Reply to Office Action of August 14, 2019
`
`Application No. 14/831,838
`
`- 9 -
`
`GTBBONS et a].
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Remarks
`
`Upon entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 83-103 and 105-112 are pending in the
`
`application, with claims 83, 92, and 108 being the independent claims. By this Amendment, claims
`
`83, 84, 92, 98, 99, 103, 105 and 108-111 are amended. Applicant respectfully reserves the right to
`
`prosecute similar or broader claims, with respect to the cancelled and/or amended claims, in the
`
`future. These changes are believed to introduce no new matter, and their entry is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`Based on the above amendment and the following remarks, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Objections to the Drawings
`
`The Office Action objects to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they allegedly fail
`
`to show “the cartridge that comprises both a reagent unit and an assay unit,” previously recited in
`
`independent claim 108. By this Amendment, this language has been removed from independent
`
`claim 108, thus rendering the rejection moot.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the objection.
`
`Claim Objection
`
`The Office Action objects to claim 108 as allegedly containing an informality. By this
`
`Amendment, claim 108 is amended responsive to the objection.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the objection.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 4127.0100004
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of August 14, 2019
`
`Application No. 14/831,838
`
`- 10 -
`
`GTBBONS er a].
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`The Office Action rejects claims 108-112 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-
`
`AIA), second paragraph, as allegedly being indef1nite. By this Amendment, claim 108 is amended
`
`responsive to the rejection.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`The Office Action rejects claims 83-92, 85-101, 103, 105, 107-110, and 112 under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over US. Patent No. 6,797,518 to Jacobs el al.
`
`in view of US. Patent Publication No. 2011/0115905 to Beumer el al., rejects claims 93 and 94
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over Jacobs el al. in view of
`
`Beumer el a]. further in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art (hereinafter AAPA), rejects claim
`
`102 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over Jacobs el al. in view of
`
`Beumer el a]. further in view of US. Patent Publication No. 2014/03 52410 to Esteves Reis el al.,
`
`and rejects claims 106 and 111 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable
`
`over Jacobs el al. in view of Beumer el a]. further in view of US. Patent Publication No.
`
`2006/0210435 to Alavie el al. These rejections are respectfully traversed.
`
`The applied references fail to disclose, and would not have rendered obvious at least “while
`
`performing an assay and during a chemical reaction involving the sample, capturing an image of
`
`conditions under which a detection mechanism measures a characteristic of the sample,” as recited
`
`in independent claim 83.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 41270100004
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of August 14, 2019
`
`Application No. 14/831,838
`
`- 11 -
`
`GTBBONS er a].
`
`The Office Action relies on Beumer as allegedly disclosing the claimed “capturing”
`
`recitation of independent claim 83. Specifically, the Office Action alleges that Beumer discloses
`
`using a camera to capture an image of a sample liquid in a pipette tip to detect a volume or presence
`
`of liquid in the tip. However, the cited portions of Beumer merely describe using imaging in order
`
`to detect an amount of liquid within a carrier. Nothing in Beumer discloses that this detection is
`
`performed “during a chemical reaction” involving the sample. In fact, Beumer explains that its
`
`volume detection is performed prior to any chemical reaction: “The possibility to detect fluid
`
`flowing into the tip is used to provide evidence for the correctness of the aspirated volume, which is
`
`a strong prerequisite in volume critical applications. . .in which, an incorrect volume of patient
`
`material might lead to erroneous clinical interpretation of the test result.” Beumer, 11 [0006]. Thus,
`
`Beumer does not disclose the above recitation of independent claims 83. The remaining references
`
`appear to be silent with respect to this feature, and therefore fail to at least cure Beumer’s
`
`deficiencies.
`
`For at least similar reasons, the applied references also fail to disclose, and would not have
`
`rendered obvious at least “during a chemical reaction involving the blood sample, capturing an
`
`image of the blood sample in the sample container with the image capture device,” as recited in
`
`independent claim 92, and “an image capture device configured to capture an image of the blood
`
`sample while performing the biological assay on the blood sample, and during a chemical reaction
`
`involving the blood sample,” as recited in independent claim 108.
`
`Therefore, independent claims 83, 92 and 108 are patentable over the applied references.
`
`Claims 84-91, 93-103, 105-107, and 109-112 are patentable at least for their dependencies from the
`
`independent claims, as well as for the additional features they recite.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 4127.0100004
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of August 14, 2019
`
`Application No. 14/831,838
`
`- 12 -
`
`GIBBONS er a].
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections.
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed,
`
`accommodated, or rendered moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Examiner
`
`reconsider all presently outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn. Applicant
`
`believes that a full and complete reply has been made to the outstanding Office Action and, as such,
`
`the present application is in condition for allowance. If the Examiner believes, for any reason, that
`
`personal communication will expedite prosecution of this application, the Examiner is invited to
`
`telephone the undersigned at the number provided.
`
`Prompt and favorable consideration of this Amendment and Reply is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`mam.
`
`Richard D. Coller III
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 60,390
`
`Date:
`
`October 22 2019
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW.
`Washington, DC. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`1379909571
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 4127.0100004
`
`