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 Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 39 repeats the limitation of claim 36, from which it depends. It appears claim 39 should be amended to depend from claim 37, as opposed to claim 36.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 20-24, 28, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gale (U.S. Patent 3,487,965) in view of Kronseder et al. (U.S. Patent 4,136,719, hereinafter Kronseder) and Tuma (U.S. Patent 3,615,823).
In regard to claim 20, the Gale reference discloses a method for unloading a “sample container” (i.e., container C is considered to be a “sample container”) comprising: Inserting a capped sample tube C (capped with cover E1, see Figure 2A) into an unloading apparatus 10; uncapping the sample tube which creates an open top end (see Figure 2C); rotating the sample tube to an inverted vertical position (see Figures 2D, 2E); ejecting the sample from the sample tube (see Figure 2G).
Although the Gale reference does not disclose the step of washing an interior surface of the unloading apparatus, attention is directed to the Kronseder and Tuma references, which discloses other unloading apparatuses wherein the interior of the apparatus is washed after use (see, for example, Kronseder; column 5, line 67 – column 6, line 3 and Tuma; column 2, lines 3-31). Such a washing step is obviously employed in order to keep portions of the apparatus clean so as to enable the dispensed product remain contaminant free. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made an interior surface of the Gale apparatus can be washed after use in order to enable the dispensed product to remain contaminant free.
In regard to claim 21, the unloading apparatus 10 comprises a movable carriage 20 including an elongate receptacle therein into which the sample tube is inserted.
In regard to claim 22, the ejecting step comprises inserting a sample ejector piston-plunger 22 through the sample tube in a downward stroke.
In regard to claim 23, the sample ejector piston-plunger lockingly engages a push cap E2 slidably disposed inside the sample tube and moves the push cap downwards towards the open top end of the sample tube to eject the sample (see column 5, lines 42-52).
In regard to claim 24, after the ejecting step, the method includes a step of moving the sample ejector piston-plunger in an upward stoke which draws the push cap E2 back upwards in the sample tube (see Figure 2H and column 5, lines 55-63).
In regard to claim 28, the Gale device includes a motor M for controlling operation of the unloading apparatus. Although the Gale reference does not disclose a programmable controller for controlling operation of the unloading apparatus, as claimed, the examiner takes Official Notice that such programmable controllers are routinely used to operate such mechanical devices in order enable the device to be more efficiently operated. Accordingly, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the Gale device can be updated such that it includes a programmable controller in order to enable the device to be more efficiently operated. Further, it has been held that replacing mechanical devices with automated programmable controllers which accomplishes the same result involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 III. It is further noted that since this Official Notice position has not been challenged by the Applicant in the response filed 2/6/2026, this feature is considered to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 C.
In regard to claim 31, the Kronseder and Tuma reference disclose the use of fixed nozzles in the devices disclosed therein to spray water onto interior surfaces of the device during washing. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the Gale device can include such a fixed nozzle thereon in order to wash the surfaces of the device after use.
In regard to claim 32, although the Gale reference does not disclose the sample is a soil sample, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the Gale device can be used to manipulate any type of sample container, including a soil sample container, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Gale reference does not limit the type of material that may be present in the container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 27, 29 and 30 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.
Claims 25 and 33-39 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
2/24/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754