill in the would have made said modification in order to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application as disclosed by Chee ([0061]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Jahn discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 1. Jahn does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal helical thread has a profile with a thread angle of 25 degrees to 75 degrees so the oppositely facing impact surfaces are angled relative to each other. Chee discloses a container assembly comprising a tube (FIGS. 17-18: tube (110); [0059)) and a mixing element comprising a ridge defining two impact surfaces facing in opposite direction (see FIGS. 17-18: fin (120) having a first (121) and a second (122) mixing faces; [0061]). Chee further discloses wherein the shape and angles of the two impact surfaces, as well as the length of the mixing fin are all variable which can be adjusted to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application ([0061]). In view of Chee, it would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have modified the thread angle of the impact surfaces of the internal helical thread of Jahn, because Chee discloses that the shape and angles of the two impact surfaces, as well as the length of the mixing fin are all variable which can be adjusted to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application ([0061]). One of ordinary skill in the would have made said modification in order to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application as disclosed by Chee ([0061]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘567 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chee (US 2014/0269160).
Regarding claim 9, modified ‘567 discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 1. Modified ‘567 does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal helical thread has a square profile with a zero degree thread angle so the oppositely facing impact surfaces are parallel to each other. Chee discloses a container assembly comprising a tube (FIGS. 17-18: tube (110); [0059)) and a mixing element comprising a ridge defining two impact surfaces facing in opposite direction (see FIGS. 17-18: fin (120) having a first (121) and a second (122) mixing faces; [0061]). Chee further discloses wherein the shape and angles of the two impact surfaces, as well as the length of the mixing fin are all variable which can be adjusted to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application ([0061]). In view of Chee, it would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have modified the thread angle of the impact surfaces of the internal helical thread of modified ‘567, because Chee discloses that the shape and angles of the two impact surfaces, as well as the length of the mixing fin are all variable which can be adjusted to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application ([0061]). One of ordinary skill in the would have made said modification in order to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application as disclosed by Chee ([0061]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, modified ‘567 discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 1. modified ‘567 does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal helical thread has a profile with a thread angle of 25 degrees to 75 degrees so the oppositely facing impact surfaces are angled relative to each other. Chee discloses a container assembly comprising a tube (FIGS. 17-18: tube (110); [0059)) and a mixing element comprising a ridge defining two impact surfaces facing in opposite direction (see FIGS. 17-18: fin (120) having a first (121) and a second (122) mixing faces; [0061]). Chee further discloses wherein the shape and angles of the two impact surfaces, as well as the length of the mixing fin are all variable which can be adjusted to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application ([0061]). In view of Chee, it would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have modified the thread angle of the impact surfaces of the internal helical thread of modified ‘567, because Chee discloses that the shape and angles of the two impact surfaces, as well as the length of the mixing fin are all variable which can be adjusted to provide sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application ([0061]). One of ordinary skill in the would have made said modification for the purpose of providing sufficient mixing for each particular type of sample or application as disclosed by Chee ([0061]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahn as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Jahn does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal helical thread defines at least two complete revolutions about the peripheral inner surface of the tube. However, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that the desired mixing efficiency depends on the size of the internal helical thread in the tube. Thus, the size of the internal helical thread can be viewed as a variable which achieves the recognized result of mixing contents within the tube. It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have modified the internal helical thread of the tube of Jahn to have any number of revolutions including the claimed revolution since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for purpose of achieving desired mixing of the contents within the tube.
Regarding claim 8, Jahn does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal helical thread has a thread pitch of 15 threads per inch to 25 threads per inch. However, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that the desired mixing efficiency depends on the size of the internal helical thread in the tube. Thus, the size of the internal helical thread can be viewed as a variable which achieves the recognized result of mixing contents within the tube. It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date to have modified the internal helical thread of the tube of Jahn to have any number of threads including the claimed threads since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for purpose of achieving desired mixing of the contents within the tube.
Regarding claim 11, Jahn discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 1. Jahn discloses wherein the internal helical thread is arranged within the tube and forms the peripheral inner surface of the tube (see FIG. 24) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal helical thread is formed on a sleeve that inserts into the tube. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube assembly of Jahn such that the internal helical thread is formed on a sleeve that inserts into the tube, since it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routing skill in art (see M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI (C)). One would have been motivated to make the elements separable for the purpose of facilitating ease of cleaning the components of the tube assembly.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘567 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, modified ‘567 discloses the laboratory processing tube assembly of Claim 1. Modified ‘567 discloses wherein the internal helical thread is arranged within the tube and forms the peripheral inner surface of the tube (see FIG. 1), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal helical thread is formed on a sleeve that inserts into the tube. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube assembly of modified ‘567 such that the internal helical thread is formed on a sleeve that inserts into the tube, since it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routing skill in art (see M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI (C)). One would have been motivated to make the elements separable for the purpose of facilitating ease of cleaning the components of the tube assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kocourek et al (US 2009/0311775) disclose a tube and at least one internal helical thread arranged within the tube.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIBAN M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7636. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 5712721374. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/LIBAN M HASSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights