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 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 1-9 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.
Claim 1, line 8 recites “each pair” however, the claim recites “at least one pair of modular units” and “two pairs of wedge-shaped teeth” and is therefore unclear what “pair” line 8 is referring to. For examination purposes, it is interpreted to be the two pairs of wedge-shaped teeth. Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim 4 recites that the box-like structure comprises “seats,” however, claim 1 recites “housing seats” and claim 4 is therefore unclear if the housing seats and the seats are the same or different. For examination purposes, they are interpreted to be the same.
Claim 8 recites “arranged on opposite heads,” however it is unclear what is meant by heads. Is it the ends of the box-like structure or is it something else.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2015/0017078, hereinafter Fattinger in view of United States Application Publication No. 2018/0147574, hereinafter Dysli.
Regarding claim 1, Fattinger teaches a multifunction rack (figure 1) for storage of cytohistological slides, histological biocassettes or vials containing histological samples (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)), characterized in that it comprises: at least one pair of modular units (item 2 and paragraph [0010]) comprising a plurality of cells (item 21), arranged according to an array of rows and columns (figure 3), and two pairs of wedge-shaped teeth (item 23 and paragraph [0049]) projecting from outer walls of opposite sides (figure 4); a box-like structure (item 3) containing said modular units (figure 4), provided with housing seats (the lower surface of item 31) and slots (the space on either side of item 31) for locking said teeth (item 23) of said modular units (paragraph [0049]), arranged on inner walls of opposite sides (figure 4).
Fattinger fails to teach respective centre distances of each pair of wedge-shaped teeth having different width from each other; respective centre distances of the housing seats and slots having different width from each other and where a rotation of 180° of said modular units around a vertical axis determines matching or otherwise of the centre distances of said teeth with the centre distances of the same width of said respective housing seats or of said respective locking slots and consequently the reversible insertion or irreversible fixing of said modular units inside said box-like structure.
Dysli teaches an analytical system which has protrusions and/or indentations which are arranged at different spacing/shape so that the correct orientation can be achieved when the plate interacts with an instrument module in a specific spatial constellation (Dysli, paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made each respective pair of wedge-shaped teeth and housing seats and slots have different spacing from each other because it would allow for the correct orientation to be achieved when the plate interacts with an instrument module in a specific spatial constellation (Dysli, paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Fattinger teaches the modular units (item 2) comprise linear guides (item 25) having the shape of a groove with vertical course (figure 6), arranged on the outer walls of the opposite sides (figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, Fattinger teaches the modular units (item 2) comprise an identification plate (item 28, paragraph [0047]), of the barcode or qrcode type (paragraph [0047]), prearranged on a support that can be housed in one of the cells or obtained from one of them (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Fattinger teaches the box-like structure (item 3) comprises seats (the upper surface of item 31), arranged on an upper margin of the inner walls of the opposite sides (figure 4), designed to cooperate with the teeth (figure 4) of the modular units (item 2) to determine alignment of the respective locking slots on the same vertical axis (figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Fattinger teaches the box-like structure (item 3) comprises at least one transverse partition (the partitions as seen in figure 15) delimiting containment compartments (item 52) of the modular units (item 2).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fattinger and Dysli as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of United States Patent No. 5,592,289, hereinafter Norris.
Regarding claim 5, Fattinger and Dysli teach all limitations of claim 2; however, they fail to teach he box-like structure comprises tabs projecting from the opposite inner walls and from a base bottom, designed to cooperate with the linear guides of the modular units to determine the vertical descent of said modular units inside said box-like structure and to stabilize the resting of said modular units on said bottom of the base of said box-like structure.
Norris teaches a self-alignment mechanism for positioning analyte receptacles in which three guide pins (tabs) are arranged on the analyte receptacle and vertical contact surfaces on the tray so that the analyte receptacle can be positioned (Norris, claims 11 and 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added tabs projected from the opposite inner walls which cooperated with the linear guides because it would ensure that the modular units can be positioned (Norris, claims 11 and 12).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fattinger and Dysli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2016/0244807, hereinafter Conoci.
Regarding claim 7, Fattinger and Dysli teach all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the box-like structure comprises lightening slots, arranged on opposite sides.
Conoci teaches a biological chip which has lightening trenches which reduce the thermal inertia of the device (Conoci, paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added lightening slots on opposite sides of the box-like structure because it would reduce the thermal inertia of the device (Conoci, paragraph [0032]).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fattinger and Dysli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2006/0045815, hereinafter Hovatter.
Regarding claim 8, Fattinger and Dysli teach all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the box-like structure (3) comprises reversible fixing structures (15) for fixing to storage cabinet doors, arranged on opposite heads.
Hovatter teaches interlocking structures which utilizes a locking mechanism (Hovatter, item 400) which allows for the interconnection of multiple grids to each other so that they cannot be accidentally separated during shipping and storage (Hovatter, paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added reversible fixing structures to the box-like structure because it would allow for the interconnection of multiple grids to each other so that they cannot be accidentally separated during shipping and storage (Hovatter, paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Fattinger teaches the box-like structure (item 3) comprises an identification plate (item 28, paragraph [0047]), of barcode or qrcode type (paragraph [0047]), prearranged on a support that can be housed in one of the fixing structures or obtained from one of them (paragraph [0047]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights