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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 18 November 2024, 11 November 2025, and 13 November 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figure 3B: Sectional designation should be noted with Arabic or Roman numerals. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(3).
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, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Providing at least one processor, as recited in claim 1.
Providing a pressure sensor within a robotic arm, as recited in claim 2.
Providing a pressure sensor, as recited in claim 3.
Providing a detector to detect that all sampling devices have been used to collect a tissue sample, as recited in claim 4.
Providing at least one driving element for driving a robotic arm, as recited in claim 5.
Providing at least one sound and/or lighting device, as recited in claim 6.
Providing a visual recognition system, as recited in claim 7.
Providing a light source to illuminate a carcass, as recited in claim 8.
No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, page line 4: A paragraph detailing the status of prior applications should be provided since this application is listed as a Continuation application.
Page 9, page line 14: The sectional view designation should be changed as this designation does not appear within the figure; and letters, such as A-A’, should not be used to designate sectional views.
Page 9, page line 26: The term – scraped – should replace the term “scrapped.”
Page 10, page lines 6, 9, and 14: The term – scraped – should replace the term “scrapped.”
Page 11, page line 30: The term – scraped – should replace the term “scrapped.”
Page 12, page line 1: The term – scraping – should replace the term “scrapping.”
Page 12, page line 2: The term – scrape – should replace the term “scrap.”
Page 13, page lines 4 and 19: The term – scrape – should replace the term “scrap.”
Page 17, page line 1: The term – scrape – should replace the term “scrap.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6-7, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 4, claim line 1: The phrase – at least one – should be inserted prior to the term “processor.” See claim 1, claim line 17 for reference.
Re claim 4, claim line 2: The phrase – at least one – should be inserted prior to the term “multi-well tray.” See claim 1, claim lines 8-9 for reference.
Re claim 6, claim line 1: The term – at – should replace the article “a.”
Re claim 6, claim line 2: Should the phrase – said at least one – correct the article “a”? See claim 1, claim line 7 for reference.
Re claim 7, claim line 1: The phrase – at least one – should be inserted prior to the term “camera.” See claim 1, claim line 4 for reference.
Re claim 13, claim line 15: The conjunction – and – should be inserted after the comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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.
Re claim 1, claim lines 25-26: It is unclear how the processor “obtains an identifier associated with said animal and the location of the well within the at least one multi-well tray” without some means of reading the identifier of each.
Re claim 6, claim 2: Is this “a return magazine” the same magazine previously recited in claim 1, claim line 7?
NOTE: Claims 2-8 are rejected because they depend from independent claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,174208. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the narrower patent overlaps the scope of the broader instant application. The first independent claim of both the application and the patent are virtually identical save for the recitation of “at least one reader configured to obtain an identifier of one of said at least one multi-well tray” and some also recitations of the reader and the identifier mentioned in claim 1 of the patent. Thus, the broader limitations of the independent application claim is met by the narrower independent patented claim.
With respect to dependent application claims 2-8, these claims are identical or virtually identical to their counterpart dependent patented claims, claims 2-8.
With respect to independent application claim 9, this claim is virtually identical to patented claim 9 save for the inclusion of obtain and store “an identifier said at least one first multi-well tray” in the patented independent claim 9. Again, the scope of the narrower patented claim overlaps the scope of the broader application claim.
With respect to respect to dependent application claims 10-12, these claims are identical or virtually identical to their counterpart dependent patented claims, claims 10-12.
With respect to independent application claim 13, this claim is virtually identical to patented claim 13 save for the inclusion of obtain and store “an identifier said at least one first multi-well tray” in the patented independent claim 13. Again, the scope of the narrower patented claim overlaps the scope of the broader application claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art was not relied upon to reject claims 1-13 because the prior art of record fails to teach and/or make obvious the following:
Claims 1-8: Providing a system for collecting tissue comprising: at least one camera, configured to detect a sampling location on an animal, and at least one supply magazine being configured to receive at least one multi-well tray comprising a plurality of sampling devices detachably mounted in the wells of said tray; and a processor configured to drive said robotic arm to scrape a scraping portion of said sampling device against the animal; and to drive said robotic arm to replace said sampling device with said collected sample within the same well of said at least one tray in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claims 9-12: Providing a method for collecting tissue samples, implemented by at least one processor of a system, comprising, driving said robotic arm to grab the sampling device from a well of said first tray, driving said robotic arm to scrape a scraping portion of said sampling device against the animal to collect a tissue sample, and driving said robotic arm to replace said sampling device with a collected sample within the same well of said first tray in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claim 13: Providing a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions stored therein for collecting tissue samples, when the instructions are executed by at least one processor of a system for collecting tissue samples, comprising driving said robotic arm to grab the sampling device from a well of said first tray, driving said robotic arm to scrape a scraping portion of said sampling device against an animal to collect a tissue sample, and driving said robotic arm to replace said sampling device with a collected sample within the same well of said first tray in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the claim.
The closest prior art, US 2010/0294046, discloses a system and method for sampling materials comprising a robotic system with arm, at least one sample handling assembly utilizing a plurality of magazines holding multi-well trays, and a processor for providing an automated system for collecting and depositing samples with the wells of the trays. The prior art does not expressly disclose detecting a sampling location on an animal, picking up a sampling probe within a well, using the probe to collect a sample from an animal; and depositing the probe with the sample back into the well where it was retrieved from in combination with the remaining limitations of each base claim. The prior art picks up samples from a tray not directly from an animal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SEAN LARKIN whose telephone number is 571-272-2198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Laura Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/DANIEL S LARKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights