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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 24, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 19 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 9 each recite “slightly above the slide channel”. The term “slightly” renders the limitation indefinite since the term “slightly” is a term of degree related to the vertical distance above the slide channel that is not described in the specification in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain a standard for measuring the degree intended. See MPEP 2173.05(b). For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as "above the slide channel".
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 11, 13, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected as being dependent on claim 9.
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 9, 11, 13, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nordberg et al. (US 2015/0056695). This rejection was applied in Paragraphs 14-18 of the Final Rejection mailed 04/24/26. The rejection remains in effect. Please see Response to Arguments below.
Inventorship
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.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordberg et al. (US 2015/0056695) as applied to claim 11 above and in further view of Gibbs (US 5,842,671). This rejection was applied in Paragraphs 28-29 of the Final Rejection mailed 04/24/26. The rejection remains in effect. Please see Response to Arguments below.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordberg et al. (US 2015/0056695) in view of Drury et al. (US 4,516,522). Nordberg teaches a slide preparation apparatus and method for spreading fluid across a substrate. The embodiments of the apparatus most relevant to the instant claims are shown in Figures 4A, 4B and 5; and described in Paragraphs 0021-0032 and 0038.
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 5 - As shown in Figure 5, Nordberg teaches a slide preparation apparatus (spreader 500) comprising:
a base (frame 504) having an upper surface with a slide channel (formed from a stanchion 542, and first and second sides 544), the slide channel extending along the upper surface from a first end of the upper surface to a stop adjacent to a second end of the upper surface (a shelf 550 on each side extending from a first end of the spreader 500 to a stop located above a cavity 562) and having a width corresponding to a width of a slide, and a support bar (wiper 502) extending across and slightly above the slide channel, the support bar including a notch (bore 538). See also Paragraphs 0028-0032. Nordberg does not teach a reference mark in the upper surface as recited in the instant claims.
Drury teaches a device for preparing a fluid sample on a slide (abstract), comprising: a support surface (a base 12 including feet members 46 and 48 on sides 36 and 38; Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 10-12); an upper surface opposite the support surface (a surface 18 opposite the feet; Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 31-34), the upper surface comprising: a slide channel having a width corresponding to a slide (instant claim 5) extending from a first end of the upper surface to a stop adjacent to a second end of the upper surface (a channel formed by a pair of elongate side rails 32 and 34 extending between two pairs of posts 20 and 22 on a first and second side respectively; Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 42-51); a fiducial mark disposed in the slide channel, the fiducial marker located a defined distance from the stop for placing the solution to be spread (an indicator 40 located equidistant between the rails 32 and 34 and adjacent an indentation 30 a defined distance from the posts 22; Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines. 53-59); and a support bar extending across the slide channel (a spreader 16 extending between the guide rails 32 and 34; Figs. 1, 3; Col. 3, lines. 62-63). The Examiner submits It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the fiducial mark from Drury with the device of Nordberg. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time would add the fiducial mark disposed in the slide channel in order to provide the best location for adding the fluid to the substrate before spreading the fluid on the substrate as taught by Drury.
Regarding claim 2 - The Examiner submits the placement of the sample tube holder (606) on the support bar ABOVE the slide channel places the sample tube holder "outside the path of the slide channel" as recited in the claim. See Figure 6 of Nordberg.
Regarding claim 4 - The Examiner submits the sample tube holder (606) would be aligned with the center of the slide channel based on the location of the tube holder as shown in Figures 5-6 of Nordberg.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordberg et al. (US 2015/0056695) in view of Drury et al. (US 4,516,522), and further in view of Gibbs (US 5,842,671). Nordberg and Drury as combined in Paragraphs 10-14 above teaches every element of claim 8 except for the removeable sample tube holder. Gibbs teaches a secured receptacle holder which provides the ability to secure a variety of containers to a surface of varying widths and any inclination (columns 1-2). The secured receptacle holder (9) is shown in Figures 1-7 and described in columns 3-6. As shown in the Figures, the receptacle holder (9) includes a main securing post (10a), lower securing post (11a), a plurality of clamping members (20a, 20b) and a holder (25a) for holding a container. During use, the secure holder is attached to the surface using the clamping members (20a, 20b) to provide a secure holder (25a) at the edge of the surface for holding the container. See Figures and column 4, line 65 - column 6, line 13. The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to combine the tube holder from Gibbs with the combined apparatus of Nordberg and Drury. Norberg teaches the use of samples tubes and also the use of reagents or preservatives for mixing and processing the samples. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would add the receptacle holder to Nordberg and Drury in order to provide a container holder for sample containers and/or additional reagent containers at any location on the apparatus as taught by Gibbs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/24/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 5, 9, 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drury et al. (US 4,516,522) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite a “support bar having a distal portion and a proximal portion positioned opposite the distal portion” and “wherein the proximal portion of the support bar defines a notch for guiding a dispensing needle to a position above said mark, and wherein the support bar is affixed to each of said first and second sidewalls”. Applicant has also amended claim 9 to recite “wherein the support bar includes a distal portion and a proximal portion positioned opposite the distal portion, the proximal portion defining a notch for guiding a dispensing needle to a dispensing position, and wherein the support bar is stationary relative to the slide channel”. Applicant then argued that the prior art Drury does not teach the features recited in amended claims 1 and 9. See pages 6-8 of Applicant’s Remarks. The Examiner agrees; therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made above in Paragraphs 10-15.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/24/26, with respect to the rejections of claims 9, 11, 13, 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nordberg et al. (US 2015/0056695) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite a “support bar having a distal portion and a proximal portion positioned opposite the distal portion” and “wherein the proximal portion of the support bar defines a notch for guiding a dispensing needle to a position above said mark, and wherein the support bar is affixed to each of said first and second sidewalls”. Applicant has also amended claim 9 to recite “wherein the support bar includes a distal portion and a proximal portion positioned opposite the distal portion, the proximal portion defining a notch for guiding a dispensing needle to a dispensing position, and wherein the support bar is stationary relative to the slide channel”. Applicant then argued that the prior art Nordberg does not teach the features recited in amended claims 1 and 9. See pages 6-8 of Applicant’s Remarks. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits the following in rebuttal.
Applicant has argued that Nordberg does not teach “wherein the proximal portion of the support bar defines a notch for guiding a dispensing needle to a position above said mark”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the opening (opening 538 in Figure 5 or opening 612 in Figure 6). The Examiner considers the opening to be a notch. In addition, the notch (opening 538/612) is located in the proximal portion of the support bar (wiper 502 in Figure 5 and wiper 600 in Figure 6). See Figures 5-6 of Nordberg which show the opening closer to the proximal end of the wiper – the end of the wiper having the blade (blade 524 in Figure 5 or blade 616 in Figure 6 – than the distal end of the wiper. Therefore, Nordberg teaches “wherein the proximal portion of the support bar defines a notch for guiding a dispensing needle to a position above said mark” as recited in the claim.
Applicant has argued that Nordberg does not teach and “wherein the support bar is affixed to each of said first and second sidewalls” and Nordberg also does not teach “wherein the support bar is stationary relative to the slide channel”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant to Figures 5-6 and Paragraphs 0029 and 0032 of Nordberg. The Examiner submits the wiper element (502/600) includes flanges (512) which allow for the attachment of the wiper element (502/600) to a guide element (514) of the frame (504). With respect to the support bar being stationary, Paragraph 0032 of Nordberg teaches a controllable drive mechanism to move or stop the wiper. The Examiner submits a controllable drive mechanism is capable of maintaining the support bar stationary relative to the slide channel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAYNE K HANDY whose telephone number is (571)272-1259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/DWAYNE K HANDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1798 September 04, 2026
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
