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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on December 19, 2023 is acknowledged. The application will be examined accordingly.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 19, 2023 and January 23, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 is grammatically incorrect. Specifically, the recitation, “protrusions for engagement with the at least one universal tray insert being releasably engageable within…” should be changed to “protrusions for engagement with the at least one universal tray insert, the insert being releasably engageable within…”
In claim 29, the limitation “comprisign” is misspelled.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are interpreted in light of the specification. That said, the limitation “circumference” is being interpreted as referring to a generic perimeter, and not specifically a circular perimeter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim intends to convey. Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim intends to recite a fixed number of recesses wherein each recess is capable of accommodating different numbers of sample tubes depending on the diameters of the sample tubes (e.g. each recess can accommodate one large sample tubes or 3-4 smaller sample tubes such that they can accommodate 20 large sample tubes or 78 smaller sample tubes), or whether the claim intends to recite that the tray insert is configured to alter the number of its recesses, specifically between 20 and 78 recesses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 18, 19, 21 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafond et al. (“Lafond”) (US 6,568,544 B1).
With respect to claim 18, Lafond discloses a universal tray insert 14 for a multipurpose tray for an automated processing system, wherein the insert 14 is configured for holding a plurality of reagent or sample tubes 11 having similar or differing diameters, said universal tray insert comprising an array of tube receiving recesses with different sizes (see Fig. 1; see also Fig. 7 illustrating a two-level embodiment), wherein:
said array of tube receiving recesses comprises at least a first group of tube receiving recesses (recesses of element 36), and a second group of tube receiving recesses (recesses of element 38), wherein the size of a recess of said first group of tube receiving recesses and the size of a recess of said second group of tube receiving recesses differ from each other (see Fig. 1), and a contour of an inner circumference of each tube receiving recess of said first group of tube receiving recesses (i.e. column of five recesses in the middle of the insert 14) intersects with a contour of an inner circumference of at least one adjacent tube receiving recess of said second group of tube receiving recesses (see Fig. 1).
While the tray insert 14 illustrated in Figure 1 does not comprise a third group of tube receiving recesses, Lafond discloses that the tray insert 14 can comprise “more than two removable sections” (see lines 53-57, col. 4), and each section can be configured to receive tubes of a different configuration (see abstract), such as size (see line 44, col. 2). Based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the tray insert 14 with a third group of tube receiving recesses, for example larger recesses, for receiving sample tubes of a third size. If the modification is made, then a contour of an inner circumference of each tube receiving recess of said first group of tube receiving recesses would intersect with a contour of an inner circumference of at least one tube receiving recess of said third group of tube receiving recesses.
With respect to claim 19, the intersection of contours of the first group of tube receiving recesses and the second group of tube receiving recesses corresponds to a non-tangential crossover of contours (see Fig. 1); and
a contour of each tube receiving recess of one group of tube receiving recesses is spaced apart from a contour of an adjacent tube receiving recess of the same group of tube receiving recesses (see Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 21, the array of tube receiving recesses receives between 20 and 78 sample tubes (see Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 24, the tray insert 14 is part of a multipurpose tray further comprising a base module 12, the base module 12 being open on one (top) side and comprising protrusions 24/24a/26/26a for engagement with the universal tray insert 14 (see lines 36-55, col. 3), the tray insert 14 being releasably engageable within said open side of the base module 12 by engagement with the protrusions of the base module 12 (see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the base module 12 is stackable on top of another base module of a multipurpose tray of the same type*, further wherein the bottom side of the base module 12 comprises a step portion (inner periphery of frame 18 where removable sections 20 and 22 fit) with reduced outer circumference, the step portion matching into an upper edge of the open side of the other base module*.
The “another base module” is not part of the claimed invention. It is recited in the claim solely to provide context for the base module. Consequently, prior art need not teach a base module stacked on top of another base module via a step portion of the base module in order to anticipate the claim. Instead, to anticipate the claim, the base module of the prior art need only be capable of performing the claimed stacking. In this instance, due to the flared/tapered nature of the base module 12, the bottom surface (step portion) of the base module 12 taught by Lafond can be stacked on top of an open (top) side of another base module 12 of the same type.
With respect to claim 25, the base module 12 comprises a rectangular structure with a substantially closed bottom side (see Fig. 2) and at least partially closed side walls 24 and 26, wherein the upper side is the open side of the base module (see Fig. 2), wherein each side wall of the base module 12 comprises an open slot (slot formed by 24/24a/24b; slot formed by 26/26a/26b, see Fig. 2), and each corner of the rectangular structure comprises an angular corner post 24a/24b/26a/26b (see Fig. 2).
