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 03/22/2024 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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 2 -3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. Claim 2 recites “ a diameter of a water droplet ” and is indefinite because there is no standard size for a water droplet . One of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the scope and bounds of the limitation. Claim 3 recites “ a diameter of a water droplet ” and is indefinite because there is no standard size for a water droplet . One of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the scope and bounds of the limitation. Claim 7 recites “ the histological sample width ” and is indefinite because there is no standard size for histological sample. One of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the scope and bounds of the limitation. 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. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Copeland et al ( US20050153453A1 published 07/14/2005; hereinafter Copeland) . Regarding claim 1, Copeland teaches a histological containment system ( automated immunostaining apparatus – Fig. 2) having a container for preparing histological samples, comprising: a shelf configured to fit the container ( slide support 26 – Fig. 8) , comprising: a support body ( a support plate 102 – Fig. 8) having a support surface ( a top surface of the support plate 102 – Fig. 8) configured to support a histological sample (the top surface of the support plate 102 is capable of supporting a histological sample – Fig. 8) ; and a wicking end support (a distal end 103 – Fig. 8) coupled to the support body, comprising a longitudinal extension that extends longitudinally from an end of the support surface (a distal corner 158 – Figs. 8-9) ; and an upright extension (a lateral guide tab 108 – Figs. 8-9) coupled to the longitudinal extension that extends transverse at a nonzero angle to a plane of the support surface (the lateral guide tab 108 is at a nonzero angle to a plane of the top surface of the support plate 102 – Figs. 8-9) ; wherein the longitudinal extension is coupled to the support body with the wicking end support offset by a non-zero offset distance from the plane of the support surface vertically (the distal corner 158 is offset by a non-zero vertical offset distance from a plane of the top surface of the support plate 102 – Figs. 8-10) ; and wherein the upright extension is coupled to the longitudinal extension by non-zero longitudinal distance from an end of the support body to a proximal surface of the upright extension (the lateral guide tab 108 is offset by a non-zero longitudinal offset distance from the support plate 102 to a proximal surface of the guide tab 108 – Figs. 8-10) . Regarding claim 2 , Copeland teaches t he histological containment system of claim 1, wherein the offset distance is larger than a diameter of a water droplet (a water droplet can be formed smaller than the offset distance of the distal corner 158 from the plane of the top surface – Figs. 8-10 ) . Regarding claim 3 , Copeland teaches t he histological containment system of claim 1, wherein the longitudinal distance is larger than a diameter of a water droplet (a water droplet can be formed smaller than the distance from the support plate 102 to a proximal surface of the guide tab 108 – Figs. 8-10 ) . Regarding claim 4 , Copeland teaches t he histological containment system of claim of claim 1, wherein the support surface is configured to support the histological sample at an inclined angle to a horizontal line (the top surface of the support plate 102 is capable of supporting a histological sample an inclined angle to a horizontal line – Figs. 8-10) . Regarding claim 5 , Copeland teaches t he histological containment system of claim 4, wherein the wicking end support comprises a wicking surface (a wicking surface between the lateral guide tab 108 and a lateral guide tab 110 – Figs. 8-10) configured to receive fluid flowing down the shelf by the inclined angle (the wicking surface receives fluid flowing down by the inclined angle – Figs. 8-10) . Regarding claim 6 , Copeland teaches t he histological containment system of claim 4, wherein the wicking surface is formed of one of a curved shape and a flat shape (the wicking surface is formed of a curved pivot pin 136 and a flat support plate 102 – Figs. 8-10) . Regarding claim 7 , Copeland teaches t he histological containment system of claim 4, wherein the wicking surface is at least as wide as the histological sample width (a histological sample can be formed with a width smaller than the width of the wicking surface – Figs. 8-10 ) . Regarding claim 8 , Copeland teaches t he histological containment system of claim 1, further comprising a spacing strip (an opposed lateral guide 114 – Fig. 8) coupled to the support surface having a thickness (the opposed lateral guide 114 having a thickness – Fig. 8) to elevate an object resting on the spacing strip above the support surface to form a gap between the object and the support surface (the opposed lateral guide 114 is capable of forming a gap between an object resting on the opposed lateral guide 114 and the support plate 102 – Fig. 8) . Regarding claim 9 , Copeland teaches t he histological containment system of claim 1, wherein the shelf is configured to support a plurality of histological samples across the support surface (the slide support 26 is capable of support a plurality of histological samples – Fig. 8) . Regarding claim 10 , Copeland teaches t he histological containment system of claim of claim 1, wherein the support surface of the shelf is divided into shelf sections by at least one guard rail (a flexible arm 118 divide s the top surface of the support plate 102 into sections – Figs. 8-10) . Regarding claim 11 , Copeland teaches t he histological containment system of claim 1, further comprising the container (a support plate 22 – Fig. 3) , wherein the container comprises a container support configured to support the shelf (the support plate 22 comprising a carousel 24 supporting the slide support 26 – Fig. 3) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TINGCHEN SHI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2538 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Charles Capozzi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3638 . 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 /CHARLES CAPOZZI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798