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 Amendment filed on 4/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11 and 15-24 remain pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 4/27/2026 is acknowledged. With respect to Applicant’s traversal of the restriction requirement, Applicant’s arguments are based on the presently amended claims having a technical feature not taught by the references cited in the restriction requirement set forth in the office action mailed 2/27/2026. However, the restriction requirement was properly made with respect to the claims presented at the time of the previous office action (i.e., the claims as originally presented) and Applicant has not presented any arguments directed to the original claims. Also, even with respect to the newly amended claims, the amended claims do not make a contribution over the prior art (i.e., Groups I and II still lack the same or corresponding special technical feature) because the groups do not make a contribution over the prior art, namely Amirkhanian as set forth below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a floating plate at least one of between…” seems to be missing a word or something else as it does not appear grammatically correct. 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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites “a cartridge” in line 2 and claim 1 recites “a cartridge.” Claim 16 is therefore unclear if the cartridge recited in claim 16 is the same or different from the cartridge recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, they are interpreted to be the same.
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 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2005/0016852, hereinafter Amirkhanian.
Regarding claim 1, Amirkhanian teaches a system (item 200) for processing fluid containers, the system comprising: a first tray holder (labeled in annotated figure below) configured to hold a first inlet tray (functional language (MPEP § 2114) and is taught as item 72) and a first outlet tray (functional language (MPEP § 2114) and as taught as item 70), the first inlet tray comprising one or more reservoirs (paragraph [0050]), and the first outlet tray comprising one or more cavities (paragraph [0050]); a couplable upper member (item 100) comprising a sealing surface (paragraphs [0050] and [0082]); a moving mechanism (labeled in annotated figure below) configured to move the first tray holder in a first direction so as to bring at least one of the first inlet tray and the first outlet tray in contact with the sealing surface of the couplable upper member (paragraph [0050]); and a floating plate (labeled in annotated figure below) at least one of between the first outlet tray and a top surface of the moving mechanism (see figure below), and between the first inlet tray and the top surface of the moving mechanism (see figure below); wherein the couplable upper member comprises a cartridge (item 100) comprising a plurality of capillaries (paragraph [0050]), the capillaries being in fluid contact with the reservoirs of the first inlet tray and with the cavities of the first outlet tray (functional language (MPEP § 2114)); and wherein the moving mechanism is configured to independently move the first inlet tray and the first outlet tray in the first direction (functional language (MPEP § 2114) and the two trays would be able to be moved independently).
PNG
media_image1.png
673
1529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Amirkhanian teaches wherein the first direction is a vertical direction along an axis of the couplable upper member (see figure above).
Regarding claim 6, Amirkhanian teaches a pressure applied to the couplable upper member by the moving mechanism via one of the first outlet tray and the first inlet tray is independent from another pressure applied by the moving mechanism to the couplable upper member via the other one of the first outlet tray and the first inlet tray (functional limitation (MPEP § 2114) and the moving mechanism would be able to apply a pressure as described).
Regarding claim 7, Amirkhanian teaches a portion of the first tray holder that is underneath at least one of the first outlet tray and the first inlet tray comprises a cutout so as to expose a bottom portion thereof (see figure above).
Regarding claim 8, Amirkhanian teaches the moving mechanism is further configured to move the first tray holder in a horizontal direction (paragraph [0050]).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 9-11, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amirkhanian in view of United States Application Publication No. 2007/0068573, hereinafter Cox.
Regarding claim 4, Amirkhanian teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Amirkhanian fails to teach the first direction is a vertical direction.
Cox teaches a system for control of fluids in which the trays are loaded onto XYZ mechanism which permit complete flexibility (Cox, paragraph [0201]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the moving mechanism be able to move in the XYZ directions because it would permit complete flexibility (Cox, paragraph [0201]).
Regarding claim 9, Amirkhanian teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Amirkhanian fails to teach the moving mechanism comprises at least two independent moving platforms, a first moving platform configured to move the first inlet tray against a bottom surface of the couplable upper member, and a second moving platform configured to move the first outlet tray against the bottom surface of the couplable upper member independently of the first moving platform.
Cox teaches the sets of samples and primers are loaded onto two XYZ mechanisms which permit complete flexibility (Cox, paragraph [0201]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the moving mechanism comprise two independent moving platforms because it would permit complete flexibility (Cox, paragraph [0201]).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Amirkhanian teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Amirkhanian fails to teach a second tray holder configured to hold a second inlet tray and a second outlet tray; the second inlet tray being configured to contain one or more fluid reservoirs; and the second outlet tray comprising one or more cavities; wherein the moving mechanism is configured to move the second tray holder in the first direction and wherein the moving mechanism comprises at least two independent moving platforms, a first moving platform configured to move one of the first inlet tray and the second inlet tray against a bottom surface of the couplable upper member, and a second moving platform configured to move one of the first outlet tray and the second outlet tray against the bottom surface of the couplable upper member independently of the first moving platform.
Cox teaches the sets of samples and primers are loaded onto two XYZ mechanisms which permit complete flexibility (Cox, paragraph [0201]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a second tray and the moving mechanism comprising at least two independent moving platforms holding because it would permit complete flexibility (Cox, paragraph [0201]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Amirkhanian teaches the second tray holder is a movable second tray holder (see supra).
Regarding claim 16, Amirkhanian wherein the couplable upper member comprises a cartridge (item 100) comprising a plurality of capillaries (paragraph [0050]), the capillaries being in fluid contact with the reservoirs of the first inlet tray or the second inlet tray and with the cavities of the first outlet tray or the second outlet tray (functional language (MPEP § 2114)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights