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
Claims 10-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/07/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 09/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has not established that a serious burden exists if restriction is not required. This is not found persuasive because establishing that the inventions are classified in different classes and/or subclasses establishes that a serious burden exists on the examiner if restriction is not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding limitations recited in claims 1-9 which are directed to a manner of operating the disclosed sample holder, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aviles et el. (US 2003/0215364 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aviles discloses a sample holder for holding a sample carrier for carrying a microscopic sample (Fig. 1-2, 11-12), the sample holder comprising:
a clamping arrangement with an upper leg (Fig. 11, see: sample tube receiving structures 70A and 70B) and a lower leg (Fig. 11, see: support wall 50 comprising side walls 51A and 51B having springs 140),
wherein the clamping arrangement is configured to clamp the sample carrier between the upper leg and the lower leg, such that a part of the sample carrier is clamped between respective first ends of the upper leg and the lower leg ([0061]-[0062], see: leaf spring configured to apply force to the sample tube and sample tube receiving structures to provide a retaining force),
wherein the clamping arrangement is configured to be actuated by an external force such that the respective first ends of the upper leg and the lower leg are separated from each other for loading the sample carrier into the sample holder ([0068], see: sample tube structures can be released from the transverse structure by exerting a downward force on the handle; Fig. 11, see: open configuration), and
wherein the clamping arrangement is configured to exert a clamping force via the respective first ends of the upper leg and the lower leg to the sample carrier, in order to clamp the sample carrier between the upper leg and the lower leg, when the clamping arrangement is not actuated by the external force ([0061]-[0062], see: leaf spring configured to apply force to the sample tube and sample tube receiving structures to provide a retaining force; Fig. 12, see: closed configuration).
Regarding claim 2, Aviles further discloses one of the upper leg or the lower leg comprises a through hole (Fig. 2, see: slots 55 in support wall 50) configured to receive an actuation rod (Fig. 2, see: latch 120 actuated by handle 121), and wherein the other one of the upper leg or the lower leg is configured to be actuated by the external force such that the respective first ends of the upper leg and the lower leg are separated from each other when the external force is provided to the other one of the upper leg or the lower leg via the actuation rod received in the through hole ([0068], see: sample tube structures can be released from the transverse structure by exerting a downward force on the handle; Fig. 11, see: open configuration).
Regarding claim 3, Aviles further discloses at least one of the upper leg and the lower leg is configured as a leaf spring ([0061]-[0062], see: leaf spring configured to apply force to the sample tube and sample tube receiving structures to provide a retaining force).
Regarding claim 4, Aviles further discloses at least one of the upper leg and the lower leg is fixed in the sample holder at a respective second end (Fig. 11, see: sample tube receiving structures 70A and 70B, and support wall 50, are fixed to each other at hinge point 92 by pin 93).
Regarding claim 5, Aviles further discloses the sample holder is for holding multiple sample carriers, wherein the sample holder comprises multiple ones of the clamping arrangements, and wherein each of the multiple clamping arrangements is configured to individually hold one of the multiple sample carriers (Fig. 1 and 11, see: plurality of aligned apertures, each with a respective spring, configured to receive a test tube).
Regarding claim 6, Aviles further discloses the multiple clamping arrangements are arranged in a circular manner, such that the respective first ends of the respective upper legs and lower legs of the multiple clamping arrangements are arranged in a circular shape (Fig. 18, see: plurality of sample carriers 10 arranged on a base 30 configured as a carousel).
Regarding claim 8, Aviles further discloses a base, wherein the multiple clamping arrangements are rotatably fixed at the base, such that the multiple clamping arrangements are rotatable with respect to the base around a rotation axis (Fig. 18, see: plurality of sample carriers 10 arranged on a base 30 configured as a carousel).
Regarding claim 9, Aviles further discloses a latching mechanism configured to allow fixation of each of the multiple clamping arrangements at the same position, and to allow release of the multiple clamping arrangements for rotation ([0068], see: sample tube structures can be released from the transverse structure by exerting a downward force on the handle; Fig. 11, see: open configuration).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aviles et el. (US 2003/0215364 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Aviles does not explicitly disclose each of the multiple clamping arrangements is configured to be actuated individually and independently from the remaining ones of the multiple clamping arrangements by an external force such that the respective first ends of the upper leg and the lower leg are separated from each other for loading a respective sample carrier into the sample holder.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide for individual actuation by incorporating a respective latch to each of the of the sample tube receiving structures in the device disclosed by Aviles since mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J EOM whose telephone number is (571)270-7075. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM).
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 5712721254. 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.
/ROBERT J EOM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights