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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, it is suggested to recite “in. inches” as “inches”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shanler et al. (EP 1623759 A1; cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Shanler teaches a microplate lid (abstract, Figs. 1, 5-6, and paragraph [0002] teach a lid 14 for well plate or microplate 12) configured to cover a microwell assay plate (Figs. 1, 5-6), comprising:
a lid panel (Figs. 1, 5-6, panel 60) having a top panel surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, interpreted the top surface of panel 60 opposite of the microplate 12) and a bottom panel surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, interpreted the bottom surface of panel 60 facing microplate 12),
a lid frame surrounding the lid panel (Figs. 1, 5-6, peripheral frame 62 surrounding panel 60) having a top frame surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, interpreted as the top surface of the peripheral frame 62 opposite of the microplate 12) and a bottom frame surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, interpreted as the bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 facing the microplate 12); and
a plurality of sidewalls extending from a periphery of the bottom frame surface (Figs. 1,4-6 teaches sidewalls including end walls 72, 74 extending from a periphery of bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 facing the microplate 12); and further comprising at least one feature selected from:
a plurality of ribs extending from the top frame surface (interpreted as not required due to the “at least one” phrase),
chamfered edges disposed at a bottom of the plurality of sidewalls (interpreted as not required due to the “at least one” phrase),
a convex shape formed by the lid panel (interpreted as not required due to the “at least one” phrase), and
a substantially continuous contact surface formed by the bottom frame surface (Figs. 1, 5-6 teaches the bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 facing the microplate 12 has a substantially continuous contact surface which contacts the top edge 41 of the outer peripheral sidewall 40 of the microplate 12).
Regarding claim 9, Shanler further teaches the microplate lid of claim 1, wherein the at least one feature includes the substantially continuous contact surface formed by the bottom frame surface (Figs. 1, 5-6 teaches the bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 facing the microplate 12 has a substantially continuous contact surface which contacts the top edge 41 of the outer peripheral sidewall 40 of the microplate 12), and wherein the bottom frame surface is substantially planar (Figs. 1, 5-6, teaches the bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 facing the microplate 12 is substantially planar).
Regarding claim 10, Shanler further teaches the microplate lid of claim 9, wherein the bottom frame surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, the bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 facing the microplate 12) is configured for contact around substantially all of a perimeter of the microwell assay plate (Figs. 1,5-6 and [0034] teaches the bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 is configured for contact around all of the top edge 41 of peripheral end wall 40 of the microwell 12 to seal the swells).
Regarding claim 18, Shanler teaches an assay system (Figs. 1,5-6) comprising:
a microwell assay plate (Fig. 1, microplate 12) including a plurality of sample wells (34); and
a microplate lid (abstract, Figs. 1, 5-6, and paragraph [0002] teach a lid 14 for well plate or microplate 12) configured to cover the microwell assay plate (Figs. 1, 5-6), the microplate lid comprising:
a lid panel (Figs. 1, 5-6, panel 60) having a top panel surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, interpreted the top surface of panel 60 opposite of the microplate 12) and a bottom panel surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, interpreted the bottom surface of panel 60 facing microplate 12),
a lid frame surrounding the lid panel (Figs. 1, 5-6, peripheral frame 62 surrounding panel 60) having a top frame surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, interpreted as the top surface of the peripheral frame 62 opposite of the microplate 12) and a bottom frame surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, interpreted as the bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 facing the microplate 12); and
a plurality of sidewalls extending from a periphery of the bottom frame surface (Figs. 1,4-6 teaches sidewalls including end walls 72, 74 extending from a periphery of bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 facing the microplate 12); and further comprising at least one feature selected from:
a plurality of ribs extending from the top frame surface (interpreted as not required due to the “at least one” phrase),
chamfered edges disposed at a bottom of the plurality of sidewalls (interpreted as not required due to the “at least one” phrase),
a convex shape formed by the lid panel (interpreted as not required due to the “at least one” phrase), and
a substantially continuous contact surface formed by the bottom frame surface (Figs. 1, 5-6 teaches the bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 facing the microplate 12 has a substantially continuous contact surface which contacts the top edge 41 of the outer peripheral sidewall 40 of the microplate 12).
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 2-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanler as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Kurita et al. (US 20060201074 A1) and Pfeifer et al. (US 20090246087 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Shanler further teaches the lid panel (Figs. 1, 5-6, panel 60) is configured to provide a spacing height from a center of the microwell assay plate (Figs. 5-6 teaches the panel 60 providing a spacing height from a center of the microplate 12 to the panel 60).
Shanler fails to teach: the microplate lid of claim 1, wherein the at least one feature includes the convex shape formed by the lid panel, wherein the lid panel is configured to provide a spacing height between 0.03 and 0.07 in. inches from a center of the microwell assay plate.
Kurita teaches a multi-piece chamber (abstract), having a lid to cover a central piece ([0013]), which is an analogous art since it is reasonably pertinent to lids. Kurita teaches a domed top lid may be placed in the container ([0070]). Kurita teaches stacked substrates ([0100]). Kurita teaches the lids may be curved or have a domed shape, i.e. convex shape, as opposed to the flat lids, to improve the structural strength of the lids ([0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one feature of Shanler to incorporate Kurita’s teachings of curved or domed shaped lids ([0105]) to provide: wherein the at least one feature includes the convex shape formed by the lid panel, wherein the lid panel is configured to provide a spacing height from a center of the microwell assay plate. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving structural strength of the lid as taught by Kurita ([0105]).
Modified Shanler fails to teach: wherein the lid panel is configured to provide a spacing height between 0.03 and 0.07 in. inches from a center of the microwell assay plate.
Pfeifer teaches a microtiter plate, i.e. multiwell assay plate, including wells (abstract; Figs. 1-2) and a cover, i.e. lid (30). Pfeifer teaches the cover (30) includes at least one convex shape (Fig. 2, convex shape between elements 33). Pfeifer teaches the cover and the distance between the wells and the cover is 1.7 mm, i.e. 0.067 in ([0045]). Pfeifer teaches the top surface of the wells is not in close contact with the cover, thereby defining a close single space between the top surface of the wells and the cover ([0018]), which provides advantageous of preventing condensation forming under the cover from getting into contact with the well matrix, and acts as an equilibrium space for wake turbulences or air currents to equilibrate and reduce their speed before coming into contact with the well matrix surface and in turn preventing the corner wells from becoming unusable long before the majority of a plates even experiences a significant evaporation ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid panel of modified Shanler to incorporate Pfeifer’s teachings of a microtiter plate and cover, wherein the distance between the cover and wells of the microtiter plate is 0.067 in (abstract; Figs. 1-2; [0045]) to provide: wherein the lid panel is configured to provide a spacing height between 0.03 and 0.07 in. inches from a center of the microwell assay plate. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing the separation distance between the lid panel and center of the microwell assay plate, therefore improving and optimizing space between wells and the lid to prevent condensation from getting into contact with the wells and to prevent corner wells from becoming unusable as taught by Pfeifer ([0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Shanler further teaches the microplate lid of claim 2, wherein the spacing height is configured to prevent contact between a top surface of the microwell assay plate and the bottom panel surface (Figs. 5-6 shows the spacing height between the wall 64 of lid 14 and the well plate 12 prevents contact between the wall and well plate).
Regarding claim 4, modified Shanler further teaches the microplate lid of claim 2, wherein the lid panel projects from the lid frame according to a curvature (see above claim 2; modified Shanler includes the convex shape, therefore the convex shape of the lid panel projects from the lid frame according to a curvature of the convex shape).
Regarding claim 5, modified Shanler further the microplate lid of claim 2, wherein the convex shape of the lid panel is formed by a curvature (see above claim 2; modified Shanler includes the convex shape, therefore the convex shape is formed by a curvature of the convex shape).
Regarding claim 6, modified Shanler fails to teach: the microplate lid of claim 5, wherein the convex shape of the lid panel is formed by an angle B between the lid frame and the lid panel.
Shanler teaches a shape of the lid panel (Figs. 1, 5-6, panel 60 is formed between the lid frame (Figs. 1, 5-6, peripheral frame 62) and the lid panel (60).
Kurita teaches a multi-piece chamber (abstract), having a lid to cover a central piece ([0013]), which is an analogous art since it is reasonably pertinent to lids. Kurita teaches a domed top lid may be placed in the container ([0070]). Kurita teaches stacked substrates ([0100]). Kurita teaches the lids may be curved or have a domed shape, i.e. convex shape, as opposed to the flat lids, to improve the structural strength of the lids ([0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid panel of modified Shanler to incorporate Kurita’s teachings of curved or domed shaped lids ([0105]) and Shanler’s teachings of the shape formed between the lid frame and lid panel (Figs. 1, 5-6) to provide: the microplate lid of claim 5, wherein the convex shape of the lid panel is formed by an angle B between the lid frame and the lid panel. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving structural strength of the lid panel as taught by Kurita ([0105]).
Regarding claim 7, Shanler further teaches the microplate lid of claim 2, wherein the lid panel is vertically offset from the lid frame (Figs. 1,5-6 teaches panel 60 is vertically offset from peripheral frame 62).
Regarding claim 8, Shanler further teaches the microplate lid of claim 2, wherein the spacing height of the lid panel is configured to not contact a bottom surface of a stacked lid (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Figs. 1, 5-6 teaches a spacing height of the panel 60 between the panel 60 and well plate 12, wherein the lid panel 60 is capable of not contacting a bottom surface of a stacked lid at a later time; note that the “bottom surface of a stacked lid” is not positively recited structurally).
Note that “bottom surface of a stacked lid” are not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed microplate lid. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (“bottom surface of a stacked lid”) worked upon by a structure (microplate lid) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 19, Shanler fails to teach: the assay system of claim 18, wherein the at least one feature includes the convex shape formed by the lid panel, wherein the lid panel is configured to provide a spacing height between 0.03 and 0.07 in. inches from a center of the microwell assay plate.
Kurita teaches a multi-piece chamber (abstract), having a lid to cover a central piece ([0013]), which is an analogous art since it is reasonably pertinent to lids. Kurita teaches a domed top lid may be placed in the container ([0070]). Kurita teaches stacked substrates ([0100]). Kurita teaches the lids may be curved or have a domed shape, i.e. convex shape, as opposed to the flat lids, to improve the structural strength of the lids ([0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one feature of Shanler to incorporate Kurita’s teachings of curved or domed shaped lids ([0105]) to provide: the assay system of claim 18, wherein the at least one feature includes the convex shape formed by the lid panel, wherein the lid panel is configured to provide a spacing height from a center of the microwell assay plate. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving structural strength of the lid as taught by Kurita ([0105]).
Modified Shanler fails to teach: wherein the lid panel is configured to provide a spacing height between 0.03 and 0.07 in. inches from a center of the microwell assay plate.
Pfeifer teaches a microtiter plate, i.e. multiwell assay plate, including wells (abstract; Figs. 1-2) and a cover, i.e. lid (30). Pfeifer teaches the cover (30) includes at least one convex shape (Fig. 2, convex shape between elements 33). Pfeifer teaches the cover and the distance between the wells and the cover is 1.7 mm, i.e. 0.067 in ([0045]). Pfeifer teaches the top surface of the wells is not in close contact with the cover, thereby defining a close single space between the top surface of the wells and the cover ([0018]), which provides advantageous of preventing condensation forming under the cover from getting into contact with the well matrix, and acts as an equilibrium space for wake turbulences or air currents to equilibrate and reduce their speed before coming into contact with the well matrix surface and in turn preventing the corner wells from becoming unusable long before the majority of a plates even experiences a significant evaporation ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid panel of modified Shanler to incorporate Pfeifer’s teachings of a microtiter plate and cover, wherein the distance between the cover and wells of the microtiter plate is 0.067 in (abstract; Figs. 1-2; [0045]) to provide: wherein the lid panel is configured to provide a spacing height between 0.03 and 0.07 in. inches from a center of the microwell assay plate. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing the separation distance between the lid panel and center of the microwell assay plate, therefore improving and optimizing space between wells and the lid to prevent condensation from getting into contact with the wells and to prevent corner wells from becoming unusable as taught by Pfeifer ([0018]-[0019]).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jackson et al. (US 3986935 A) and Mainquist et al. (US 6534014 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Shanler fails to teach: the microplate lid of claim 1, wherein the at least one feature includes the chamfered edges disposed at the bottom of the plurality of sidewalls, and wherein the plurality of sidewalls are arranged at an angle between 91 and 95 degrees with respect to the bottom frame surface.
Shanler teaches the well plate assembly includes a microplate and lid that is suited for automated handling by robotic equipment, such as robotic stackers and robotic arms ([0002],[0013]). Shanler teaches the lid includes robotic gripper pads that engage with robotic grippers ([0016]).
Jackson teaches an apparatus (abstract; Figs. 1-3) including a tray member (12) and closure member, i.e. lid, (14) capable of being removably placed over the tray member (abstract; Figs. 1-3). Jackson teaches the apparatus is adapted for rapid use by technicians; thus it is desirable that the technician use one hand to open and close the biological chamber apparatus (column 3, line 65 -column 4, line 2). Jackson teaches closure member (Figs. 1-3, closure member 14) includes sidewalls (38,40,42,44) that slant outwardly slightly (column 4, lines 2-6), wherein the cover sidewalls slant outwardly at an obtuse angle of at least about 91 degree from the plane of the top wall (37) of the cover to accomplish the purposes of the invention (column 4, lines 2-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of sidewalls of the microplate lid of Shanler to incorporate Shanler’s teachings of automated handling of the microplate and lid ([0002],[0013],[0016]) and Jackson’s teachings of a lid with sidewalls that slant outwardly slightly at an angle of at least at about 91 degrees for opening and closing the tray member (Figs. 1-3; column 3, line 65 - column 4, line 10) to provide: the microplate lid of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sidewalls are arranged at an angle between 91 and 95 degrees with respect to the bottom frame surface. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving opening and closing the microwell assay plate, therefore improving automated handling of the microplate and lid.
Modified Shanler fails to teach: wherein the at least one feature includes the chamfered edges disposed at the bottom of the plurality of sidewalls.
Mainquist teaches a specimen plate lid with a cover portion and side portion (abstract). Mainquist teaches to cover the specimen plate, the lid is lifted and positioned above the plate manually or by a robot; the lid is lowered and the lower portion of alignment tabs of the lid facilitate self-aligning of the lid to the plate (column 4, lines 42-52). Mainquist teaches With the alignment tabs chamfered, the alignment tabs more readily engage the sidewalls of the plate, but accurately position the lid as the lid is lowered (column 4, lines 52-54). Mainquist teaches chamfered edges disposed at the bottom of the plurality of sidewalls of the lid (Figs. 5-6, chamfer 39 at a bottom of sidewalls 18,19 of lid 10; Fig. 15 teaches chamfered surfaces 97 at the bottom of sidewalls 91 of lid 90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one feature of modified Shanler to incorporate Maniquist’s teachings of a lid with chamfered edges at the bottom of sidewalls for accurately positioning the lid on a plate (column 4, lines 42-54; Figs. 5-6, Fig. 15) to provide: wherein the at least one feature includes the chamfered edges disposed at the bottom of the plurality of sidewalls. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving accurate engagement and positioning of the lid with the microwell assay plate as taught by Mainquist.
Regarding claim 12, Shanler further teaches the microplate lid of claim 11, wherein the plurality of sidewalls provide a continuous circumference (Figs. 1, 4-6 teaches sidewalls including end walls 72, 74 provide a continuous circumference around the lid 14).
Regarding claim 13, modified Shanler fails to teach: the microplate lid of claim 11, wherein the chamfered edges have a bevel angle between 10 and 20 degrees.
Mainquist teaches a specimen plate lid with a cover portion and side portion (abstract). Mainquist teaches to cover the specimen plate, the lid is lifted and positioned above the plate manually or by a robot; the lid is lowered and the lower portion of alignment tabs of the lid facilitate self-aligning of the lid to the plate (column 4, lines 42-52). Mainquist teaches With the alignment tabs chamfered, the alignment tabs more readily engage the sidewalls of the plate, but accurately position the lid as the lid is lowered (column 4, lines 52-54). Mainquist teaches chamfered edges disposed at the bottom of the plurality of sidewalls of the lid (Figs. 5-6, chamfer 39 at a bottom of sidewalls 18,19 of lid 10; Fig. 15 teaches chamfered surfaces 97 at the bottom of sidewalls 91 of lid 90), wherein the beveled angle of the chamfer appears to be between 0 and 45 degrees (Figs. 5-6, 15).
Since Mainquist teaches chamfered edges that have a beveled angle of between 0-45 degrees, wherein the range of 0-45 degrees overlaps with the claimed range of between 10 and 20 degrees, i.e. between 10-20 degrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beveled angle of modified Mainquist to provide the microplate lid of claim 11, wherein the chamfered edges have a bevel angle between 10 and 20 degrees. I.e., it would have been prima facia obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. between 10-20 degrees) from the taught range of between 0-45 degrees (Figs. 5-6, 15) to optimize and improve accurate engagement and positioning of the lid with the microwell assay plate as taught by Mainquist. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 14, modified Shanler further teaches the microplate lid of claim 11, wherein the chamfered edges are configured to facilitate robotic positioning of the microplate lid (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; see above, claim 11, modified Shanler teaches the chamfered edges, which are structurally capable of facilitating robotic positioning of the microplate lid; Modified Shanler discloses the chamfered edges and therefore, would have the ability to perform the function recited in the claim; see MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kochar et al. (US 20200105409 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Shanler fails to teach: the microplate lid of claim 1, wherein the at least one feature includes the plurality of ribs, and wherein the plurality of ribs are configured to receive a stacked second microplate lid.
Shanler teaches the well plate assembly includes a microplate and lid that is suited for automated handling by robotic equipment, such as robotic stackers and robotic arms ([0002],[0013]). Shanler teaches the lid includes robotic gripper pads that engage with robotic grippers ([0016]).
Kochar teaches systems with an assay used in a biological assay (abstract). Kochar teaches mechanisms to store, stack, move and distribute multiwell assay plates ([0219]). Kochar teaches a plurality of ribs, (Figs. 10(i)-10(k) and [0292], stacking features 1057) positioned on the top of the lid (1032), so that multiple lids (1032) can be stacked on top of each other without sliding off ([0292]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microplate lid of Shanler to incorporate Shanler’s teachings of automated handling of the microplate and lid, such as by robotic stacks and arms ([0002],[0013],[0016]) and Kochar’s teachings of a multiwell assay plate lid with ribs to allow for stacking (Figs. 10(i)-10(k) and [0292]) and mechanisms to store, stack, move and distribute multiwell assay plates ([0219]) to provide: the microplate lid of claim 1, wherein the at least one feature includes the plurality of ribs, and wherein the plurality of ribs are configured to receive a stacked second microplate lid. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automated handling of the microplate lid and allowing for improved stacking of the lids without sliding off as taught by Kochar.
Regarding claim 16, modified Shanler fails to teach: the microplate lid of claim 15, wherein each of the plurality of ribs includes a pair of perpendicular extensions.
Kochar teaches systems with an assay used in a biological assay (abstract). Kochar teaches mechanisms to store, stack, move and distribute multiwell assay plates ([0219]). Kochar teaches a plurality of ribs, (Figs. 10(i)-10(k) and [0292], stacking features 1057) positioned on the top of the lid (1032), so that multiple lids (1032) can be stacked on top of each other without sliding off ([0292]). Kochar teaches the ribs includes a pair of perpendicular extensions (Fig. 10(i) teaches pairs of stacking features 1057 which are oriented perpendicular to teach other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microplate lid of modified Shanler to incorporate Kochar’s teachings of a multiwell assay plate lid with pairs of perpendicular ribs to allow for stacking (Figs. 10(i)-10(k) and [0292]) and mechanisms to store, stack, move and distribute multiwell assay plates ([0219]) to provide: the microplate lid of claim 15, wherein each of the plurality of ribs includes a pair of perpendicular extensions. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automated handling of the microplate lid and allowing for improved stacking of the lids without sliding off as taught by Kochar.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanler in view of Kochar as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kurita et al. (US 20060201074 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Shanler fails to teach: the microplate lid of claim 15, wherein the stacked second microplate lid stacked on top of the microplate lid has a second spacing height between the top panel surface of the microplate lid and a bottom surface of the stacked second microplate lid, such that the convex shape of the lid panel of the microplate lid does not contact the stacked second microplate lid bottom surface.
Shanler teaches the well plate assembly includes a microplate and lid that is suited for automated handling by robotic equipment, such as robotic stackers and robotic arms ([0002],[0013]). Shanler teaches the lid includes robotic gripper pads that engage with robotic grippers ([0016]).
Kochar teaches systems with an assay used in a biological assay (abstract). Kochar teaches mechanisms to store, stack, move and distribute multiwell assay plates ([0219]). Kochar teaches a plurality of ribs, (Figs. 10(i)-10(k) and [0292], stacking features 1057) positioned on the top of the lid (1032), so that multiple lids (1032) can be stacked on top of each other without sliding off ([0292]).
Kurita teaches a multi-piece chamber (abstract), having a lid to cover a central piece ([0013]), which is an analogous art since it is reasonably pertinent to lids. Kurita teaches a domed top lid may be placed in the container ([0070]). Kurita teaches stacked substrates ([0100]). Kurita teaches the lids may be curved or have a domed shape, i.e. convex shape, as opposed to the flat lids, to improve the structural strength of the lids ([0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one feature of Shanler to incorporate Kurita’s teachings of curved or domed shaped lids ([0105]) to provide: wherein the stacked second microplate lid stacked on top of the microplate lid has a second spacing height between the top panel surface of the microplate lid and a bottom surface of the stacked second microplate lid, such that the convex shape of the lid panel of the microplate lid does not contact the stacked second microplate lid bottom surface. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving structural strength of the lid as taught by Kurita ([0105]) and ensuring proper stacking and spacing of the microplate lid and microwell assay plate.
Note that “stacked second microplate lid” and therefore “second spacing height between” of claims 15 and 17 are not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed microplate lid. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (“stacked second microplate lid”) worked upon by a structure (convex shape of the lid panel of the microplate lid) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). Modified Shanler discloses the claimed ribs and convex shape of the lid panel and therefore, would have the ability to perform the function (i.e. receive a stacked second microplate lid having a second spacing height such that the convex shape of the lid panel does not contact the bottom surface of the stacked second microplate lid) in the claims. See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Additionally, note that if a second microplate lid with a second microwell assay plate are together stacked on the microplate lid, the second microplate lid would be spaced from the convex shape of the lid panel by at least the distance of the second microwell assay plate.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanler et al. (EP 1623759 A1; cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024) in view of Kochar et al. (US 20200105409 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Shanler teaches an automated assay system (Figs. 1,5-6; [0013] teaches the well plate assembly is suited for automated handling by robotic equipment), comprising:
a microwell assay plate (Fig. 1, microplate 12) including a plurality of wells (34) for receiving samples therein ([0034]);
a microplate lid (abstract, Figs. 1, 5-6, and paragraph [0002] teach a lid 14 for well plate or microplate 12) configured to cover the microwell assay plate (Figs. 1, 5-6), the microplate lid comprising:
a lid panel (Figs. 1, 5-6, panel 60) having a top panel surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, interpreted the top surface of panel 60 opposite of the microplate 12) and a bottom panel surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, interpreted the bottom surface of panel 60 facing microplate 12),
a lid frame surrounding the lid panel (Figs. 1, 5-6, peripheral frame 62 surrounding panel 60) having a top frame surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, interpreted as the top surface of the peripheral frame 62 opposite of the microplate 12) and a bottom frame surface (Figs. 1, 5-6, interpreted as the bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 facing the microplate 12), and
a plurality of sidewalls extending from a periphery of the bottom frame surface (Figs. 1,4-6 teaches sidewalls including end walls 72, 74 extending from a periphery of bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 facing the microplate 12), the plurality of sidewalls further comprising at least one feature selected from:
a plurality of ribs extending from the top frame surface (interpreted as not required due to the “at least one” phrase),
chamfered edges disposed at a bottom of the plurality of sidewalls(interpreted as not required due to the “at least one” phrase),
a convex shape formed by the lid panel (interpreted as not required due to the “at least one” phrase), and
a substantially continuous contact surface formed by the bottom frame surface (Figs. 1, 5-6 teaches the bottom surface of the peripheral frame 62 facing the microplate 12 has a substantially continuous contact surface which contacts the top edge 41 of the outer peripheral sidewall 40 of the microplate 12);
Shanler fails to teach: a control system configured to communicate with a robot having a robot arm that includes or is attached to an end effector apparatus; wherein the control system outputs a command controlling the robot arm to grab the microplate lid via the end effector apparatus, move the microplate lid over to the microwell assay plate, and place the microplate lid over the microwell assay plate.
Shanler teaches the well plate assembly includes a microplate and lid that is suited for automated handling by robotic equipment, such as robotic stackers and robotic arms ([0002],[0013]). Shanler teaches the lid includes robotic gripper pads that engage with robotic grippers ([0016]).
Kochar teaches systems with an assay used in a biological assay (abstract). Kochar teaches a plate is adapted to be gripped by a gripper arm of a robotic system ([0061]). Kochar teaches an automated assay system to receive consumables, the system including a robotic controlled gripper arm and at least one processor, i.e. control system, to execute instructions to minimize potential errors in loading and running the assay ([0074]). Kochar teaches instructions includes an instruction to the robotic gripper arm to place a lid on the at least one assay test plate ([0078]). Kochar teaches a gantry, i.e. end effector apparatus, located above the deck movably supporting a robotic plate gripper such that the gripper can move to access locations ([0144]). Kochar teaches mechanisms to store, stack, move and distribute multiwell assay plates ([0219]). Kochar teaches a plurality of ribs, (Figs. 10(i)-10(k) and [0292], stacking features 1057) positioned on the top of the lid (1032), so that multiple lids (1032) can be stacked on top of each other without sliding off ([0292]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microplate lid of Shanler to incorporate Shanler’s teachings of automated handling of the microplate and lid, such as by robotic stacks and arms ([0002],[0013],[0016]) and Kochar’s teachings of an automated assay system including a gantry with a robotic controlled gripper arm and a processor to instruct the arm to place the lid on a test plate ([0061],[0074],[0078],[0144]), multiwell assay plate lid with ribs to allow for stacking (Figs. 10(i)-10(k) and [0292]) and mechanisms to store, stack, move and distribute multiwell assay plates ([0219]) to provide: a control system configured to communicate with a robot having a robot arm that includes or is attached to an end effector apparatus; the at least one feature including a plurality of ribs extending from the top frame surface; wherein the control system outputs a command controlling the robot arm to grab the microplate lid via the end effector apparatus, move the microplate lid over to the microwell assay plate, and place the microplate lid over the microwell assay plate. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automated handling of the microplate lid (e.g. grabbing the lid to place on the plate) and allowing for improved stacking of the lids without sliding off, therefore minimizing potential errors in loading and running the automated assay system as taught by Kochar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maxwell et al. (US 6764850 B2; cited in the IDS filed 05/17/2024) teaches plates with a base member and lid (abstract; Figs. 1-6). Maxwell teaches a lid (Fig. 5, lid 202) includes sidewalls (206) that are angled with respect to a bottom frame surface (Fig. 5, shows sidewalls angled by at angle theta). Maxwell teaches the angles are selected to provide the interference fit engagement; and the angle may be between about 3.5 degrees and about 4.5 degrees (column 2, lines 27-32).
Rethwisch et al. (US 201002066457 A1; cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024) teaches a carrier for pipette tips (abstract) including a cover (Fig. 5, cover cap 38) including a plurality of pairs of perpendicular ribs (39.1-39.4). Rethwisch teaches a plate (Figs. 11-13, element 21) including chamfered edges (Fig. 13, chamfered edge at element 32).
Perry et al. (US 20100108670 A1) teaches a container including a removable lid (abstract; Fig. 4), wherein the top wall of the container is convex in shape to allow for stacking ([0113]).
Valderrama et al. (US 20210284398 A1) teaches a container assembly including a lid and container body (abstract; Figs. 3-5); wherein the lid (20) has a convex shape (Figs. 3-5).
Myers et al. (US 20100065458 A1) teaches a tray system (abstract). Myers teaches tray bottom rims 20, 120, 220 and cover bottom rim may be chamfered such as, but not limited to, at a 30 degree angle to allow for easier stacking of the trays 10, 110, 210 and cover 310 ([0036]).
Copeland et al. (US 6204051 B1) teaches an apparatus for growing microorganisms (abstract; Fig. 1) including a dish bottom (12) and cover or top (16), the cover (16) including a convex shape (shape between elements 78 and 56). Copeland teaches stacking of multiple dish bottoms and covers (Fig. 11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights