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 1-7 and 20, in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/07/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-7 and 20 being examined and claims 8-19 being withdrawn pursuant to the election filed 07/07/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
Please note that the IDS filed 12/07/2023 it appears that there was a typo for reference “JP-2009-80014A”, as “JP-2009-80014A” does not yield any references, and “2009-80014A” is for a Chinese publication directed to a “vertical vibration motor applied to vibrating grinding mill”. Based on the provided foreign copy, the IDS has been corrected to be “JP-2009080014-A”
Similarly, reference “JP-2010-38659-A” appears to have a typo and has been corrected to be “JP-2010038659-A”
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1 currently as written can read as a transport rack having a single holder, where then in claim 6 when it describes the first observation window and second observation window being formed by coupling a first housing and second housing, it is described that one of either the first housing or second housing “providing slits in a side surface”
The specification does not provide antecedent basis for a single holder where one of a first or second housing that makes up the holder includes multiple slits. Rather, as seen in Figure 14 of the instant specification when there are multiple holders 2201 provided, there are multiple slits 2203 provided where there is one slit per holder.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “wherein at least one of the first slit and the second slit has a tapered shape expanding from the holder toward each side surface of the transport rack.” where because claim 2 describes that the first slit is in a first side surface and the second slit is in a second side surface opposite to the first side surface, it is suggested that for further clarity claim 4 be amended to recite “wherein at least one of the first slit and the second slit has a tapered shape expanding from the holder toward each respective side surface of the transport rack.” or similar.
Claim 5 recites “firs slit” on line 2, where this appears to be a typo and should be corrected to “first slit”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-5 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 2 recites “a first slit” on line 3, where it is unclear if this first slit is the same or different from the first slit described on line 2. For examination it will be interpreted that they are the same first slit.
It is suggested to amend claim 2 line 3 to recite “[[a]] the first slit”
Additionally, line 4 recites “toward a first side surface” where it is unclear if this first side surface is the same or different from the one described on lines 2-3. For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same first side surface.
It is suggested to amend claim 2 line 4 to recite “toward [[a]] the first side surface”
Claims 3-5 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 20 recites “the processing circuitry” on line 22, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as no processing circuitry has been recited prior. Therefore it is unclear what processing circuitry is being referred to.
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) 1-2, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanco (US-5224585-A).
Regarding claim 1, Blanco teaches a transport rack (receptacle/carrier 30), comprising (column 3 line 37-40, column 4 lines 3-6):
a holder configured to hold a storage container (vial 36) that stores a sample or a reagent that is reacted with the sample (column 4 lines 15-16, see Figures 3-8 which shows the receptacle 30 holding the vial 36, therefore the receptacle 30 includes a holder);
a first observation window (front window 44) configured to enable reading of identification information on the storage container (36) (column 2 lines 27-40 see window comprises a slit, or may be a transparent side of the receptacle or the entire receptacle may be made transparent or one side may be open or the entire receptacle is clear plastic or the window means may include two transparent sides such as clear plastic or vertical slits on two facing sides such as the front and back of the receptacle, and see to locate the container in front of the slit so the code is visible through the slit, column 4 lines 62-67, Figures 6-7); and
a second observation window (second slit or window 60) (column 2 lines 27-40, column 4 lines 62-67 see a second slit or window 60 is positioned in the rear wall of receptacle 30, Figures 6-7).
Please note that the storage container has not been positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a required part of the transport rack. Please note that for convenience, the storage container has been mapped to the vials 36.
The limitation “a second observation window configured to enable observation of the sample or the reagent stored in the storage container.” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Blanco and the second window of Blanco is capable of enabling observation of the sample or the reagent stored in the storage container. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Blanco (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 2, Blanco teaches the transport rack according to claim 1. Blanco further teaches wherein:
the first observation window (44) is configured to provide a first slit in a first side surface of the transport rack (30), and a first slit being formed from the holder toward a first side surface of the transport rack (column 2 lines 27-40 where the window may be a slit, column 4 lines 62-67, Figures 6-7); and
the second observation window (60) is configured to provide a second slit in a second side surface opposite to the first side surface of the transport rack (30), and the second slit being formed from the holder toward the second side surface of the transport rack (column 2 lines 27-40 where the window may be a slit, column 4 lines 62-67, Figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 7, Blanco teaches the transport rack according to claim 1. Blanco further teaches wherein:
the holder, the first observation window (44), and the second observation window (60) are provided in a housing (Figures 6-7), and
the first observation window (44) and the second observation window (60) are configured by forming, with a transparent or translucent material, the housing (column 2 lines 27-40 see where the entire receptacle can be made of clear plastic).
Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King (US-2017/0341079-A1).
Regarding claim 1, King teaches a transport rack, comprising:
a holder (centrifuge tube holding assembly 10) configured to hold a storage container (tubes 28) that stores a sample or a reagent that is reacted with the sample ([0019], Figures 1-6);
a first observation window (access slots 46) ([0022], Figures 1-6); and
a second observation window (panel 38) ([0020], Figures 1-6).
Please note that the storage container has not been positively recited, and is therefore not a part of the claimed transport rack. However, for convenience the storage container has been mapped to tubes 28.
The limitations “a first observation window configured to enable reading of identification information on the storage container; and a second observation window configured to enable observation of the sample or the reagent stored in the storage container.” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by King and the access slots of King are capable of enabling reading of identification information and panel is capable of enabling observation of the sample or the reagent stored. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of King (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 6, King teaches the transport rack according to claim 1. King further teaches wherein:
the holder (10) is formed by coupling a first housing in which the first observation window (46) is provided and a second housing in which the second observation window (38) is provided (access slots 46 are seen in Figures 1-6 and are formed in body 12 which is a first housing, and the panel 38 seen in Figures 1-6 is a second housing, where the body 12 and panel 38 are coupled together); and
the first observation window (46) and the second observation window (38) are configured by forming, with a transparent or translucent material, one housing of the first housing and the second housing and by providing slits in a side surface of the other housing of the first housing and the second housing ([0020] describes the panel 38 is comprised of a plastic or glass material and is transparent to allow viewing through the panel 38, thus the second housing is formed with a transparent or translucent material. The body 12 is provided with the plurality of access slots 46).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by translated Kurosu (JP-2011/242302-A).
Regarding claim 1, Kurosu teaches a transport rack (division rack 10), comprising ([0029], Figures 1-3):
a holder (support portions 11) configured to hold a storage container (sample container) that stores a sample or a reagent that is reacted with the sample ([0029], [0031], Figures 1-3);
a first observation window (window 12a) ([0029], Figure 3); and
a second observation window (window 12b) configured to enable observation of the sample or the reagent stored in the storage container ([0029] see specimen container can be observed from the outside through windows 12a and 12b, Figure 2).
Please note that the storage container is not positively recited and is therefore not a part of the claimed transport rack. However, for convenience sample container have been mapped to the storage container.
The limitation “a first observation window configured to enable reading of identification information on the storage container” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Kurosu and the window 12a of Kurosu is capable of enabling reading of identification information on the storage container. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Kurosu (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 2, Kurosu teaches the transport rack (10) according to claim 1. Herchenbach further teaches wherein:
the first observation window (12a) is configured to provide a first slit in a first side surface of the transport rack (10), and a first slit being formed from the holder (11) toward a first side surface of the transport rack (10) ([0029] see window 12a and 12b penetrating inside and outside are formed on both side surfaces of the support portion 11); and
the second observation window (12b) is configured to provide a second slit in a second side surface opposite to the first side surface of the transport rack (10), and the second slit being formed from the holder toward the second side surface of the transport rack (10) ([0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Kurosu teaches the transport rack according to claim 2. Kurosu further teaches wherein at least one of the firs slit and the second slit is provided so as not to reach an upper surface of the transport rack (10) ([0030] see window 12a is formed to reach the upper side of split rack 10 and window 12b on the other side is formed so as not to reach the upper side of the division rack).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over translated Kurosu (JP-2011/242302-A) in view of Wolf (US-2021/0237084-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kurosu teaches the transport rack according to claim 2. Kurosu does not teach further comprising a transparent or translucent cover that is provided in at least one of the first slit and the second slit.
In the analogous art of sample racks, Wolf teaches where a sample rack comprises at least one window that allows for inspection of at least one receptacle where the inspection window can be formed by an insert of transparent material (e.g., glass or plastic), by a material recess, or a combination (Wolf; [0025]).
Examiner finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., rack) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., windows being through holes) with other component(s) (i.e., the windows having a transparent material), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., the windows being a through hole for windows that include an insert of transparent material), and the results of the substitution (i.e., viewing the specimen containers through the windows) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute the windows of reference Kurosu with windows that include an insert of transparent material as taught by Wolf, since the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanco (US-5224585-A) in view of Robb (US-2009/0028754-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Blanco teaches the transport rack according to claim 2. From Figure 7 of Blanco which shows a top view of the receptacle 30, the windows 44 and 60 appear to have a rectangular shape, i.e., the cutout has straight sidewalls from inside of the receptacle to the outer surface, and therefore Blanco does not teach wherein at least one of the first slit and the second slit has a tapered shape expanding from the holder toward each side surface of the transport rack.
In the analogous art of sample tube racks, Robb teaches a single row sample tube rack seen in Figure 2 where it can be observed that the rack has three openings for tubes that have two openings on opposite sides that have tapered shapes (Robb; [0023], Figure 2).
Examiner finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., vial receptacle) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., the windows being rectangular) with other component(s) (i.e., windows having a tapered shape), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., shape of the windows being rectangular for windows that are tapered in shape), and the results of the substitution (i.e., viewing information on the vials through the windows) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute the rectangular shape of reference Blanco with the tapering shape of the windows of reference Robb, since the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over translated Kurosu (JP-2011/242302-A) in view of Robb (US-2009/0028754-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kurosu teaches the transport rack according to claim 2. While Kurosu does teach windows 12a and 12b that are on opposite sides, where based on Figure 5 showing a top view of the rack 10 it appears that the window 12a is an opening that has straight walls. One skilled in the art would find it obvious that the windows 12b will have similar straight walls. Therefore, Kurosu does not teach wherein at least one of the first slit and the second slit has a tapered shape expanding from the holder toward each side surface of the transport rack.
In the analogous art of sample tube racks, Robb teaches a single row sample tube rack seen in Figure 2 where it can be observed that the rack has three openings for tubes that have two openings on opposite sides that have tapered shapes (Robb; [0023], Figure 2).
Examiner finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., rack) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., shape of the windows being straight) with other component(s) (i.e., windows having a tapered shape), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., shape of the windows being straight for openings that are tapered in shape), and the results of the substitution (i.e., viewing the specimen containers through the windows) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute the straight walls of the windows of reference Kurosu with the tapering shape of the windows of reference Robb, since the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over translated Kurosu (JP-2011/242302-A) in view of Blanco (US-5224585-A).
Regarding claim 7, Kurosu teaches the transport rack according to claim 1. Kurosu further teaches wherein:
the holder (11), the first observation window (12a), and the second observation window (12b) are provided in a housing (as seen in Figures 2-5 the support portions 11, windows 12a and 12b are all made as parts of the division rack 10 and are thus provided in a housing);
Kurosu does not teach the first observation window and the second observation window are configured by forming, with a transparent or translucent material, the housing.
In the analogous art of receptacles for holding vials, Blanco teaches where a receptacle can have a window that is in the form of a transparent side of the receptacle or that the entire receptacle may be made transparent or the receptacle may include vertical slits (Blanco; column 2 lines 27-37, column 4 lines 15-16).
Examiner finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., rack) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a rack that has openings that act as windows) with other component(s) (i.e., the rack itself being transparent), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., substituting the rack with windows 12a and 12b for a rack that is made of a transparent material), and the results of the substitution (i.e., viewing the specimen containers) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute the rack with windows 12a and 12b of reference Kurosu with the transparent material of Blanco, since the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US-2008/0050279-A1) in view of Herchenbach (US-2008/0075634-A1).
Regarding claim 20, Fujita teaches an automatic analyzing system comprising:
a transport rack (rack 201) configured to hold a storage container (blood collection tubes 200) that stores a sample or a reagent that is reacted with the sample ([0035], Figures 1-2, 7); and
an automatic analyzing apparatus (sample analyzer 1) configured to analyze the sample by using the sample or the reagent stored in the storage container (200) held by the transport rack (201) ([0034], Figures 1-2, [0067]-[0074] and Figure 12 describing the analyzing operation of the sample analyzer 1),
wherein the transport rack (201) comprises:
a holder (holders 201b) configured to hold the storage container (200) that stores the sample or the reagent that is reacted with the sample ([0038], Figure 7);
a first observation window (openings 201c) configured to enable reading of identification information on the storage container (200) ([0038], Figure 7); and
wherein the automatic analyzing apparatus (1) comprises:
an information reader (barcode reader 3) configured to read the identification information via the first observation window (201c) ([0034], [0036] see barcode reader 3 reads barcodes 200a and 201a that are adhered to the blood collection tube 200 and rack 201, [0038]);
a dispensing probe (sample dispensing arm 30) configured to suck the sample or the reagent stored in the storage container (200) ([0046], Figures 4-5); and
While Figures 7-8 of Fujita shows the rack 201 where it can be seen that there are openings 201c for barcode reader to read the barcode of the blood collection tube 200, it does appear that there is another opening opposite to the openings 201c however these are not described in the specification nor are they labeled. Therefore, Fujita does not teach a second observation window configured to enable observation of the sample or the reagent stored in the storage container;
In the analogous art of racks for carrying capped tubes, Herchenbach teaches where a sample rack includes multiple openings (Herchenbach; abstract, [0042]).
Specifically, Herchenbach teaches where a sample rack 100 includes a frame 102, where from Figure 2 it can be seen that there are openings 136 provided in side wall 130 that are aligned with each base member recess 106 (Herchenbach; [0037], [0038], [0042]). It is further described by [0042] that the openings 136 allow for optical scanners to detect whether or not a tube 110 is present, and that the open side of the frame permits access for optical reading of labels on tubes 110.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the rack of Fujita such that it includes openings on the opposite side to the openings for reading the barcode as taught by Herchenbach because Herchenbach teaches that the opposite openings allow for optical scanners to detect whether or not a tube is present at each of the recesses (Herchenbach; [0042]).
Further, one skilled in the art would further find it obvious to modify the sample analyzer of Fujita such that it includes the optical scanner as taught by Herchenbach, where the barcode reader and optical scanner together will make up an information reader, such that the rack can be observed from both sides.
The detection of either the presence or absence of the tube is an observation result of the sample or the reagent stored in the tube.
[0034] of Fujita describes that the barcode reader 3 is controlled by a control board 7, where therefore one skilled in the art would find it obvious that the additional optical scanner to detect the presence or absence of the tube opposite to the barcode reader as taught by Herchenbach will also be connected and controlled by the control board.
[0051] of Fujita teaches that the control board 7 controls the operation of a detecting device 5, transporting device 2 and the like, and processes and stores optical information from a measuring part 70, the control board 7 including a CPU, memory, and the like.
[0067]-[0074] of Fujita describes the process shown in Figure 12, where in step S2 the barcode 200a of the blood collection tubes 200 and the barcode 201a of the rack 201 are read by the barcode reader, where one skilled in the art would find it obvious that at this time the reverse side will be scanned through the opposite openings for the presence or absence of the tubes. [0071] of Fujita describes step S4 where the type of blood collection tube 200 is identified by referring to the correspondence between the type of blood collection tube and the container type identifier set in the control device 6, where in step S6 described in [0073] the control board 7 aspirates the sample via auxiliary device 35 and sample dispensing arm 30.
As such, it will be the combination of the barcode information as well as the presence or absence of the tube that will provide information for subsequent steps leading to the aspiration of sample.
Please note that the storage container has not been positively recited and is therefore not a part of the claimed automatic analyzing system. However, for convenience the storage container has been mapped to blood collection tubes 200.
Other References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olson (US-2019/0350808-A1) describes a sample container that includes a window in the sidewall, where the window may be a transparent material, or in another embodiment the window may be a cut-out in the sidewall (Olson; [0004], [0016]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights