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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species III, claims 1-16 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 09/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious burden for examining all of the claims. This is not found persuasive because, as stated in the Requirement for Restriction/Election, there are plurality different inventions of vessel support which puts a serious burden on examiner to search outside of his art unit.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2024 and 11/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 10-12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoyer et al. (US PGPub 2013/0011224, hereinafter Hoyer).
Regarding claim 1, Hoyer discloses a vessel support, comprising
a base (figure 6, main body 102);
a stage (carrier element 104) having a vessel supporting surface, the stage connected to the base (see figures 6 and 10); and
at least one opposed set of retention members (figure 7, sliders 172 and 174) connected to the stage, the at least one opposed set of retention members biasable against one or more edges or walls of a vessel (figure 8, plate 302) supported on the stage to thereby secure the vessel to the stage (paragraph 0133).
Regarding claim 4, Hoyer discloses the vessel supporting surface of the stage is movable relative to the base along the x axis, the y axis, or both the x and y axes (paragraph 0146, “orbital movement”).
Regarding claim 5, Hoyer discloses a limit (figure 8, stops 106 ad 108) on each of the at least one opposed set of retention members (figure 7, sliders 172 and 174) that respectively engage one or more edges or walls of a vessel (plate 302) to secure the vessel to the stage (see figure 8).
Regarding claim 7, Hoyer discloses one or more the at least one opposed set of retention members are respectively extendable and retractable (paragraph 0136; figures 4 and 5), and extending the at least one opposed set of retention members biases the limits thereon against one or more edges or walls of the vessel (see figure 8).
Regarding claim 8, Hoyer discloses one or more edges or walls are on an underside of the vessel (see figure 8).
Regarding claim 9, Hoyer discloses an actuator (figure 4, actuating device 114) connected to one or more of the at least one opposed set of retention members (via rod 144 and disk 118), wherein actuation of the actuator extends or retracts one or more of the at least one opposed set of retention members (paragraph 0136; figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 10, Hoyer discloses a pivoting member (figure 4, disk 118) pivotally connected to the stage, wherein the at least one opposed set of retention members and the actuator are connected to the pivoting member and actuation of the pivoting member moves the at least one opposed set of retention members between a first extended position and second retracted position (paragraph 0136; figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 11, Hoyer discloses each retention member of the at least one opposed set of retention members (figure 7, sliders 172 and 174) comprises a chamfered or beveled portion (see shape of sliders in figure 7).
Regarding claim 12, Hoyer discloses a leading edge connected along an incline to a lagging edge on each retention member of the at least one opposed set of retention members (see edges of sliders 172 and 174 in figure 2), the lagging edge set inward from the leading edge relative to a center point of the stage (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Hoyer discloses a plurality of arms (figure 4, rods 124 and 126) respectively attached to each retention member of an opposed set of retention members thereby connecting each retention member (sliders 172 and 174) of an opposed set of retention members to the pivoting member (disk 118), wherein the plurality of arms are pivotally connected to the pivoting member (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Hoyer discloses the limit being a pin (paragraph 0108, “Two cooperating pins in the form of positioning stops”).
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.
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 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyer et al. (US PGPub 2013/0011224, hereinafter Hoyer) in view of Andersson et al. (US PGPub 2013/0316446, hereinafter Andersson).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Hoyer is silent to a tilted or tiltable stage and a tilt actuator as recited. Andersson teaches a vessel support having a base (figure 1, housing 3) and a stage (tray 4) wherein the stage is tiltable (see figure 1) and a tilt actuator for tilting the stage about a tilt axis (paragraph 0018, “rocking mechanism”). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the tilting motion of Andersson for the orbital motion of Hoyer because such a simple substitution of one known mixing motion for another would have provided only the predictable result of mixing material in a vessel placed on the device. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Hoyer is silent to the retention members being fixed or deformable as recited. Andersson teaches a vessel support having a base (figure 1, housing 3) and a stage (tray 4) having retention members (raised edges of the tray seen in figures 3 and 4 are considered to be retention members) that are fixed relative to the stage (see figures 3 and 4). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Hoyer with fixed retention members for the purpose of simplifying the device.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyer et al. (US PGPub 2013/0011224, hereinafter Hoyer) in view of Singh (US PGPub 2006/0013063, hereinafter Singh).
Regarding claim 19, Hoyer is silent to a load cell. Singh teaches a vessel support including a base (figure 1, baseplate 3) and a stage (platform 1) including one or more load sensors (load sensors 23). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Hoyer with load sensors, as in Singh, for the purpose of regulating timing of the movement of the stage (Singh: paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 20, Hoyer is silent to a load cell. Singh teaches a vessel support including a base (figure 1, baseplate 3) and a stage (platform 1) including one or more load sensors (load sensors 23). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Hoyer with load sensors, as in Singh, for the purpose of regulating timing of the movement of the stage (Singh: paragraph 0061). In this combination, extending the retention members of Hoyer would allow for the vessel to be removed, which would disengage it from the stage and thus also from the load sensors of Singh, meeting the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 15, and 16 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.
Claim 13 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a specific movement of the vessel not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Claim 15 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a specific configuration of the arms not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses mixing devices having a moving stage and retention members on the stage to hold a vessel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774