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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-21 in the reply filed on May 31, 2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 22-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 20, 2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Furthermore, the NPL, Chinese action is not appropriately identified by any information such as an application number.
The information disclosure statement filed June 4, 2021 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The NPL references are not in English.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 21 depends upon a number of different claims, claim 20, the preceding claims, and claim 15. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 21 not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
A claim is only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus.
It is noted that although the claims mention a liquid and dosage liquid supply (in the preamble of claim 1), such liquid and dosage liquid supply are not positively claimed as a structural elements of the liquid-metering device (apparatus). The claims also mention a pipette tip. No pipette tip is positively claimed as an element of the invention. The liquid, dosage liquid supply (not specifically structurally defined in the claim), and pipette tip are a material and/or article intended to be, can be worked upon, used with the liquid-metering device. However, the claims are directed to an apparatus not a process of use with any unspecified liquid, structurally undefined dosage liquid supply, nor any other unclaimed materials and structures that are not positively claimed as elements of the claimed the invention, the liquid-metering device.
It is noted that the claims recite various “configured to…” clauses throughout that do not provide for further structural elements, but are moreso directed to intended use and/or what can possibly occur.
It is noted that the terms “portion”, “area”, “section” and similar terms are broad, vague, and ambiguous and are not structurally defined in the claims.
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 1-21 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claims are replete with awkward, vague, ambiguous, can confusing language. It is noted that the examiner has attempted to identify each of the issues and errors. However, it is requested that applicant correct any errors inadvertently omitted by the examiner.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what the transitional phrase, “comprising” in line 2 modifies. It appears as if the claim, preamble should read as: “… from a liquid dosage supply, the liquid-metering device comprising: …. However, it is unclear how the device is considered as a dispensing device because there are no elements positively claim that could ever provide for any dispensing of any liquid. Therefore, the name of the invention appears to inaccurate.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the elements listed in the claim, pipette-tip mounting device, release tappet, displacement drive, and control device because the elements are not required to be structurally connected to each other. It is unclear how the elements are considered as defining a single device because a list of parts that are not structurally connected are not a single device, but parts that can be used together. Furthermore, it is what structurally required to be considered as each of the respective elements because each of the elements are definitively structurally defined in the claim.
As to claim 1 it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the first paragraph because the paragraph employs vague and ambiguous language and reads as long, run-on clause. It is unclear what is structurally considered as a pipetting-tip mounting device because such is not defined by any specific structures. It is unclear what is structurally considered as “at least one ready-to-use operating position of the liquid-metering device” because such position is not structurally defined. It is unclear if the “a mounting space” is considered as structure and equivalent to the prior position because “a mounting space extending along a virtual mounting axis” is not structure nor defined by any specific structure. Space is not structure. If applicant intends to claim a specific structure including specific components, such as a wall, and other structures that define a specific an interior space, then the claim should clearly provide for such. Furthermore, a virtual, imaginary axis is not structure. One can draw a line anywhere and assert such is an axis. It is noted that the term “mounting” does not provide for any structural element of anything. There is no requirement for any claimed element to be mounted to anything.
Furthermore, it is unclear how the invention being claimed “a liquid-metering device” can be claimed relative to itself, “the liquid-metering device”. Every positively claimed listed in the claim is the liquid-metering device. However, in the first paragraph the only element claimed as such point is a pipette-tip mounting device. If the invention has not defined yet, it is unclear what is considered as “the liquid-metering device”.
As to claims 1-6, 8-9, 13-14, 16, and 17-19, it is unclear what is structurally considered as a “portion”, “area”, “section” because such are not definitively, structurally defined in the claims such for one to determine what are the boundaries of such, where each begins and ends and are structurally distinguished from any other element, portion, area, and section.
It is further unclear what the phrase “that is configured to accommodate…” clause is meant to modify. However, it noted that such phrase does not provide for any specifics, such as dimensions etc. such as to define what is structurally required by the phrase.
As to the second paragraph of claim 1, it is unclear what is structurally required to be considered as “a release tappet” because it is unclear what is structurally required by the phrase “movable relative to the pipetting-tip mounting device, which can be displaced between a standby position further retracted from the mounting space to a release position further projecting into the mounting space”, because the phrase does not provide for any structurally connectivity nor definitive relative location of the tappet to any the mounting device or any other positively claimed element. It is unclear what the “which…” clause is meant to modify. Furthermore, it is unclear what has standby position and a release potion and what structurally defines such positions. Positions are not structural elements. It is also unclear what is being compared in the “further retracted…” and “further projecting…” clause because there is no relative basis provided for as to determine further than what.
As to the third paragraph of claim 1, it is unclear what is structurally required to be considered as “a displacement drive” because it is unclear what is structurally required of such, what structurally defines such. It is unclear if the phrase“ having a motion-transmitting coupling to the release tappet, configured to intermittently displace the release tappet, at least from the standby position to the release position” does not provide for such. It is also unclear if the phrase is intended to require the displacement drive to be connected/coupled to the tappet. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the “configured to intermittently displace the release tappet” because the phrase does not provide for further structural element of the displacement drive. The displacement drive does not appear to be an electrical component that control any timing of any movement. Therefore, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by “the configured to…” clause.
As to the control device, it is note that such device is not defined as being and specific structure. The “for controlling…” clause is more so directed to the intended use of the control device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operation of the displacement drive" in the fourth paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required to occur to be considered as “based on signal transmission” because no signal transmission of any specific signal (of from/between any positively elements is recited as being possible nor required to occur.
As to the last paragraph of claim 1, the phrase “wherein the liquid-metering device comprises” appears to be redundant because it refers to the same entire invention that the claim is defining (See also further dependent claims that recite the same/similar phrases). However, it is unclear structurally required to be considered the first and second deformation formations because such are not definitively structurally defined. Such formations are not required to be structurally connected to any prior positively claimed structurally element. It is unclear what the pronoun “them” is meant reference. Furthermore, no “longitudinal section” of the structurally undefined mounting space is structurally defined in the claim such as to determine what is required to be considered as a longitudinal section. Such section is not structurally defined so as to determine the structurally boundaries of where the section begins and ends. Renaming the section as a deformation area does not provide for any structure of the section nor what is structurally considered/boundaries of such section. There is no structural difference between the longitudinal section and deformation area.
It is noted that the phrase, “can be converged and retracted from each other” (presumed to refer to the first and second formations) is directed to what is possible, but not what is required to occur. The claim is directed to a device not a process of use. No converging and retracting of anything is ever required to be performed.
It is unclear what the pronoun “its” is meant to reference. It is presumed to refer to the release tappet. However, as noted above positions are structurally defined in the claim.
In addition to prior applicable rejections/remarks above, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by claim 2 because the claim does not provide for any additional structural element, nor any further structural element of any prior positively claimed element. The claim is directed to what can be done. It is unclear what is structurally considered as “a further retracted loading position” because such position is not structure and not structurally defined. As previously noted above, no pipette tip is positively claimed as an element of the invention and is not required to ever be mounted nor removed. The claim is redundant in view of claim 1. The capability of allow for a pipette tip to be mounted to the mounting device is established in claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required to be considered as a “more converged deformation position” and what is considered as “a section” in the broad “deformation area” because neither of such are definitively structurally defined in the claims.
Claim 2, instead of providing for any further structural element is directed to what can occur based upon a condition that is never required to ever occur as indicated by the “when” clause in the claims 2 lines. Conditions are not requirements. There is no requirement for any pipette-tip to ever be mounted to, fitted into the structurally undefined mounting space. Furthermore it is unclear if “the deformation position” and “more converged deformation position” are one the same or different. If not the same, there is no antecedent basis for “the deformation position” recited in the last line of the claim. Regardless of such, as noted above, no positions are structural elements and are not clearly, structurally defined in the claims.
As to claim 3, as noted above, it is unclear what is meant by, being reference to by “ “wherein the liquid-metering device is configured to deform, in the deformation area” because such deformation area is not definitively, structurally defined as noted above. Furthermore, no pipette tip is positively claimed. Therefore, it is unclear how referencing an undefined “portion” of a pipette further limits the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitations " the duration of a deformation interval”; and “the displacement interval of…”; and “the motion that…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that no steps/actions are required to be performed. The claim is directed to a device not a process of use. However, there are no intervals defined in the claim and furthermore, duration of time intervals of actions that can occur, intended to occur, etc. are not structural elements. The claims are directed to an apparatus not a process. Furthermore, as note above no positions are structures, nor structurally defined.
As to claim 4, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by claim 4 because claim 1 indicates that the release tappet and first deformation formation are different, distinct structural elements. Therefore, it is unclear how now in claim 4 the tappet can be a portion of and simultaneously the same as the first deformation formation. The claim appears to be contradictory and the claim is also confusing.
As to claim 5, in addition to the prior applicable rejections above, it is unclear what is a wall section because such is not defined, what wall section of what is being reference, and what is structurally meant by delimiting the mounting space that has not been structurally defined.
As to claim 6, in addition to the prior applicable rejections above, it is unclear what is structurally meant by the phrase, “a first device portion, arranged more closely to the release tappet, penetrated or penetrable by the release tappet” because “arranged more closely” does not provide for, require any structural connectivity between any elements and there is no basis of comparison provided for to indicate what is considered “more closely”. Furthermore, it is note that penetrated and penetrable are not same. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by “further removed from…” because there is no basis of comparison provided for in the claim. It is further noted that the “can be moved…” clause is not a structural element, but is directed to what is possible. It is further unclear what is meant by covered to the first device portion (that is has not been structurally defined in the claim).
As to claim 7, it is unclear what is structurally meant by the claim because the phrase “arranged at…” does not provide for any structural connection and the second device portion has not been structurally defined in the claims.
As to claim 8, in addition to applicable rejections/remarks above, it is unclear what is structurally, meant required by the “can be moved…” clause such open and closed positions are not structures nor definitively defined in the claim. There is no indication as to what can be closed and opened. Furthermore, there is basis of comparison provided for to indicate what is meant by “further removed from…” and “more closely converged to…”
As to claim 9, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the claim because it is unclear what is meant by “pre-tensioned” and there is no structural element claimed that is capable of providing for any tensioning of anything. Furthermore, it is presumed that the term “its” refer so the second device portion. However, it is unclear what “positions” are being referenced in the claim by “its positions”.
As to claim 10, the prior rejection of above of claim 9 is also applicable to the release tappet.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the displacement trajectory of the release tappet ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, as noted above a position is not structure. It is also noted that “a mechanical stop” is not defined as being any specific structure and a trajectory is not structure. Therefore, it is unclear what is structurally meant by adjustable along the displacement trajectory. It is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the mechanical stop to the prior positively claimed structural elements of claim 1.
As to claim 12, in addition to the prior applicable rejections above, including that of claim 11, it is unclear what the pronoun “its” references. The “can be” clause is directed to what is possible, not required. No displacement of anything is ever required to occur.
As to claim 13, in addition to the prior applicable rejections above, including that of claims 11-12, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the claim because a motion trajectory and virtual mounting axis are not structure. Also applicable to claim 14.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the details of claim 6". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no indication as to what the phrase is meant to reference. Furthermore, the phrase appears to be unnecessary and redundant.
As to claim 14, it is noted that trajectory is not structure. It is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the claim the trajectories “are parallel in at least portions”. It is unclear what are portions of trajectories.
As to claim 15, it is unclear what the pronoun “it” references. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the pipette-tip to the prior positively claimed elements of claim 1 because such is not recited in the claim. The tip is not required to be structurally connected to any other element. It is unclear what is structurally required of a coupling formation because the “designed for…”clause is directed to intended use relative to an unclaimed pipetting channel of an unclaimed pipette device. Furthermore, as noted above the discrete dosage amount is not a structural element.
In claims 15-19 and 21, it is unclear which/what pipetting tip is being referenced by the phrase “the pipetting tip”, because claim also makes reference to a pipetting tip. Furthermore, in claim 15, it is unclear what structurally meant by “features a reservoir chamber between… such phrase does not provide for any structural connectivity of any elements. Furthermore, although no dosage supply is structurally defined nor positively claimed, it is unclear what the “in which…” clause modifies.
As to claim 16, it is unclear what is being referenced by the pronoun, “its”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is considered a virtual tip axis and the nexus of such the prior recited elements. It is further unclear what is meant by the phrase “in a fitted condition…” because conditions are requirements. If applicant intends for the pipetting tip to be connected to a specific structural element, the claim should clearly recite such.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "on both sides". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Nothing has been claimed as comprising any sides. Furthermore, it is unclear if “the tip axis” and “virtual tip axis” are the same.
As to claim 17, it is unclear how any relative distances, locations can be compared because as noted above the deformation area and no ends are definitively structurally defined in the claims by any distinct structures/boundaries so as to determine where such begins and ends and make any relative location comparisons as provided for in the claim. The phrase arranged more closely does not provide for nor require and structural connectivity.
Claim 17 recites the limitation " the half emanating from the lengthwise metering end " and “the pipetting tip's axial extension area” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, no such “area” has been structurally defined.
As to claim 18, it is unclear what is being referenced by the pronoun, “its”. It is further unclear what is meant by the phrase “in a fitted condition…” because conditions are requirements. If applicant intends for the pipetting tip to be connected to a specific structural element, the claim should clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally meant by “situated m the deformation area” and there appears to be a misspelling. Furthermore, it unclear what is meant, required by having two opposing, interior wall sections across a gap on the inside of the pipetting tip because it is unclear what is meant is considered interior wall sections, and what defines such gap and how such undefined deformation area of claim 1 is now in the pipetting tip that was not previously positively claimed as an element of the invention.
It is unclear what is structurally required by claim 19, because the release position and deformation portion have not been structurally defined in the claims.
As to claim 20, it is unclear where the preamble of the claim ends and body of the claim begins because it is unclear if the term “having” in line 1 is intended to be a transitional phrase. It is further unclear what is meant by the phrase “which and features” and what the phrase is meant to modify. If it is meant for a specific element to further comprise some specific structure, then the claim should clearly recite such.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “its free lengthwise end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally considered “a coupling formation”. The further “for…” clause is directed to intended use.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the temporary, detachable coupling of a pipetting tip thereto". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear what “thereto” references.
As to claim 20, it is unclear what is the structurally connectivity of the pipetting channel and each of the elements listed after the phrase “further comprise” because the elements are not structurally connected to each other so as to define a single device. The various “configured…” clauses are directed to intended use.
As to claim 20, it is unclear what is structurally meant by “through signal transmission” because no signal is required to be transmitted from any element to any other element. The claim is directed to a device not a process of use. It is unclear what the phrase “which is configured to control…” is meant to modify and what is further structurally required by such phrase.
As to the last paragraph of claim 20, it is noted that the claim does not further limit the structure of the device of claim 1, but the device of claim 1 is now being claimed as an element of the invention/device of claim 20.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the channel trajectory virtually extending from the pipetting channel" and “the mounting axis” in the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Channel trajectory and mounting axis are not structures.
Claim 21 is too unclear to determine the scope of the claim because the claim depends upon claim 20, the proceeding claims, and claim 15. It is unclear which/what claims are being referenced by the phrase, “the preceding claims”. The claim as a whole is unclear and confusing.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the details of claim 15". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is noted that what “can be” done is not definitive structural requirement.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the coupling feature of the pipetting channel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “wherein” clause appears to be redundant in view of claim 20.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krank et al., DE 102015009695A1.
Krank discloses, in figures 2-6 and throughout, a device (1) and method having a receiving space for receiving a pipette-tip portion, defined and formed by first and second deformation structures, the actuator (9) and the abutment (clamping jaw 20 [0082]). It is noted that, also according to claim 4 of the present application, the actuator, i.e. triggering plunger, is one of the claimed deformation structures. Actuator and abutment are movable relative to each other ([0033]), and the actuator, i.e. triggering plunger, is moved by means of a control device and a drive ([0033], [0046]), in order to eject droplets ballistically ([0011], figure 5). Krank also discloses a pipette tip (2) with a coupling portion (7) which is used with the device ([0053], [0054]). The droplet volumes are in the nanoliter range ([0011], [0032]-[0033]).
55. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Irvi et al., US 2017/0203322 A1.
Irvi discloses, in figures 1-5, a device (100) with a receiving space for receiving a pipette-tip portion, formed by first and second deformation structures (124, 142, 146). Actuator (146) and abutment are movable relative to each other ([0134]-[0135]), and the actuator, i.e. triggering plunger, is moved by means of a control device ([0136]) and a drive ([0134]), in order to eject droplets ballistically ([0136]). The reference also discloses a pipette tip (114) with a coupling portion, which is used with the device (figure 2). The droplet volumes over 0.3 nl and metered volumes in the nanoliter range are disclosed, for example, in tables II and III and [0247], claim 1, [0001].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lind; Anders et al.; FANG; Jianqiu et al.; Berberich; Christian et al.; Schraut; Jürgen et al.; Heintzelman; Dale Lee et al.; Heintzelman, JR.; Dale Lee; Tajima; Hideji; MATSUKUMA; Kenji; Tajima; Hideji; Leen; Gabriel et al.; Londo; Thomas R. et al.; Koltay; Peter et al.; Bova; George Steven et al.; Baggerman; Antal F. J. et al.; Bogen; Steven A. et al.; Tajima; Hideji; Kerr; Alexander F. et al.; Tezuka; Sigeru et al. and Paulsen; Charles disclose holding, gripping devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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, Jill Warden can be reached on 571-272-1267. 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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798