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 2, 5-7, 16-17, 19 and 28 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 2 is indefinite and could not be properly understood because it is not clear how the enclosure, which is a part of the apparatus, can be attached to the apparatus. What structure is required?
Claims 5-6 are indefinite because it is not clear from claim 5 whether or not the gas line is a part of the claimed apparatus.
Claim 6 is further indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the gas source is a part of the claimed apparatus.
Claim 7 is indefinite because the term “the P” in this claim lacks proper antecedent basis.
The claim is further indefinite because it is not clear what is referenced as “a basin of the P”.
Claims 16-17 are indefinite because it is not clear from claim 16 whether or not a sample processing instrument is a part of the claimed apparatus.
Claim 19 is indefinite because the term “the gas” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is not clear how the recited gas is related to the structure of the apparatus.
Claim 28 is indefinite because it is not clear how the slide can be moved along its own length.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-10, 14-17, 19, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imrali (US 2021/0001343).
Imrali teaches an apparatus and a method as claimed.
The apparatus comprises:
A manifold (8, 16);
Input ports (27);
Output ports (26);
An aperture (readable at least on the upper opening of part 16 on the face 18);
An enclosure (part 8 with chamber 16 with a cover 48).
See at least Figures 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 and the related description.
As to claim 2:
The enclosure 8 is removably attached to the apparatus by screws 14.
As to claims 8-10:
The opening recited by claim 8 is readable at least on the opening 26 connected to the pump 68.
As to claims 9-10:
The parts of the opening (the air conduit 40) is disclosed as comprising a filter as claimed (at least figure 7 and the description at {0028-29]).
As to claim 10:
The filter is disclosed as having the mesh/pore size, which is configured to intercept the particles as claimed (at least [0029]).
As to claims 14-15:
The claimed guide is readable on the walls of the part 8, 16, which are readable on the claimed ledges (see at least Figures 4-5, 7, 9).
As to claims 16-17:
The claimed mounting means are readable at least on parts 10, which are readable on the claimed projections.
As to claim 19:
The apparatus of Imrali is fully capable of the containing a flow of the claimed gas.
AS to claims 21-22:
Imrali teaches a method for cleaning slides.
The method comprises inserting a slide 100 in the enclosure 8, 16;
Applying a flow of gas(air) through the ports 27 by the pump 68;
Removing the slide from the enclosure.
See at least [0050-65].
As to claim 22:
The step of adjusting the height of the slide is inherently met by the moving the slide to be inserted into the enclosure.
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.
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.
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) 3, 5-7, 23-25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imrali (US 2021/0001343).
The discussion of Imrali provided above is incorporated here.
As to claim 3:
Imrali does not exemplify the round nozzles.
Imrali exemplifies rectangular nozzles.
However, it has been held that the configuration/shape of the claimed part is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed part is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The applicants have not demonstrated any significance of the claimed shape. Thereby, the apparatus of Imrali with round nozzles would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed.
As to the claimed size (diameter) of the nozzle: the claimed size is clearly envisaged by the disclosure of Imrali at [009].
As to claim 5-6:
Imrali teaches that the input ports are connected to gas lines 70.
Imrali does not disclosed if the referenced line is removably connected.
However, it has been held that it would be obvious to make the parts removable.
In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to make the connection of the parts 27 and 70 removable in order to simplify maintenance and or assembly and/or repair of the apparatus.
As to claim 6:
Imrali teaches that the apparatus can work at any negative pressure (at least [0065] and, thus, teaches that the gas line 70 is adapted to supply a gas at the claimed pressures. The presence of a gas (air) source, such as the atmosphere is inherent.
As to claim 7:
This claim could not be properly understood.
Imrali does not specifically exemplify the enclosure, which is substantially P-shaped.
Imrali teaches that the enclosure can be different shapes. See at least Figures 5 and 6. Imrali also teaches that the enclosure can be of a shape that correspond to the shape of the slide (at least [0096]).
Moreover, it has been held that the configuration/shape of the claimed part is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed part is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
The applicants have not demonstrated any significance of the claimed shape. Thereby, the apparatus of Imrali with enclosure shaped as claimed would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed.
As to claim 23:
Imrali teaches that the apparatus can work at any negative pressure (at least [0065] and, thus, encompasses the claimed pressure.
Further, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
The applicants have not demonstrated any criticality of the claimed range.
Thus, the claimed range would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan having the teaching of Imrali at the time the invention was filed.
As to claims 24-25:
Imrali does not specifically teach the use of robots. However, Imrali teaches the method which inherently includes all the manipulations of the slide recited by the claims.
However, Imrali is concern about expenses and dangers associated with manual labor. Imrali is also concerned about the humans been exposed to biological hazazard. See at least [0002].
Further, it has been held that providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Thus, itwould have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide a robot in the method of Imrali in order to replace manual activity and prevent exposure of the operator to biological hazards.
AS to claim 28:
This claim is indefinite and could not be properly understood for the reasons provided above.
In view of the indefiniteness of the claim it is reasonably believed that the claim is either anticipated or obvious over the teaching of Imrali.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to apparatuses and methods for cleaning slides.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711