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 .
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 1-7, 9-10, and 21-27 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.
The term “about - 25 and -80 degrees Celsius” in claims 1 and 21; (along with similar language in claims 9-10) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, what may be considered “about - 25 and -80 degrees Celsius” to person XX may not be necessarily considered “about - 25 and -80 degrees Celsius” to person YY. Because the scope of the word “about” is not defined, the limitation is indefinite.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, and 22-27 are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-7, 9-10, and 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (US 8851588 B2) in view of Knight (US 20240216920 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Ward discloses a freezer storage rack (Fig. 1; col. 1, L 5-7) for storing samples in a freezer comprising:
a housing #26; and
a first drawer #30 disposed within the housing and comprising a bottom #76, a front panel, a back panel, and a side panel (see #80 in Fig. 3; defining front, back, and side panels);
a second drawer (any other one of drawer #30; Fig. 2-3) disposed within the housing and comprising a bottom, a front panel, a back panel, and a side panel (see Fig. 3),
wherein the freezer storage rack is configured to function at temperatures between about - 25 and -80 degrees Celsius (col. 1, L 6-24).
Ward does not disclose wherein at least one of the housing or the first drawer comprises a polymer material and is RF transparent; wherein at least one of the housing or the drawer is visually transparent.
In the field of storage organizer, Knight teaches a freezer storage rack #100 comprising a housing #102 and a drawer #130 (Fig. 4-5); wherein at least one of the housing or the first drawer comprises a polymer material and is RF transparent; wherein at least one of the housing or the drawer comprises is visually transparent ([0070], [0077], and [0086]).
In grosso modo, Knight teaches that the usage of a visually and RF transparent polymer material in freezer storage rack is well known in the art.
Furthermore; it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Ward with at least one of the housing or the first drawer being RF transparent polymer material; wherein at least one of the housing or the drawer is visually transparent in a similar manner as taught by Knight.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have allowed a user to see the position of the tray relative to the cover as suggested by Knight ([0086]); thereby, facilitating operation of the drawer. Other benefits include instant identification of contents of the rack; improving organization; and reduction of the risk of forgetting contents within the rack.
Regarding claim 2:
Ward as modified discloses all the limitations.
Ward as modified discloses wherein the housing and the first drawer both comprise polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG). See rejection of claim 1 above; discussing change of material with the teachings of Knight.
Regarding claim 3:
Ward as modified discloses all the limitations.
Ward further discloses wherein at least one of the housing, the first drawer, or the second drawer comprises a plurality of parts bonded together (Fig. 4: #36 and #64 are part of the housing that bonded together; [0064]).
Note: the limitation “the plurality of parts being solvent bonded together” is directed to the process of making the apparatus, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Since the product in the product-by-process claim of the applicant is the same as that of the prior art herein so far, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (see In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding claim 4:
Ward as modified discloses all the limitations.
Ward further discloses wherein the housing comprises a plurality of shelves #28 (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5:
Ward as modified discloses all the limitations.
Ward further discloses a third drawer and a fourth drawer (see Fig. 4: five drawer #30 are provided).
Regarding claim 6:
Ward as modified discloses all the limitations.
Ward further discloses wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth drawers are disposed within the housing on a different shelf of the plurality of shelves (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7:
Ward as modified discloses all the limitations.
Ward further discloses wherein the first, second, third, and fourth drawers are each sized and shaped to receive a plurality of sample boxes #12 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 9-10:
Ward as modified discloses all the limitations.
Ward further discloses wherein the freezer storage rack is configured to function at temperatures between about -40 and -80 degrees Celsius (col. 1, L 6-24).
Regarding claims 21-27:
The subject matter recited herein is substantially similar to that of claims 1-7 & 9-10.
Thus, refer to the rejections above for the rejection of claims 21-27.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/24/2026 have been fully considered; but are considered moot in view of the new ground of rejection set forth in this office action.
The claims have been rejected as being unpatentable over Ward (US 8851588 B2) in view of Knight (US 20240216920 A1). See elaborated rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763