With respect to claims 26 and 27, the base module 12 comprises two handles 24/26 each having an engagement indentation (slot formed by 24/24a/24b; 26/26a/26b) on its outer circumference opposite to each other for improved transportability of the base module by an operator or a tray carrier (see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 32, the universal tray insert 14 is at least partially enclosed by the base module in a framed manner without the at least one universal tray insert protruding to the outside of the base module (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafond as applied to claims 18, 19, 21, 24-27 and 32 above, and further in view of Mathus et al. (“Mathus”) (US 6,875,405 B1).
With respect to claim 20, Lafond does not disclose fiducial markers provided at the edge of an upper surface of the universal tray insert.
Mathis discloses an analogous tray insert for holding sample tubes 92 in tube receiving recesses 26-30 (see Figs. 1 and 10), wherein the tray insert comprises fiducial markers at the edge of an upper surface of the insert, the markers being in the form of an alphanumeric grid for identifying each tube receiving recess (see Fig. 4). In light of the disclosure of Mathus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an upper surface of the tray insert taught by Lafond with fiducial markers for identifying individual receiving recesses (i.e. give each receiving recess a name for identification purposes). For this claim, the modification would be applied to the two-level embodiment (see Figure 7) of Lafond such that the fiducial markers are visually accessible.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafond as applied to claims 18, 19, 21, 24-27 and 32 above, and further in view of Emmitt (US 4,124,122).
With respect to claim 22, Lafond does not disclose a centering spring provided inside at least one of the tube receiving recesses.
However, sample tube racks comprising springs inside sample tube recesses for resiliently securing sample tubes inside the recesses are well-known (e.g. see lines 20-25, col. 3 of Emmitt). In light of the disclosure of Emmitt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided each sample tube recess of Lafond’s tray insert 14 with a spring for resiliently centering a tube therein.
Claims 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafond as applied to claims 18, 19, 21, 24-27 and 32 above, and further in view of Landsberger (US 5,169,603).
With respect to claims 23 and 31, while Lafond discloses that the multipurpose tray is made from a resilient plastic material (see claim 13), Lafond does not disclose that the material is one of the claimed materials. However, polypropylene (PP) is well-known as a resilient plastic, and many conventional sample tube racks are made from PP, for example the rack taught by Landsberger (see Fig. 1 and lines 36-40, col. 2). In light of the disclosure of Landsberger demonstrating that PP is a suitable material for making sample tube racks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the tray insert and the base module taught by Lafond from PP, which comprises the properties (resilient plastic) sought by Lafond.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafond as applied to claims 18, 19, 21, 24-27 and 32 above, and further in view of Duffy et al. (“Duffy”) (US 2009/0136386 A1).
With respect to claim 28, Lafond does not disclose that the base module 12 comprises at least one color indicator for indication of a loading status of a content of the multipurpose tray.
Duffy discloses an analogous sample tube rack for automated processing (see [0011]), wherein the rack comprises an array of openings for holding sample tubes in an array format (see Fig. 3). Each row of the rack comprises a temporary colored tag for encoding information pertaining to the tubes of said row (see [0042]). In light of the disclosure of Duffy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the base module 12 taught by Lafond with colored tags encoding information (e.g. intended use of the sample tubes) specific to the sample tubes stored in a given row/column of the multipurpose tray.
Regarding the limitation “for indication of a loading status of a content of the multipurpose tray”, the limitation is an intended-use limitation that does not further limit the color indicator. Consequently, to reject the claim, prior art need only disclose a color indicator, regardless of whether the indicator is used specifically for the purpose of indicating a loading status.
Regarding the limitation “wherein said color indicator is operable manually by an operator”, because the colored tags can be temporary marking (see [0042] of Duffy), the tags can be manually operated (e.g. removed) by a user.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafond as applied to claims 18, 19, 21, 24-27 and 32 above, and further in view of Ross (US 2009/0026107 A1).
With respect to claims 29 and 30, Lafond does not disclose that a surface of the base module 12 comprises a identification code or a whiteboard material. However, it is well-known in the art to provide a storage rack with a writing surface to enable a user to write information thereon (e.g. identification code) (see [0018]-[0019] of Ross). In light of the disclosure of Ross, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the base module 12 taught by Lafond with a surface that can be marked using a marker. The modification would enable a user to write temporary information on the whiteboard material (e.g. sample identification code, date, etc.) without resorting to expensive technology such as a bar code.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights