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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “at least each of the centering fingers comprising more than one rod element, sleeve, and base element” within the scope of claim 1, “centering surface comprises one or more segments” in claim 3, all of the alternative variations connections and arrangements of the elastic members in the claim 7, “sleeve is supported by the rod element via one or more of a hinged support, an adhesive bond, a snapped connection, a clipped connection or a clamped connection” in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "134" and "140" appear to be referencing the same part in Figs. 4a-6b. It is not clear from these figures how the an elastic member 134 is at least partially arranged in one or more of the hinges 140, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, at least para [0123].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In the preliminary amendment filed March 14, 2024, claim 1 was amended to include in alternative language wherein one or more of the following is realized:
1) the centering holder comprises at least one elastic member, wherein the centering force is at least partially exerted by the elastic member;
2) the centering fingers are coupled by at least one hinged coupling of their at least two rod elements, wherein the at least one hinged coupling is arranged in at least one connecting element connecting the at least two rod elements, and wherein each of the rod elements is supported by the base element via a pinned support.
The use of alternative language must find support for both items 1 and 2 when both items are required in an embodiment, as well as support for the additional limitations in dependent claims in combination with both items 1 and 2. Items 1 and 2 in claim 1 appear to be different embodiments of the centering holder. It is not clear if these elements together find support in the specification as filed. Furthermore, consider the alternative language of claim 7, which provides at least seven different embodiments of the elastic member arrangements. It is not clear if all of the possible combinations of claims 1 and 7 find support in the specification, as filed. Thus, the examiner considers limitations introduced by the preliminary amendment new matter. The examiner recommends that applicant present the different items in separate independent claims. However doing so will result in an election by original presentation since the examiner is only considering the embodiment that includes item 1 in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The instant claims replete with vague and indefinite language and generally fail to conform with current U.S. practice. The examiner has attempted to point out all of the indefinite language in the instant claims. However, due the extent of the issues, the examiner requests applicant carefully inspect the claims for indefinite language the examiner may have missed. For example, the claims recite numerous instances of “at least one” or “at least two”. Claim 1 recites “wherein each of the centering fingers comprised at least one rod element and at least one sleeve”. Given the current scope of the claim, this can be reasonably interpreted as “each of the centering fingers include more than one rod and/or one or more sleeves” (e.g., each of the centering fingers can include two rods and two sleeves) which does not find basis in the disclosure or make sense structurally.
Claim 1 recites “the centering holder comprises at least one elastic member, wherein the centering force is at least partially exerted by the elastic member”. The “centering force” is not a structure, rather it is an intended effect. Also, the location of the “at least one elastic member” (item 1) relative to the “at least rod element” and the “at least one sleeve” is unclear. That is, claim 1 recites the at least one sleeve is configured for physically contacting the sample tube, thereby transferring “centering force onto the sample tube”. It is unclear how both the sleeve and elastic member operate together to create the same centering force on the sample tube. Furthermore, the “at least one elastic member” does not agree in number with “the elastic member”.
Looking at claim 3, the “at least one sleeves” does not agree with the “at least one sleeve” in claim 1. Also, it is not clear how at least one of the sleeves comprise at least one centering surface. That is, it is not clear how a single sleeve includes multiple centering surfaces. In addition, it is not clear what applicant means by the “centering surface comprises one or more segments”. It is not clear what structure the segments correspond to on the sleeve. The term “segments” are known in the art implies distinct structural elements used to form an element.
Claim 4 recites “wherein at least one of the sleeves at least partially comprises one of a curvature shaped cross section, v-shaped cross section,…”. It is not clear how the sleeve “partially comprises” anything or how each sleeve comprises more than one (i.e., at least one) different shaped cross sections (also relative to which axis). The numerous instances of the phrase “partially comprising” in the claims are vague and indefinite. Also, it is not clear what a “curvature shaped cross section” means. The examiner has interpreted this as meaning “the sleeve includes a curve along its longitudinal axis”. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the at least one sleeve comprises two centering surfaces are formed by an open side of the cross-section”. It is not clear what applicant is attempting to claim. The recitation of “two centering surfaces are formed by an open side of the cross-section” is confusing and definite. The “open side” of the cross-section of at least one sleeve has not been structurally established. It is not clear from the claim how a cross-section of a sleeve can include an “open end”. Claim 5 recite “the cross-section”, however it is not clear which one of the different cross-sections listed in the Markush type of parent claim 4 “the cross section” is attempting to limit (i.e., curvature shaped cross section, v-shaped cross section, w-shaped cross section, or u-shaped). Claims 7, 16, and 18 include similar indefinite issues.
In addition, many of the instant claims recite a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim). For example, the narrower limitations are preceded by the phrase “such as” or “such that”. This is considered indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). For example, claim 8 recites the broad recitations of a spring element and “inherent” elastic material, and also recites “such as” a z-shaped spring element, such as “a foam rubber element” which are the narrower limitations of the spring element and elastic material, respectively. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Similar deficiencies were found in at least claims 10 and 11. Also it is not clear what applicant means by an “inherent” elastic material in claim 8, nor does the specification clarify what material is an “inherent” elastic material.
Claim 1, line 6 recites “the centering single holder”. This lacks antecedent basis. The claims recite a centering holder, but not a single holder. Also, the preamble states “a centering holder for centering and holding one or more sample tubes”. However, it is not clear how the claimed centering holder is capable of holding more than one sample tube given that the centering holder only positively recites (requires) a base, at least two coupled centering fingers. In other words, it is not clear how the centering holder including only two centering fingers would be capable of centering multiple sample tubes. The scope of the claim is confusing and indefinite.
As discussed above, the preliminary amendment to claim 1 includes in alternative language wherein one or more of the following is realized:
1) the centering holder comprises at least one elastic member, wherein the centering force is at least partially exerted by the elastic member; [and/or]
2) the centering fingers are coupled by at least one hinged coupling of their at least two rod elements, wherein the at least one hinged coupling is arranged in at least one connecting element connecting the at least two rod elements, and wherein each of the rod elements is supported by the base element via a pinned support.
The use of alternative language is confusing and indefinite. Items 1 and 2 appear to be different embodiment of the centering holder. Also, the use of the phrase “wherein one or more of the following is realized” is vague and indefinite. Further, it is not clear what “realized” means in the claim structure. This phrase is not used in US patent practice.
As discussed above, claim 7 recites “wherein the elastic member is arranged in one of the following ways…” directed to different combinations of the elastic member, sleeve, rod element, and base. This is an improper Markush claim since the purpose of such a claim recite a set of substitutable elements that achieve the same intended result, which is not possible given the seven different configurations and connections between the different elements. The examiner recommends amending the claim to include only members that share a single structural similarity and common use.
Note that whether or not an examiner requires a provisional election of species, if a Markush claim (or any other claim that sets forth alternatives) is rejected with respect to any one of the alternatives, a second action may be made final provided that any new ground of rejection in the action is either necessitated by applicant's amendment, including elimination of previously examined alternative(s)) or is based on information submitted in an IDS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97(c). See MPEP §803.02 and §2117. Moreover, the use of alternative language does not require the examiner find both items 1 and 2. Thus, the examiner is only considering the limitations of item 1 in claim 1 with respect to the prior art. Again, the examiner recommends that applicant present the different items 1 and 2 in separate independent claims. However doing so will result in an election by original presentation since the examiner is only considering the embodiment that includes item 1 in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “wherein in each centering finger the sleeve is supported by the rod element, wherein with respect to the rod element a degree of freedom of the sleeve is less than or equal to 1, wherein the sleeve is supported by the rod element via one or more of a hinged support, an adhesive bond, a snapped connection, a clipped connection or a clamped connection”. Looking to applicant’s specification for clarification, para [0041] “[i]n each centering finger the sleeve may be supported by the rod element, wherein specifically with respect to the rod element a degree of freedom of the sleeve may be ≤ 1. As an example, the sleeve may be supported by the rod elements such that with respect to the rod element the sleeve may be able to perform only one movement, such as a rotational movement, or no movement”. However, as recited in parent claim 1, the sleeve at least partially surrounds the rod element and is configured for physically contacting the sample tube thereby transferring the centering force onto the sample tube. It is not clear what the phase “the sleeve is supported by the rod element via one or more of a hinged support, an adhesive bond, a snapped connection, a clipped connection or a clamped connection”. It is not clear from the claim how the sleeve can have no movement (less than one degree of freedom) and still be configured to physically contact sample tubes with different diameters. Also, the “each centering finger” and “sleeve” and “rod” do not agree in number with the “at least two centering fingers”, “at least one sleeve” and “at least one rod element”. The scope of this claim is confusing and indefinite.
Claims 9, 10, 11, and 12 recite “the centering fingers”, this does not agree in number with the “at least two centering fingers” recited in parent claim 1. The examiner recommends all recitations of “the centering fingers” be amended to --at least two centering fingers-- for clarity. The recitation of “an even number of centering fingers” in claim 10 does not find antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites the centering fingers are coupled by a fixed connection of the rod elements with the base element. This is confusing since the centering fingers comprise the rod elements, so this should read the rod elements are in a fixed connection with the base element. Also, it is not clear what structure is a “fixed connection”. This appears to be an intended result and not additional structure.
Claims 16 and 18 depend from claim 1. Both claims recite “the sleeve at least partially surrounds and encloses the rod element, such that a bottom side of a shape of a cross-section of the sleeve is arranged towards/faces the sample tube”. These claims are indefinite “the sleeve” and “the rod element” do not agree in number with “at least one sleeve” and “at least one rod element” recited in claim 1. Also, the “partially surrounds and encloses the rod element” is unclear. It is unclear how some partially surrounds and encloses an element. The terms “partially surrounds” does not “enclose” an element. Further, the axis against which the cross-section of the sleeve and the “bottom side of the shape of the cross-section” have not been previously established..
In addition, claims 1, 3, 14, 16 and 18 define the arrangement of the sleeve relative to “the sample tube”, however, the sample tube which is not positively recited as part of the centering holder. Thus, it is unclear how the arrangements of the sleeve limits the holder based on an element not required. Similarly, the sample tube is not positively recited as part of the sample handling system of claim 15.
In general, the language/scope of the instant apparatus claims does not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably determine what would fall within the scope of the claims (infringement) versus what falls outside the scope of the claims (freedom to operate). Clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites “such as pairs of centering fingers”. As discussed above, elements following “such as” are not required (see above). Claim 11 attempts to further limit “the pairs of centering fingers”, which are not required in parent claim 10. Thus, claim 11 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Thus, claim 11 has not been considered with respect to the prior art.
Similarly, claims 14 and 17 attempt to further limit item 2 in claim 1, which is not required due to the alternative language in claim 1 (see reasons delineated above). Accordingly, these claims fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim 1 and have not been considered with respect to the prior art.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 16. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Both claims recite the elements and both depend from claim 1. The examiner recommends applicant cancel one of these dependent claims 16 or 18.
Claim Interpretations
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 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:
i. “at least one hinged coupling” as alternatively recited in claims 1 14, and 17, and “ hinged support” in claim 9, has been interpreted by the examiner as a “hinge” or structural equivalents thereof;
ii. “elastic member” as alternatively recited in claim 1 has been interpreted by the examiner as a “spring” or structural equivalents thereof; and
iii. “at least one handling device” in claim 15 has been interpreted as a transporting device (conveyor) configured for transporting the sample in one or more directions or structural equivalents thereof.
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.
In the patentability analysis of apparatus type claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 15, 16 and 18, aspects or limitations the examiner interprets as functional/process/intended-use and/or not positively recited as part the claimed apparatus have been generally italicized whereas aspects interpreted as positively recited structural components are normally bolded. The bold font and italics are shown when the structure and function are initially introduced though not necessarily repeated, particularly in dependent claims. The examiner applies this formatting for both the examiner and applicant’s convenience. However, absent the referenced typestyles, the patentability analysis will still be clear regarding which limitations the examiner interprets as structural versus functional/process/intended use and not positively recited structure. Also note that it has been held that recitations in which an element is "adapted to/for", “configured to/for”, “positionable”, “moveable/immovable”, etc., only requires the ability to so perform (i.e., functional/process/intended use). The functional/process/intended-use and/or elements not positively recited as part of the apparatus do not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense with respect to the prior art. Please note these recitations have not been ignored by the examiner. All of the claimed recitations have been considered by the examiner and afforded the appropriate amount of patentable weight. As best understood, the vague and indefinite language pointed out above has been applied against the prior art. Elements that are not required (elements following language “such as”, “such that”, “or”, etc.) have not been considered, and therefore these elements not been mapped with respect to the prior art. Claims 11, 14 and 17 have not been considered with respect to the prior art for the reasons delineated above.
The examiner's patentability analysis below provides one or more interpretations and claim mappings of the claimed structures although other interpretations may be possible. In the patentability analysis, the Office applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification and specific limitations from the specification have not been read into the claims. In certain instances during prosecution, the examiner’s current interpretations regarding the patentable weight of these limitations might change based on the facts of the case.
See MPEP at least §2111.02, 2173.01 I 2114, and 2173.05(g).
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.
(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 1-5, 7-10, 12, 15, 16 and 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stark et al., (US 5,651,941; hereinafter “Stark”).
Regarding claim 1, Stark teaches centering holder (corresponds to sample tube carrier 110; see Figs 10-13) for centering and holding one or more sample tubes 16, the centering holder being adaptable to sample tubes having different diameters (Stark- abstract), the centering holder comprising:
at least two coupled centering fingers (see Figs. 10-13) arranged and configured to adapt to the diameter of the sample tube and for applying a centering force onto the sample tube in a direction towards a center axis of the centering holder,
wherein each of the centering fingers comprises
at least one rod element (corresponds to the opposed vertical rectangular faces 126, 128, 130 and 132, wherein the first pair of mutually opposed vertical are defined by faces 126 and 128 and the second mutually opposed pair is defined by faces 130 and 132 (see Fig. 10 and col. 13, line 45 et seq.); and
at least one sleeve (corresponds to outer spring biasing members 142, 144, 146 and 148) wherein the sleeve at least partially surrounds the rod element (see Figs. 10 and 12), wherein the sleeve is configured for physically contacting the sample tube thereby transferring the centering force onto the sample tube; and
at least one base element (corresponds to surface 134) configured for supporting the at least two rod elements of the centering fingers (see Fig. 12), wherein;
1) the centering holder comprises at least one elastic member (corresponds to the inner biasing spring members 41, 43, 45 and 47, see Fig. 10 and 12), wherein the centering force is at least partially exerted by the elastic member;
2) the centering fingers are coupled by at least one hinged coupling of their at least two rod elements, wherein the at least one hinged coupling is arranged in at least one connecting element connecting the at least two rod elements, and wherein each of the rod elements is supported by the base element via a pinned support.
Regarding claim 2, Stark teaches the centering holder comprises at least one access slit (corresponds to vertical slots 166, 168, 170 and 172) arranged between the at least two centering fingers (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Stark teaches at least one of the sleeves comprises at least one centering surface configured for guiding the sample tube into a centered state when the sample tube is inserted into the centering holder, wherein the centering surface comprises one or more segments (note as written, the claim recites a centering surface having segment). Stark teaches the surface of the outer spring biasing members 142, 144, 146, and 148 (corresponds to sleeves) can be made of a softer, more accommodating, self-lubricating material, i.e., segment (see col. 14, line 30 et seq.)
Regarding claim 4, Stark teaches at least one of the sleeve at least partially comprises one of a curvature shaped cross section, see curved surface along the longitudinal axis of the sleeves 142 and 146, as best shown in Fig. 12.
Regarding claim 5, Stark teaches wherein the at least one sleeve comprises two centering surfaces formed by an open side of the cross section (see Fig. 12).
Regarding the Markush type claim 7, Stark teaches each of the at least one elastic member 41, 43, 45, 47 is at least partially arranged between each of the at least one sleeve 142, 144, 146, 148 and each of the at least one rod element 126, 128, 130 and 132, as best shown in Fig. 12.
Regarding the Markush type claim 8, Stark teaches each of at least one elastic member is selected from the group consisting of: a spring element or an elastic material (spring members 41, 43, 45, and 47 can be made of relatively stiff material, metal, or plastic material, see col. 14, line 30 et seq.)
Regarding claim 9, Stark teaches the sleeve 142 is supported by the rod element 136, wherein with respect to the rod element a degree of freedom of the sleeve is 1, wherein the sleeve is supported by the rod element via a hinged support, (see Figs. 10 and 12).
Regarding claim 10, Stark teaches the centering holder comprises an even number of centering fingers (the centering fingers are defined as comprising a rod and a sleeve), Fig. 10 shows two pairs of sleeve and rods (see col. 14, line 30 et seq.)
Regarding claim 12, Stark teaches the rod elements connectively attached to the base element 134 (see Fig. 12 and col. 14, line 3 et seq.)
Regarding claim 15, Stark teaches a sample handling system for handling a sample, the sample handling system comprising at least one centering holder according to claim 1 (see above), the sample tube containing the sample, wherein the sample handling system further comprises at least one handling device (conveyors and transport means, see col. 3, line 22 et seq.)
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Stark teaches the sleeve at least partially surrounds and encloses the rod element, such that a bottom side of a shape of a cross-section of the sleeve is arranged towards/facing the sample tube (see Fig. 12).
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Pertinent Prior Art
While the following prior art listed below are not specifically discussed in this Official action, the examiner considers the listed prior art relevant to the overall prosecution and may be relied upon during subsequent examination(s) based on applicant’s future response(s).
i. Kaeppeli et al., (US 2017/0248624) teach a sample container carrier comprising upper retaining elements and lower retaining elements arranged in an alternating sequence about the central axis. The lower retaining elements enhance secure positioning of the sample container in the hollow center of the carrier.
ii. Yanez et al., (US 2014/0093438) teach a container holder suitable for receiving and holding a container, said container holder comprising a base frame for receiving said container, and at least one supporting member; characterized in that said at least one supporting member is pivotally mounted (hinge) on the base frame such as to pivot between first position in the absence of container and a second position when the container is received in the base frame.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:30am-7pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on 571-270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights