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 09/12/2024 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 § 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 1-29 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "for example" (the claim uses e.g.) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "for example" (the claim uses e.g.) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 3-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112 b since the claims depend upon and incorporate all the limitations of claims 1 or 2.
Appropriate corrective action is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For claim 1, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest a system for microbiological assessment that includes a processor and memory with a computer-executable instruction that performs the following steps: a) determine that a coded test sample, loaded into the system, is to be quantitatively assessed; b) assemble, in situ, using the culture device parts, a specified type of microbiological culture device for culturing and quantitatively processing the coded test sample; c) inoculate the specified type of culture device, as part of (e.g., during or after) the in situ assembly, with an appropriate amount of the coded test sample, or an extraction and/or dilution thereof; and d) attribute the inoculated culture device to the coded test sample, wherein the assembling and inoculating are performed in situ by the integrated automated components of the system in the sterile environment, thereby eliminating the need to sterilize, ship, store, and/or open ex situ fabricated culture devices prior to inoculation thereof.
The closest art is Hibino et al. (US 2006/0275888 A1) that discloses a treatment apparatus that moves a sample dish from an incubator to inoculating and processing stations (Abstract), however, Hibino does not teach or fairly suggest the controller that operates the system to assemble a culture device that is to by used with a coded test sample.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsumura et al. (US 2015/0010996 A1) discloses a system for the automatic replacement of cell culture within a dish and for culturing cells within the cavity of the device (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-3724. The examiner can normally be reached Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM M-F.
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 at 571-272-1374. 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.
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights