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 .
Status of Claims
There are two (2) sets of claims submitted on 09 FEBRUARY 2024. The claim set considered is the claim set consisting of four (4) pages and the claims have status identifiers.
In the claim set, Claims 1-24 are with ‘Original’ or ‘Currently Amended’.
Current pending claims are Claims 1-24 and are considered on the merits below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 FEBAURY 2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
An “unloading apparatus configured to receive the sample tube” in claim 1.
An ‘apparatus’ does not connote any particular structure. The “unloading apparatus” is described in [0260] and Claim 2, 3, 7, 8, 19 and 20.
A “transfer mechanism operable to transfer the sample tube” in claim 1.
A “mechanism” does not connote any particular structure. The “transfer mechanism” is described as a rotary paddle feed gate, [0250] and claim 15 and 17
A “loading mechanism to load the sample” in claim 3.
A “mechanism” does not connote any particular structure. The “loading mechanism” is described as a ramrod, [0300].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TANAKA, US Publication No 2019/0033333 A1, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 10 FEBRUARY 2026; US Patent Application Publications Cite NO. 6.
Applicant’s invention is directed towards an apparatus, a system.
Regarding Claim 1, the TANAKA reference discloses a sample unloading system , Figure 1, 2 and 4, comprising:
a sample staging rack comprising at least one inclined feed ramp configured for receiving an elongated sample tube configured for holding the sample, Figure 4, introduction unit 6, [0078-0081], the sample tube including a first end cap and a second end cap, [0096-0072], lid B2 and body B3 of container B for holding test piece P ;
an unloading apparatus coupled to the staging rack, Figure 4, main transfer unit 4, [0077], the unloading apparatus configured to receive the sample tube from the staging rack, [0077, 0088, 0089]; and a transfer mechanism operable to transfer the sample tube from the staging rack to the unloading apparatus, Figure 6, 7, 10, elevator mechanism 71, [0082, 0083].
Additional Disclosures Included are: Claim 2: wherein the system according to claim 1,wherein the unloading apparatus comprises a rotatable carriage configured to hold and rotate the sample tube in opposing directions, Figure 24, 25, discharge unit 3 with holding case 35 is rotated, [0103-0104].; Claim 3: wherein the system according to claim 2, wherein the unloading apparatus comprises a loading mechanism operable to load the sample tube into the carriage, Figure 23, motor 36, [0103].; Claim 18: wherein the system according to claim 3, wherein the loading mechanism comprises a ramrod operable to push the sample tube into a receptacle of the carriage, Figure 7, [0103]. ; Claim 19: wherein the system according to claim 18, wherein the unloading mechanism comprises an unloading plunger operable to push the sample tube out of the receptacle of the carriage, [0103-0105].; Claim 20 : wherein the system according to claim 18,wherein the unloading mechanism comprises a feed chute pivotably coupled to the unloading apparatus, [0017, 0018, 0022, 0101-0108], Figure 22-23. ; Claim 21: wherein the system according to claim 1,further comprising a programmable controller operably coupled to and configured to control operation of the unloading apparatus and transfer mechanism, Figure 26-30, [0110-0119], implicitly as a programmable controller with screens, start up , shut down steps. ; Claim 22: wherein the system according to claim 1,wherein the sample comprises a solid material at least in part, Figure 3A, test piece P, [0064]. The instant claim language recites language directed to what type of material the system is to be worked upon by the system. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). The claim directed to the type of sample has not been any patentable weight as it does not impart any structural limitations to the overall system.; Claim 23: wherein the system according to claim 22, wherein the solid material is an agricultural material. The instant claim language recites language directed to what type of material the system is to be worked upon by the system. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). The claim directed to the type of sample has not been any patentable weight as it does not impart any structural limitations to the overall system. ; Claim 24: wherein the system according to claim 23, wherein the sample material is soil. The instant claim language recites language directed to what type of material the system is to be worked upon by the system. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). The claim directed to the type of sample has not been any patentable weight as it does not impart any structural limitations to the overall system.
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 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA, US Publication No 2019/0033333 A1, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 10 FEBRUARY 2026; US Patent Application Publications Cite NO. 6, and further in view of SATOU, US Patent 4,291,986 A.
Regarding Claim 4, the TANAKA reference discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the system according to claim 2,wherein the carriage is operable to rotate the sample tube between an upright vertical position and an inverted vertical position.
The SATOU reference discloses a sample unloading system , Figure 1, comprising:
a sample staging rack comprising at least feed ramp configured for receiving an elongated sample tube configured for holding the sample, Figure 1, reaction line 2 holds tubes 1 to point of sucking position 31, Column 3 line 47-57, Column 4 line 19-22;
an unloading apparatus coupled to the staging rack, Figure 1, lower side of reaction line 2 after sprocket 33 to the sampler 4, the unloading apparatus configured to receive the sample tube from the staging rack, Figure 1, Column 4 line 29-39; and a transfer mechanism operable to transfer the sample tube from the staging rack to the unloading apparatus, Figure 1, reaction line 2; wherein the carriage is operable to rotate the sample tube between an upright vertical position and an inverted vertical position, Figure 1, Column 4 line 29-39.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention of TANAKA to have the carriage is operable to rotate the sample tube between an upright vertical position and an inverted vertical position to discharge of any remaining sample solution and so the tube can be cleaned with a cleaning solution, Column 4 line 29-39.
Additional Disclosures Included by the combination are : Claim 5: wherein the system according to claim 4, wherein the carriage is operable to rotate the sample tube: 90 degrees in a first direction to the upright vertical position; and 180 degrees therefrom in an opposite second direction to the inverted vertical position, Figure 1, Column 4 line 29-39. ; Claim 6: wherein the system according to claim 4, wherein the first end cap is detachably coupled to a first end of the sample tube, and the second end cap is slideably movable inside the sample tube towards and away from the first end cap. ; Claim 7: wherein the system according to claim 6, wherein the unloading apparatus further comprises a decapper operable to remove the first end cap from the sample tube when in its upright vertical position, TANAKA, Figure 1, 2 and 4, lid opening unit 2, [0076].; and Claim 8: wherein the system according to claim 7, wherein the unloading apparatus comprises a sample ejector configured to eject the sample from the sample tube when in its inverted vertical position when the first end cap, SATOU, Figure 1, Column 4 line 29-39.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA, US Publication No 2019/0033333 A1, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 10 FEBRUARY 2026; US Patent Application Publications Cite NO. 6.
Regarding Claim 14, the reference TANAKA discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the staging rack comprises a plurality of inclined feed ramps arranged in parallel relationship to each other.
The instant claim language merely recites that there is a plurality of inclined feed ramps arranged in parallel relationship to each other and there is no language directed towards how each the plurality of inclined feed ramps function in relation to each other.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify TANAKA wherein the staging rack comprises a plurality of inclined feed ramps arranged in parallel relationship to each other since the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claim language in Claim 9: wherein the system according to claim 8, wherein the sample ejector comprises a vertically movable plunger which engages and slideably pushes the second end cap inside the sample tube to eject the sample is not found or suggested in the prior art. While sample in each of TANAKA and SATOU is removed from the container/tube, both reference do not teach or suggest the ejector as described in conjunction with the slidable second end cap. SATOU teaches a nozzle and a nozzle moving mechanism but this is completely different in structure and function of a plunger.
Claim 10 depends from Claim 9 and is also objected to.
Furthermore, the claim language in Claim 11: wherein the system according to claim 4, wherein the unloading apparatus comprises a movable closure plate movable between an inward position operable to retain the sample in the sample tube when in its inverted vertical position when the first end cap is removed, and an outward position operable to release the sample from the sample tube when in its inverted vertical position is not found in prior art. While TANAKA teaches a lid, there is no mention, in its specificity a movable closure plate movable between an inward position operable to retain the sample and an outward position operable to release the sample from the sample tube.
Claims 12 and 13 depend directly or indirectly from Claim 11 and are also objected to.
Claims 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claim language, in particular, Claim 15 directed towards ‘wherein the transfer mechanism comprises a rotary feed gate configured to grasp the sample tube on the staging rack and pass the sample tube towards the unloading apparatus’ is not found or suggested in the prior art. The TANAKA makes no mention of any device that is capable or even suggest any feed gate or grasping or gripping device. In fact, what the Examiner interprets that TANAKA reference to be the transfer mechanism, the introduction unit [0026], only uses the weight of each of the containers.
Dependent claims 16 and 17 depend either direct or indirectly from Claim 15 and are also objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Publication No. 2005/0013747 A1, to HUYNH-BA discloses a sample unloading system, Figure 1 and 3, comprising: a sample staging rack comprising at least one feed ramp configured for receiving an elongated sample tube configured for holding the sample, Figure 3, [0029], the sample tube including a first end cap, Figure 6 and 7, [0033]; an unloading apparatus coupled to the staging rack, Figure 3, [0028, 0029], the unloading apparatus configured to receive the sample tube from the staging rack; and a transfer mechanism operable to transfer the sample tube from the staging rack to the unloading apparatus, Figure 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T MUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3243. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 -15:30 EST.
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.
CTM
/CHRISTINE T MUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights