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 .
Applicant’s filing of claims 1-11 on 2/26/24 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are pending and are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/23/24 was acknowledged. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 and 11 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.
As to claim 1, the claim language “which each include one or more projections” is unclear. Does the “each” refer to the matrix of open-ended apertures?
Claim 1 is rejected because “the bottom of the box frame” raises an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 11 is rejected for indefiniteness because the claim language, “using laser cutting techniques,” merely recites a use, e.g., “using” or “used to,” without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Interpretation
The Office asserts that terms and phrases like “for” and “wherein” constitute recitations of intended use language for purposes of examination. The Office asserts that in the examined claims reciting such “for” language, the claim language that follows such recitations does not necessarily denote structure MPEP 2173.05(g). The functional limitation was evaluated and considered, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, a “wherein” clause may have a limiting effect on a claim if the language limits the claim to a particular structure. MPEP 2111.04. The determination of whether a “wherein” clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. While all words in each claim are considered in judging the patentability of the claim language, including functional claim limitations, not all limitations provide a patentable distinction.
During patent examination, the examined claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, unless a term has been given a special definition in the specification (“BRI”). See MPEP 2111.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (“Zhao,” CN217016725) in view of Laska (US 5993745).
As to claim 1, Zhao discloses a rack for sample tubes, the rack comprising:
a. a box lid (packing cover plate 3) and a box frame (base main body 11);
b. at least one tube holder layer (test tube placing plate 2) that has a matrix of open-ended apertures for receiving the sample tubes, wherein the at least one tube holder layer is constructed from a corrugated material (paper material on p. 3); and
c. a tube layer (another test tube placing plate) that has a matrix of open-ended apertures, aligned with the matrix of open-ended apertures (holes) of the at least one tube holder layer;
wherein the tube layer (another test tube placing plate) is positioned between the at least one tube holder layer (test tube placing plate 2) and the bottom of the box frame (see figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao does not specifically disclose a tube locking layer comprising a matrix of open-ended apertures, each open-ended aperture has one or more projections extending into the aperture for locking received sample tubes against rotation relative to the tube locking layer. Laska discloses in figs. 3A-3B and in e.g., col. 3 et seq., a plurality of storage bay openings 25 (“open-ended aperture”) defined by center section 3 and by one of a plurality of centering recesses 24 (one of which is referenced in FIG. 1A) defined by bottom section 2. For each storage bay of test tube guide plate 32, guide 30 preferably provides four fingers 30A-30D (“one or more projections”). As test tubes are inserted from above guide plate 32, fingers 30A-30D point downwardly toward base section 2. At the same time, the force exerted on the test tube by fingers 30A-30D and protrusions 31A-31D is preferably sufficient to minimize or reduce the risk of rotation of the test tube due to ordinary vibration or handling. Minimizing or reducing rotation of the test tube ensures that the orientation of the stored test tube is maintained even during transportation of the storage tray assembly 1. Thus, if a test tube is stored in a storage bay at a desired orientation, such as an orientation dictated by a label reading sensor, the test tube and its label would remain at that desired orientation. See e.g., col. 5 et seq. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the radial cuts in the perforations because minimizing or reducing rotation of the test tube ensures that the orientation of the stored test tube is maintained even during transportation of the storage tray assembly (col. 5-6 of Laska).
As to claim 2, Zhao discloses the box frame has an open bottom in figs. 4 and 5.
As to claim 3, Zhao discloses a bottom spacer (fixing slot 14 or limiting groove 15), wherein the bottom spacer is positioned between the tube locking layer and the bottom of the box frame. See fig. 1.
As to claim 4, Zhao discloses a top spacer (fixing slot 14 or limiting groove 15), wherein the top spacer is affixed to the interior of the box lid proximate the top of the box lid, and configured to seat against a top surface of the box frame. See fig. 1.
As to claim 5, Zhao discloses a flange (connecting bump 12), wherein the flange is affixed to the exterior of the box frame, and configured to block seating of the box lid on the box frame beyond a predetermined depth. See figs. 1 and 4.
As to claim 6, Zhao discloses the rack is constructed from a cardboard material on pg. 2.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viladomat Lopez (US Pub. No. 2022/0331807) in view of Zhao and Laska.
See Zhao and Laska above.
As to claim 7, Viladomat Lopez teaches a process for manufacturing a rack, the process comprising the steps of:
cutting one or more blanks of cardboard material into a box template and a box frame template, a tube holder layer template, and a tube layer template (e.g., [0018] et seq.);
folding and securing the box template and box frame template, respectively, to form a box and box frame (e.g., [0018] et seq.);
cutting the tube holder layer template and tube layer template, respectively, to form matrices of open-ended apertures that are configured to mutually align when the respective layers are positioned within the box frame (e.g., [0018] et seq.); and
positioning the cut tube holder layer and the cut tube layer within the box frame, with the tube layer positioned between the tube holder layer and the bottom of the box frame. See figs. 1-6 and [0018] et seq.
Regarding claim 7, Viladomat Lopez does not specifically teach a box lid. Zhao teaches a box lid. See cover plate 3 in fig. 5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a box lid because it would help protect the contents inside the rack. Furthermore, Viladomat Lopez does not specifically teach a tube locking layer. Laska teaches in figs. 3A-3B and in e.g., col. 3 et seq., a plurality of storage bay openings 25 (“open-ended aperture”) defined by center section 3 and by one of a plurality of centering recesses 24 (one of which is referenced in FIG. 1A) defined by bottom section 2. See e.g., col. 5 et seq. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a tube locking layer because it would minimize or reduce rotation of the test tube to ensure that the orientation of the stored test tube is maintained during transportation of the storage tray assembly (col. 5-6 of Laska).
As to claim 8, the combination of Viladomat Lopez, Zhao and Laska teach the cutting step includes cutting a bottom spacer, and the positioning step includes positioning the bottom spacer between the tube locking layer and the bottom of the box frame. See e.g., figs. 1-6 and [0018] et seq. of Viladomat Lopez; and fixing slot 14 or limiting groove 15 and fig. 1 of Zhao. For motivation statement, see above.
As to claim 9, the combination of Viladomat Lopez, Zhao and Laska teach the cutting step includes cutting a top spacer, and an additional positioning step includes affixing the top spacer to the interior of the box lid proximate the top of the box lid, wherein the top spacer is positioned and configured to seat against a top surface of the box frame upon assembly of the box lid to the box frame. See e.g., figs. 1-6 and [0018] et seq. of Viladomat Lopez; and fixing slot 14 or limiting groove 15, cover plate 3 and fig. 1 of Zhao. For motivation statement, see above.
As to claim 10, the combination of Viladomat Lopez, Zhao and Laska teach the cutting step includes cutting an external flange, and an additional positioning step includes affixing the flange to the exterior of the box frame, wherein the flange is positioned and configured to block seating of the box lid on the box frame beyond a predetermined depth upon assembly of the box lid to the box frame. See e.g., figs. 1-6 and [0018] et seq. of Viladomat Lopez; and connecting bump 12 and figs. 1 and 4 of Zhao. For motivation statement, see above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viladomat Lopez in view of Zhao, Laska and Fang (CN 218012859)
See Viladomat Lopez, Zhao and Laska above.
As to claim 11, Viladomat Lopez does not specifically teach using laser cutting techniques. Fang teaches laser welding in page 14. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a laser cutting technique because it would be desirable to utilize a technique that is known for its high precision and speed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORE RAMILLANO JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254. 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.
/LORE R JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights