Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s filing of claims 1-15 on 7/22/24 was acknowledged. Claims 1-15 are pending and are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosures statements (IDS) submitted on 3/19/24 and 2/24/26 were acknowledged. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected because the scope of each claim is indefinite. It cannot be determined whether the claim language, "in particular," was intended to be an "optional” term. For examination purposes, the Office will interpret “in particular” as an “optional” term.
Claims 1, 7-9, 12 and 15 are rejected because the claim language, e.g., “to form”, “formed by” and similar language appears to recite a product-by-process limitation and/or is interpreted to recite the method of forming the microplate assembly. Because the claimed invention is directed to a “kit” (e.g., device) which is an apparatus-type of claim, the product-by-process limitations and/or the method of forming the microplate assembly is not germane to the issue of patentability of the kit, e.g., device, itself.
Claim 2 is rejected because “the upper plate comprises only one plurality of downwardly protruding rods” is unclear. How does the claim language structurally further define the subject matter of claim 1?
Claim 3 is rejected because “the upper plate comprises two or more pluralities of downwardly protruding rods, in particular four pluralities of downwardly protruding rods, and wherein all rods of the same individual plurality of rods have the same length” is unclear. How does the claim language structurally further define the subject matter of claim 1?
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected because the scope of each claim is indefinite. It cannot be determined whether the claim language, "preferably," was intended to be an "optional” term. For examination purposes, the Office will interpret “preferably” as an “optional” term.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected because “the respective threaded adjustment bolt” is unclear and raises an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 14 is rejected because “the standard ANSI SLAS 1-2004 (R2012) for microplates” is unclear.
Claim 15 is rejected because the claim language is unclear. There is no clear preamble with a transitional term, e.g., “comprising”. Because the claim appears to recite a product-by-process limitation(s), it is what is being positively claimed.
Claim Interpretation
The Office asserts that terms and phrases like “for” and “wherein” constitute recitations of intended use language for purposes of examination. The Office asserts that in the examined claims reciting such “for” language, the claim language that follows such recitations does not necessarily denote structure MPEP 2173.05(g). The functional limitation was evaluated and considered, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, a “wherein” clause may have a limiting effect on a claim if the language limits the claim to a particular structure. MPEP 2111.04. The determination of whether a “wherein” clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. While all words in each claim are considered in judging the patentability of the claim language, including functional claim limitations, not all limitations provide a patentable distinction.
During patent examination, the examined claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, unless a term has been given a special definition in the specification (“BRI”). See MPEP 2111.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotschy et al. (“Gotschy,” US Pub. No. 2009/0086198, cited in IDS) in view of Song et al. (“Song,” US Pub. No. 2012/0165224, cited in IDS) and Panetz (US Pub. No. 2019/0329249).
As to claim 1, Gotschy discloses a kit for forming a microplate assembly for absorbance measurements of liquid samples, the kit comprising:
an upper plate (first partial plate 2) comprising at least one plurality of downwardly protruding rods (transparent bodies 10) made of glass and arranged in a rod pattern, each of the rods comprising a flat rod bottom surface (surfaces 3) facing downwards and a lateral outer rod surface (edge 17) extending upwards from a perimeter of the flat rod bottom surface,
wherein the flat rod bottom surfaces of all rods of a same individual plurality of rods are arranged in a respective common first plane (e.g., fig. 2), and
wherein each individual plurality of rods comprises the same number of rods and is arranged in the same rod pattern (e.g., fig. 2),
a lower plate (second partial plate 4),
alignment guides (guide pins 25) for aligning the upper plate (2) and the lower plate (4) relative to each other upon assembling the upper plate (2) and the lower plate (4) to form the microplate assembly, and
spacers (spacers 24) for determining the distance of the upper plate (2) and the lower plate (4) relative to each other upon assembling the upper plate (2) and the lower plate (4) to form the microplate assembly,
wherein the lower plate (4) comprises a plurality of wells (microcuvettes 7) made of glass, the number of wells of the plurality of wells (7) corresponding to the number of rods of each individual plurality of rods and being arranged in a well pattern corresponding to the rod pattern (e.g., fig. 2),
wherein each of the wells (7) comprises a flat well bottom surface (surface 5) facing upwards and having an area in the range of 0.7 mm2 to 29 mm2 (e.g., [0056] et seq.), the flat well bottom surfaces (5) of all wells (7) being arranged in a common second plane (e.g., fig. 2), and
wherein the alignment guides are configured and arranged such that when the upper plate is assembled with the lower plate to form the microplate assembly, the alignment guides engage one another to align the upper plate and the lower plate such that each well of the plurality of wells accommodates one rod of each individual plurality of rods (see claim interpretation above, and e.g., [0028] et seq.), and
wherein the flat rod bottom surface of each rod of each individual plurality of rods is arranged parallel to the corresponding flat well bottom surface and faces the flat well bottom surface at a predetermined distance in the range of 0.05 mm to 5 mm, in particular 0.1 mm to 2 mm, especially 0.2 mm to 1 mm (e.g., [0024] et seq., and figs. 1, 2 and 7).
Regarding claim 1, Gotschy does not specifically disclose each of the wells further comprises a lateral inner well surface extending upwards from a perimeter of the flat well bottom surface, with the lateral inner well surface being dimensioned to surround the lateral outer rod surface when the upper plate and the lower plate are assembled to form the microplate assembly. Song discloses the lateral inner well surface and corresponding claim features in figs. 1-3 and [0038] et seq. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gotschy with the lateral inner well surface and its corresponding claimed features because having such structural features would help make the cell chip capable of preventing cross contamination ([0012] of Song).
Also, regarding claim 1, Gotschy does not specifically disclose the spacers comprise a plurality of threaded adjustment bolts, wherein each threaded adjustment bolt of the plurality of threaded adjustment bolts is arranged in a threaded through-hole of the upper plate or the lower plate, with one end of the respective threaded adjustment bolt protruding from the upper plate or the lower plate, respectively, such that when the upper plate is assembled with the lower plate to form the microplate assembly, the one end of the respective threaded adjustment bolt abuts against the lower plate or the upper plate. Panetz discloses in e.g., [0059] et seq., FIGS. 24-28 a microwell cover 710 comprising a front rail 740, rear rail 742, right rail 744 and left rail 746. In this illustrated embodiment, each rail is provided with at least one threaded bore and a corresponding threaded adjustment pin which is movably positioned in the bore. The threaded adjustment pins extend inwardly beyond the inner surface of the respective rail when desired in order to properly position the microwell cover over a collection plate. The positioning of the threaded adjustment pins is adjustable from the outer side of the respective rail. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gotschy with a plurality of threaded adjustment bolts because it would properly position the microwell cover over a collection plate ([0059] of Panetz).
As to claim 2, the combination of Gotschy, Song and Panetz disclose the upper plate comprises only one plurality of downwardly protruding rods. See e.g., fig. 2 et seq. of Gotschy.
As to claim 3, the combination of Gotschy, Song and Panetz disclose the upper plate comprises two or more pluralities of downwardly protruding rods, in particular four pluralities of downwardly protruding rods, and wherein all rods of the same individual plurality of rods have the same length. See e.g., fig. 2 et seq. of Gotschy.
As to claim 4, the combination of Gotschy, Song and Panetz disclose the plurality of threaded adjustment bolts consists of three threaded adjustment bolts arranged at the corners of a triangle, preferably of an isosceles triangle. See e.g., [0059] et seq., FIGS. 24-28 of Panetz. See motivation statement above.
As to claim 5, the combination of Gotschy, Song and Panetz disclose the rod pattern of each individual plurality of rods is a same rectangular matrix having ninety-six locations, where the rods of each individual plurality of rods are arranged, wherein the locations of the matrix are arranged along eight rows and twelve columns (e.g., [0027] et seq. of Gotschy), wherein a first threaded adjustment bolt and a second threaded adjustment bolt of the three threaded adjustment bolts are both arranged between a lowermost row and a second lowermost row of the rectangular matrix, wherein a third threaded adjustment bolt of the three threaded adjustment bolts is arranged between an uppermost row and a second uppermost row of the rectangular matrix, wherein the first threaded adjustment bolt is arranged between an outermost left column and second outermost left column of the rectangular matrix, wherein the second threaded adjustment bolt is arranged between an outermost right column and a second outermost right column of the rectangular matrix, and wherein the third threaded adjustment bolt is arranged between the two centermost columns of the rectangular matrix (see Panetz for the three adjustment bolts and the corresponding claimed features in e.g., [0059] et seq. and FIGS. 24-28). For motivation statement, see above.
As to claim 6, the combination of Gotschy, Song and Panetz disclose the one end of the respective threaded adjustment bolt protruding from the upper plate or the lower plate, respectively, comprises a convex end surface. See e.g., [0059] et seq. and FIGS. 24-28 of Panetz.
As to claims 10-11, the combination of Gotschy, Song and Panetz disclose the upper plate comprises a carrier plate (see microwell cover in e.g., fig. 24 and [0060] et seq. of Panetz) made of a corrosion-resistant metal (see anodised aluminum in e.g., [0050] et seq. of Gotschy) and comprising a plurality of through-holes (e.g., fig. 1 of Gotschy and fig. 24. of Panetz) arranged in the rod pattern, and wherein each individual rod (fig. 1 et seq. of Gotschy) of the same individual plurality of rods is fixed in a different individual through-hole of the plurality of through-holes. Also, each individual rod of the same individual plurality of rods is fixed in the respective different individual through-hole by adhesive. See adhesive layer in e.g., [0021] et seq. of Song. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the claimed carrier plate and adhesive because it would additional and/or alternative means to sufficiently secure the microplate assembly during analysis.
As to claim 12, the combination of Gotschy, Song and Panetz disclose the lower plate comprises a glass plate comprising the plurality of wells arranged in the well-pattern (e.g., [0003] et seq. of Gotschy), wherein the lower plate further comprises a frame made of a corrosion-resistant metal and accommodating the glass plate (e.g., [0050] et seq. of Gotschy), and wherein the threaded adjustment bolts protrude from the upper plate and are arranged such that the ends thereof abut against the glass plate when the upper plate is assembled with the lower plate to form the microplate assembly. For the threaded adjustment bolts, see Panetz.
As to claim 13, the combination of Gotschy, Song and Panetz disclose both the rods and the wells are cylindrical with a circular cross-section. See e.g., fig. 1 and [0029] et seq. of Gotschy.
As to claim 14, the combination of Gotschy, Song and Panetz disclose the outer dimensions of both the lower plate and the upper plate are in conformance with the outer dimensions of the standard ANSI SLAS 1-2004 (R2012) for microplates. See e.g., [0027] et seq. of Gotschy.
As to claim 15, the combination of Gotschy, Song and Panetz disclose a microplate assembly for absorbance measurements of liquid samples, the microplate assembly being formed by the assembled upper plate and lower plate of the kit according to claim 1. See e.g., [0024] et seq. of Gotschy, figs. 1-3 and [0038] et seq. of Song, and e.g., [0059] et seq., FIGS. 24-28 of Panetz. For motivation statements, see above.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotschy in view of Song and Panetz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cox et al. (“Cox,” US Pub. No. 2020/0391215).
See Gotschy, Song and Panetz above.
As to claims 7-9, the combination of Gotschy, Song and Panetz do not disclose the flanges, grooves and alignments surfaces in the claimed configurations. Cox discloses in figs. 1-6B and e.g., [0057] et seq., an aligner 108 comprising a first arm 134a and a second arm 134b, as shown in FIG. 4A. The first arm 134a and a second arm 134b may be protruding members of the aligner that align with a first corner and a second corner of the microplate when the aligner 108 is placed on a lateral, top surface of the microplate. The aligner may further comprise a first arm extending from a first end of the lateral wall and a second arm extending from a second end of the lateral wall. The first arm may surround a first corner of the microplate and the second arm may surround a second corner of the microplate. The aligner 108 may comprise a first attraction unit 136a and a second attraction unit 136b, as shown in FIGS. 4A and 4C. The first attraction unit 136a may be a first magnet. The second attraction unit 136b may be a second magnet. FIG. 4B schematically illustrates a side view of the aligner 108. The aligner may comprise a lateral wall 150. The lateral wall 150 may face away from the microplate when assembled (e.g., as shown in FIG. 1). The aligner may comprise a first step 144a, a second step 144b, a third step 144c, and a fourth step 144d. The first step 144a may comprise a first vertical wall 146a and a first horizontal surface 148a. The first vertical wall 146a extends downward and meets the first horizontal surface 148a; thus, forming the first step 144a. Similarly, the second step 144b may comprise a second vertical wall 146b and a second horizontal surface 148b. The second vertical wall 146b extends downward and meets the second horizontal surface 148b; thus, forming the second step 144b. Likewise, the third step 144c may comprise a third vertical wall 146c and a third horizontal surface 148c. The third vertical wall 146c extends downward and meets the third horizontal surface 148c; thus, forming the third step 144c. Correspondingly, the fourth step 144d may comprise a fourth vertical wall 146d and a fourth horizontal surface 148d. The fourth vertical wall 146d extends downward and meets the fourth horizontal surface 148d; thus, forming the fourth step 144d. The step structures in the aligner may help position the aligner on the base plate, posts, and/or microplate. For example, when the microplate holder is assembled, the third horizontal surface 148c and the fourth horizontal surface 148d may rest adjacent to the proximal or top surface of the base plate. Furthermore, when the microplate holder is assembled, the first horizontal surface 148a and the second horizontal surface 148b may rest adjacent to the proximal end 126 of one or more posts. Additional attraction units may be placed on the first horizontal surface 148a, the second horizontal surface 148b, the third horizontal surface 148c, and/or the fourth horizontal surface 148d to further secure the aligner to the base plate and/or one or more posts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the claimed structural features of the alignment guides because it would be desirable to provide additional and/or alternative microplate holder means to sufficiently secure the microplate during analysis (e.g., [0003] of Cox).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORE RAMILLANO JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LORE R JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
9/19/2026
Prosecution Insights