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/Restriction Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-16 and 18-19, drawn to a cassette, classified in B01L3/502 for example . II. Claims 20-25, drawn to a method of processing a sample in vitro , classified in G01N1/36 , G01N2001/364 for example . III. Claims 26-28, drawn to a method of diagnosing a disease or condition in vitro , classified in G01N1/28, G01N1/286 for example . The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions (II, III) and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be practiced without sample reagents . Inventions II and III are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have different modes of operation and effects . Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); (d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and (e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph . Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Attorney for Applicants Robert P. Greenspoon on 03/16/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I , claim s 1-16 and 18-19 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim s 20-28 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the reference numeral “ (3)” in L 2 appears to be incorrect. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests adding an appropriate unit to “ 0.5” in L3 . Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim appears to be missing articles in L3-9 “ having plurality of [...]” . 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: configured to provide optimized flow of reagents in claim 2. 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 1-16 and 18-19 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second body slots" in L18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation "slots and relative to slots and" in L1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the samples" in L1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim s 2, 12, 16, 18 & 19 are not clear with respect to what applicant is claiming. The claim s do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Claim 2 is unclear what structural configuration is being claimed. Claim 12 is unclear reciting “wherein the dimensions of slots and relative to slots and the first open-ended conical body slots (110) and the first lid slots relative to the second open-ended conical body slots and the second lid slots optimize reagent flow in the body ” because it is unclear what is being claimed. Claim 16 is unclear reciting “wherein each of the plurality of first open-ended conical body slots are substantially square in shape, and the second open-ended conical body slots are substantially rectangular in shape”, because a cone is defined as a 3-D shape with a circular base and a pointed apex whereas square and rectangular shapes are flat and do not have the curved surface characteristic of cone. Claims 18-19 are unclear reciting the “sample” in claim 18 and the “samples” in claim 19 , because these elements have not been positively claimed . Claim limitation “ configured to provide optimized flow of reagents ” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the term “means” or generic placeholder is modified by a word, which is ambiguous regarding whether it conveys structure or function; and/or the claim limitation uses the word “means” or a generic placeholder coupled with functional language, but it is modified by some structure or material that is ambiguous regarding whether that structure or material is sufficient for performing the claimed function. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; (b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function; (c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or (d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function. 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) 1 -8, 12-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali (US D953,562 S) in view of Braymer et al. ( US 2007/0258864 A1 ). Regarding claim 1 , Ali teaches: 1. A cassette ( see Fig. 1 & Title, Claim, Description ) for holding or processing a sample ( e.g., tissue ), the cassette comprising: a body ( see Annotated Figs. 1, 8 for example ) capable of receiving a sample ( e.g., tissue, Title, Claim, Description), the body comprising: a body surface and a body side wall extending upward from the body surface (see Annotated Fig s . 1 , 8 for example) ; a plurality of first open-ended body slots configured on the body surface of the body ( see Annotated Figs. 1, 8 for example ) ; and a plurality of second open-ended body slots configured on the body surface of the body ( see Annotated Figs. 1, 8 for example ) , wherein the second open-ended body slots are of a different size from the first open-ended body slots (see Annotated Fig s . 1 , 8 & Fig. 2 for example) ; a lid ( see Annotated Figs. 1, 8 for example ) capable of covering the body (see i.e., Figs. 8 & 16 and Description ) , the lid comprising: a lid surface and a lid side wall extending downward from the lid surface (see Annotated Fig. 1 for example) , further the lid side wall capable of being detachably clos able at the body side wall (see i.e., Figs. 1, 8 , 9 & 16 and Description) ; a plurality of first lid slots configured on the lid surface of the lid (see Annotated Fig. 1 for example) , further the first lid slots are of a same size as of the first open-ended body slots ( see Figs. 1-3 showing the second lid slots are illustrated as being the same size as the second body slots in a manner similar to that shown in Fig. 1 and described at ¶ 0037 of the present application ) ; and a plurality of second lid slots configured on the lid surface of the lid (116) (see Annotated Fig. 1 for example) , further the second lid slots are of a same size as of the second body slots ( see Figs. 1-3 showing the second lid slots are illustrated as being the same size as the second body slots in a manner similar to that shown in Fig. 1 and described at ¶ 00 3 7 of the present application ) . Annotated Fig s . 1 , 8 of Ali ( US D953,562 S ) : However, Ali does not explicitly teach: the plurality of first open-ended body slots and the plurality of second open-ended body slots are conical. Braymer et al. teach a plurality of open-ended conical body slots (e.g., conical section 34) configured on a body surface of a body (see Figs. 1, 3B for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ali with a plurality of open-ended conical body slots, as taught by Braymer et al. to provide for a smooth transition along the body slots. The Court in KSR, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one ”, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (emphasis added), or solves a problem which is different from that which the applicant was trying to solve, may also be considered for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP 2141. With regard to limitations in claims 1-4, 12, 18, 19 (e.g., [...] for receiving a sample ; [...] to provide optimized flow of reagents , etc.), these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex , 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley , 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb , Inc. , 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault , 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See In re Young , 75 F.2d *>996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto , 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). Regarding claims 2 -8, 12-16 , modified Ali teaches: 2. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first open-ended conical body slots, the plurality of second open-ended conical body slots, the plurality of first lid slots and the plurality of second lid slots are configured (see Annotated Fig. 1 for example). 3. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the first lid slots are aligned in parallel to the first open-ended conical body slots (see Annotated Fig. 1 & Fig s . 2 -3 for example). 4. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the second lid slots are aligned in parallel to the second open-ended conical body slots (see Annotated Fig. 1 & Figs. 2-3 for example). 5. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the second lid slots are surrounded by the first lid slots (see Annotated Fig. 1 & Figs. 2-3 for example). 6. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the second open-ended conical body slots are surrounded by the first open-ended conical body slots (see Annotated Fig. 1 & Figs. 2-3 for example). 7. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the dimensions of the first open-ended conical body slots are smaller relative to the dimensions of the second open-ended conical body slots (see Annotated Fig. 1 & Figs. 2-3 for example). 8. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the dimensions of the first lid slots are smaller relative to the dimensions of the second lid slots (see Annotated Fig. 1 & Figs. 2-3 for example). 1 2. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the dimensions of the first open-ended conical body slots and the first lid slots relative to the second open-ended conical body slots and the second lid slots (see Figs. 1-3 showing the dimensions of the first open-ended conical body slots and the first lid slots relative to the second open-ended conical body slots and the second lid slots are substantially similar to that shown in Fig. 1 of the published application). 13. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the body further comprises: a first body chamber having plurality of second open-ended conical body slots; a second body chamber having plurality of second open-ended conical body slots; a third body chamber having plurality of second open-ended conical body slots; and a fourth body chamber having plurality of second open-ended conical body slots (see Annotated Fig. 1 & Figs. 2-3 showing the claimed elements in a manner similar to what is shown in Fig. 1 and described at ¶ 0041, 0042 of the present application ). 14. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the second open-ended conical body slots configured in the first body chamber are in same direction as of the second open-ended conical body slots configured in the third body chamber (see Annotated Fig. 1 & Figs. 2-3 for example). 15. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the second open-ended conical body slots configured in the second body chamber are in same direction as of the second open-ended conical body slots configured in the fourth body chamber (see Annotated Fig. 1 & Figs. 2-3 for example). 16. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the body comprises substantially square in shape and substantially rectangular in shape (see Annotated Fig. 1 & Figs. 2-3 for example) . Claim(s) 9 -11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali (US D953,562 S) in view of Braymer et al. (US 2007/0258864 A1) , and further in view of Ali (US 2018/0313811 A1). Regarding claims 9-10 , Ali does not explicitly teach: 9. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the dimension s of each of the first open-ended conical body slot and each of the first lid slot being 1mm x1mm in opening, and wherein the space between each slot being in the range of from 0.5mm to 1mm. 10. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein the dimensions of each of the second open-ended conical body slot and each of the second lid slot being in the range of from 0.5 to 5mm in opening, and wherein the space between each slot each of the second open-ended conical body slots and each of the second lid slots being in the range of from 0.5mm to 1mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further modified Ali such that the dimensions of each of the first open-ended conical body slot and each of the first lid slot being 1mm x1mm in opening, and wherein the space between each slot being in the range of from 0.5mm to 1mm ; and the dimensions of each of the second open-ended conical body slot and each of the second lid slot being in the range of from 0.5 to 5mm in opening, and wherein the space between each slot each of the second open-ended conical body slots and each of the second lid slots being in the range of from 0.5mm to 1mm in order to provide dimensions suitable for working with tissue specimens because, as evidenced by Ali ‘811 the slot dimensions and spacing suitable for working with tissue specimens ranges from about 0.1 mm to 1 mm (¶ 0021, 0023, 0024), and to arrive at the claimed the dimensions of each of the first open-ended conical body slot and each of the first lid slot being 1mm x1mm in opening, and wherein the space between each slot being in the range of from 0.5mm to 1mm; and the dimensions of each of the second open-ended conical body slot and each of the second lid slot being in the range of from 0.5 to 5mm in opening, and wherein the space between each slot each of the second open-ended conical body slots and each of the second lid slots being in the range of from 0.5mm to 1mm would not require undue experimentation in order to achieve optimal dimensions for a particular application. The Court in KSR, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one ”, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (emphasis added), or solves a problem which is different from that which the applicant was trying to solve, may also be considered for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP 2141. Regarding claim 11, Ali does not explicitly teach: 11. A cassette according to claim 1, wherein each of the second open-ended conical body slot and each of the second lid slot are about 30% narrower and between about 100% to about 700% longer than each of the first open-ended conical body slot and each of the first lid slot. Ali ‘811 teaches: wherein each of second open-ended conical body slot and each of second lid slot are about 30% narrower and between about 100% to about 700% longer than each of first open-ended body slot and each of first lid slot (¶ 0021, 0023, 0024 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further modified Ali as taught by Ali ‘811 in order to provide dimensions suitable for working with tissue specimens . The Court in KSR, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one ”, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (emphasis added), or solves a problem which is different from that which the applicant was trying to solve, may also be considered for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP 2141. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DEAN KWAK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7072 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-TH, 4:30 am - 2:30 pm EST . 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. /DEAN KWAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798 FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT DEAN KWAK Primary Examiner Art Unit 1798