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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the previous Office Action did not establish an undue search burden of the claims as specified by MPEP 803. This is not found persuasive because the instant application is a national stage entry filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 and is therefore not subject to US restriction practice but rather subject to lack of unity practice, see MPEP 1893.03(d). It is noted that undue search burden is not a criterion in lack of unity analysis. The test is whether or not special technical features can be established. It is noted that inventions listed as Groups I-II do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features as set forth in the previous Office Action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 and 3 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 the limitation "the lifting basket base plate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that this structure is called “a lifting basket bottom plate in claim 1. Claim 3 similarly recites "the lifting basket base plate." Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3178558, hereinafter Williams in view of United States Patent No. 5,058,397, hereinafter MacDonald.
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches a lifting basket (item 800), comprising, a support assembly (lateral side of item 800), a lifting basket bottom plate (the bottom plate as shown in figure 5) for holding at least two rows of reagent strips (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)), and a sample holder (item 830) for holding at least two sample tubes (item 802), wherein the sample holder is detachably connected to an end face of the lifting basket bottom plate (figures 7, 8D and 8E); and the support assembly is connected to a bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate (figure 5), and a height of the support assembly is greater than or equal to heights of the at least two rows of reagent strips (figure 5).
Williams fails to teach a cover plate that is rotatably connected to the lifting basket bottom plate to restrict movement of each of the at least two rows of reagent strips in a height direction when the cover plate contacts the lifting basket bottom plate.
MacDonald teaches a storage container which has a cover which is connected to the device via a hinge (MacDonald, column 3, lines 43-66) which allows the cover to retain tubes in the housing (MacDonald, column 2, lines 30-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a cover which is rotatable connected to the lifting based bottom plate because it would restrict movement of the contents within the basket (MacDonald, column 2, lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 2, Williams teaches a handle (item 806), wherein the handle is rotatably connected to the lifting basket base plate (figure 5 and 8).
Regarding claim 3, Williams teaches the lifting basket base plate (the bottom plate as shown in figure 5) has a handle mounting edge (the side of the bottom plate) and a plurality of reagent-strip mounting holes (figure 5) for holding the at least two rows of reagent strips (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is taught in figure 5), and the handle mounting edge is arranged around the lifting basket base plate (figure 5); the handle (item 806) contacts the handle mounting edge when the handle is not rotated relative to the lifting basket bottom plate (figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Williams teaches wherein a buffer pad (item 808) is provided on an upper surface of the handle mounting edge (figure 5).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams and MacDonald as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2019/0031421, hereinafter Kneisel.
Regarding claim 5, Williams and MacDonald teach all limitations of claim 4; however, they fail to teach a first magnet is provided on a top surface of the lifting basket bottom plate, a second magnet is provided on a bottom surface of the cover plate, and the first magnet is attracted to the second magnet when the cover plate contacts the lifting basket bottom plate.
Kneisel teaches a device which has a lid magnet and a base magnet so that the lid can be magnetically couple the lid to the base member (Kneisel, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a first magnet in the top surface of the lifting based bottom plate and a second magnet on the bottom surface of the cover plate because it would allow for the lifting basket bottom plate and cover plate to be magnetically coupled (Kneisel, abstract).
Claim(s) 6 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams and MacDonald as applied to claims 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively, above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2021/0180043, hereinafter Carrese.
Regarding claim 6, Williams and MacDonald teach all limitations of claim 2; however, they fail to teach a positioning assembly, wherein the positioning assembly comprises a guide seat, an extension spring, a guide shaft provided along a length direction of the lifting basket bottom plate, and a baffle for limiting the at least two rows of reagent strips, the guide seat is connected to the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate; and the guide shaft is slidably connected to the guide seat, one end of the guide shaft is vertically connected to the baffle, and two ends of the extension spring are respectively connected to the baffle and the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate.
Carrese teaches a positioning assembly (Carrese, item 900), wherein the positioning assembly comprises a guide seat (Carrese, item 906), an extension spring (Carrese, item 924), a guide shaft (Carrese, item 919) provided along a length direction of the lifting basket bottom plate (Carrese, figure 9), and a baffle (Carrese, item 902) for limiting the at least two rows of reagent strips (Carrese, figure 10b), the guide seat is connected to the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate (Carrese, figure 8b); and the guide shaft is slidably connected to the guide seat (Carrese, figure 9), one end of the guide shaft is vertically connected to the baffle (Carrese, figure 9), and two ends of the extension spring are respectively connected to the baffle and the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate (Carrese, figure 9) so that a bottom surface of the rack can contact a top surface of the magnet holder to apply a magnetic force to the receptacles (Carrese, paragraph [0193]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the positioning assembly of Carrese to the device of Williams because it would allow for the bottom surface of the rack can contact a top surface of the magnet holder to apply a magnetic force to the receptacles (Carrese, paragraph [0193]).
Regarding claim 11, Williams and MacDonald teach all limitations of claim 3; however, they fail to teach a positioning assembly, wherein the positioning assembly comprises a guide seat, an extension spring, a guide shaft provided along a length direction of the lifting basket bottom plate, and a baffle for limiting the at least two rows of reagent strips, the guide seat is connected to the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate; and the guide shaft is slidably connected to the guide seat, one end of the guide shaft is vertically connected to the baffle, and two ends of the extension spring are respectively connected to the baffle and the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate.
Carrese teaches a positioning assembly (Carrese, item 900), wherein the positioning assembly comprises a guide seat (Carrese, item 906), an extension spring (Carrese, item 924), a guide shaft (Carrese, item 919) provided along a length direction of the lifting basket bottom plate (Carrese, figure 9), and a baffle (Carrese, item 902) for limiting the at least two rows of reagent strips (Carrese, figure 10b), the guide seat is connected to the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate (Carrese, figure 8b); and the guide shaft is slidably connected to the guide seat (Carrese, figure 9), one end of the guide shaft is vertically connected to the baffle (Carrese, figure 9), and two ends of the extension spring are respectively connected to the baffle and the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate (Carrese, figure 9) so that a bottom surface of the rack can contact a top surface of the magnet holder to apply a magnetic force to the receptacles (Carrese, paragraph [0193]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the positioning assembly of Carrese to the device of Williams because it would allow for the bottom surface of the rack can contact a top surface of the magnet holder to apply a magnetic force to the receptacles (Carrese, paragraph [0193]).
Regarding claim 12, Williams and MacDonald teach all limitations of claim 4; however, they fail to teach a positioning assembly, wherein the positioning assembly comprises a guide seat, an extension spring, a guide shaft provided along a length direction of the lifting basket bottom plate, and a baffle for limiting the at least two rows of reagent strips, the guide seat is connected to the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate; and the guide shaft is slidably connected to the guide seat, one end of the guide shaft is vertically connected to the baffle, and two ends of the extension spring are respectively connected to the baffle and the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate.
Carrese teaches a positioning assembly (Carrese, item 900), wherein the positioning assembly comprises a guide seat (Carrese, item 906), an extension spring (Carrese, item 924), a guide shaft (Carrese, item 919) provided along a length direction of the lifting basket bottom plate (Carrese, figure 9), and a baffle (Carrese, item 902) for limiting the at least two rows of reagent strips (Carrese, figure 10b), the guide seat is connected to the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate (Carrese, figure 8b); and the guide shaft is slidably connected to the guide seat (Carrese, figure 9), one end of the guide shaft is vertically connected to the baffle (Carrese, figure 9), and two ends of the extension spring are respectively connected to the baffle and the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate (Carrese, figure 9) so that a bottom surface of the rack can contact a top surface of the magnet holder to apply a magnetic force to the receptacles (Carrese, paragraph [0193]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the positioning assembly of Carrese to the device of Williams because it would allow for the bottom surface of the rack can contact a top surface of the magnet holder to apply a magnetic force to the receptacles (Carrese, paragraph [0193]).
Regarding claim 13, Williams and MacDonald teach all limitations of claim 5; however, they fail to teach a positioning assembly, wherein the positioning assembly comprises a guide seat, an extension spring, a guide shaft provided along a length direction of the lifting basket bottom plate, and a baffle for limiting the at least two rows of reagent strips, the guide seat is connected to the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate; and the guide shaft is slidably connected to the guide seat, one end of the guide shaft is vertically connected to the baffle, and two ends of the extension spring are respectively connected to the baffle and the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate.
Carrese teaches a positioning assembly (Carrese, item 900), wherein the positioning assembly comprises a guide seat (Carrese, item 906), an extension spring (Carrese, item 924), a guide shaft (Carrese, item 919) provided along a length direction of the lifting basket bottom plate (Carrese, figure 9), and a baffle (Carrese, item 902) for limiting the at least two rows of reagent strips (Carrese, figure 10b), the guide seat is connected to the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate (Carrese, figure 8b); and the guide shaft is slidably connected to the guide seat (Carrese, figure 9), one end of the guide shaft is vertically connected to the baffle (Carrese, figure 9), and two ends of the extension spring are respectively connected to the baffle and the bottom surface of the lifting basket bottom plate (Carrese, figure 9) so that a bottom surface of the rack can contact a top surface of the magnet holder to apply a magnetic force to the receptacles (Carrese, paragraph [0193]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the positioning assembly of Carrese to the device of Williams because it would allow for the bottom surface of the rack can contact a top surface of the magnet holder to apply a magnetic force to the receptacles (Carrese, paragraph [0193]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, MacDonald and Carrese as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2013/0100549, hereinafter Nichols.
Regarding claim 7, Williams teaches the C-shaped handle are rotatably connected to two ends of the lifting basket bottom plate in the length direction of the lifting basket bottom plate (figures 5 and 8).
Williams, MacDonald and Carrese fail to teach the handle comprises two C-shaped handles of a same size and opposite rotation directions.
Nichols teaches a device which has one or two carrying handles (Nichols, paragraph [0032]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., using two handles instead of one), and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., carrying the basket), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to combine the single handle of reference Williams with two handles of reference Nichols, since the result would have been predictable.
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