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Claims 22-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 9, 2025 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 #1 document is not appropriately identified by any information such as an application number.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that applicant states: “Claims 1-21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 for indefiniteness. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8- 21 have been amended. The rejections are moot and should be withdrawn.” However, it is noted that the amended version of the claims do not appear to be consistent with the prior version of the claims (6/4/21) because it appears that terms have been deleted and/or added, but such deletions and additions are not properly indicated in all of the amended claims. Furthermore, applicant fails to specify where each of the amendments are supported/described within the originally filed specification. Therefore, it is hereby requested that applicant provide for the specific text of the originally filed specification that supports each and all amendments and new claims.
Furthermore, it is noted that applicant fails to mention how each of the amendments remedy the 112 rejections. The amendments are insufficient to overcome the rejections and some the rejections are not addressed at all. The prior rejections not addressed and/or insufficiently addressed are maintained. The claims are rejected as given herein.
It is noted that the claims, such as claim 1 has been amended such that the claim no longer claims a release tappet. The claim is amended such that a triggering plunger is now claimed instead of the release tappet as if the triggering plunger and the release tappet are one in the same. However, this is not consistent with the specification. The only description of the triggering plunger is in the abstract (the triggering plunger and release tappet are disclosed as being the same structures), which does not provide support for the amendments of claim 1. For example, amended claim 1 recites “a triggering plunger movable relative to the pipetting-tip mounting device, wherein the trigger plunger is displaceable between a standby position further retracted from the mounting space and a release position further projecting into the mounting space, a displacement drive having a motion-transmitting coupled to the triggering plunger,…”, but this is not described in the specification nor drawings. This is new matter. This is also applicable to further amendments directed to the triggering plunger (Claims 4, 6, 10-12, 19, etc.). For example, in the last paragraph of claim 1, the examiner fails to locate any description of the “control device is configured to only actuate the triggering plunger to….” There is no description of a plastic deformation component (nor plastic deformation components, more than one as indicated by phrase “a plastic deformation component” being recited more than once) nor being capable of being used as recited in claim 1. There is no description of the control device being capable of actuating the triggering plunger at all nor as being restricted “to only actuate” the triggering plunger (precluding the control device from being capable of actuating anything else nor do anything else). The last paragraph of claim 1 is also directed to new matter.
If applicant disagrees, it is hereby requested that applicant provide for the specific text of the originally filed specification that supports each and all amendments.
As to the 102 rejections under Krank et al., DE 102015009695A and Irvi et al., US 2017/0203322 A1. It is noted that applicant only addresses Krank et al. and states:
“Krank does not disclose to deform the pipette tip plastically, i.e., with a constantly remaining deformation. Consequently, Krank does not disclose any features of amended claim 1 that relate to the plastic deformation of a section of the pipette tip. Thus, the pipette tip disclosed by Krank does not exhibit a plastically deformed section or portion.
Krank in [0022], first sentence, discloses that "typical materials for an elastically deformable emitting end of the pipette tip are polyimide, polyamide, and silicone." In the last sentence of [0022] Krank further discloses: “the cross section of the elastically deformable emitting end can have an arbitrary shape, will however usually be round."”
Such arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 1 because claim 1 does not require the pipetting tip to be made from any plastic (nor any other specific material). Furthermore, no plastic deformation component is positively claimed as a structural element of the device. Furthermore, the claim is directed to a device not a process. There is no requirement for any deforming of the pipette tip to ever be performed.
The claimed invention must provide for a structural difference between the claimed invention (defined by the positively claimed structural elements listed in the claim) and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant has not addressed the 102 rejection based upon Irvi et al., US 2017/0203322 A1. Therefore, the rejection is hereby maintained.
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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: There is no description of the features as provided for in the amended claims. See Response to Arguments above directed to new matter.
Drawings
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 triggering plunger and structural connections of such, and motion-transmitting coupling as provided for in the claims must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is noted that the “triggering plunger” and “motion-transmitting couple” are not represented in the specification nor drawings by any reference numerals nor labeling. There is no indication as to what shown in the figures is such structures.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “30” has been used to designate both “displacement drive” and “wire”. The wire is also referenced as “30” and “32” (see specification pages 21-22). 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. 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.
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, dosage liquid supply (in the preamble of claim 1) and a plastic deformation component, such liquid, dosage liquid supply, and plastic deformation component are not positively claimed as a structural elements of the liquid-metering device (apparatus). The liquid, dosage liquid supply, plastic deformation component (not specifically structurally defined in the claim) pipetting channel of an unclaimed pipette device 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, plastic deformation component, pipetting channel, and pipette device 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. Reciting “configured to…” prior to possible uses does not provide for any further structural elements of the invention.
It is noted that the respective “positions” recited in the claims are not defined by any specific structure, definitive relative structural locations so as to distinguish such positions from any other position.
As to the phrase “based on signal transmission”, it is noted that no transmitting of any unspecified signal between any positively structural elements (nor any other structures) is required to be performed and there is no indication that any of the positively claimed structures is capable of transmitting any signal.
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.
It is noted that the “when” clause recited in the last paragraph of claim 1 is directed to a conditional process step that is never required to be performed. Conditions are not requirements.
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, 3-21, and 30 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 is the structural nexus (location, connectivity) of the pipetting tip to the further listed elements in the claim because the claim does not provide for such. The claim does not require the pipetting tip to be mounted to the pipette mounting device nor any other positively claimed element. Therefore, it is unclear what the structural nexus/connection of the pipetting tip to the other positively claimed elements of the invention. . Furthermore, it is unclear how the claim provides for a liquid-metering device because there is no structure(s) positively claimed that can provide for any motive force to any liquid to allow any liquid to metered (aspirated into, dispensed from, nor moved within anything). For example, such as a piston 76 within a channel 58 (as disclosed in the specification).
As to claim 1 it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the second paragraph because the paragraph employs vague and ambiguous language and reads as long, run-on clause and appears to be grammatically incorrect. 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-meter 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 (claimed as being an element of (within) the pipetting-tip mounting device). 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. Furthermore, it is noted that the pipetting tip mounting device is not required to be structurally connected to any other positively claimed element so as to define a single device. The unconnected parts/elements are not a single device.
It is noted that the term “mounting” does not provide for any structural element of anything. There is no requirement for any claimed element (pipetting tip nor pipetting-tip mounting device) 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 second paragraph of claim 1, the only element claimed as such point is a pipetting tip and pipette-tip mounting device (not required to be structurally connected to each other). If the invention has not defined yet, it is unclear what is considered as “the liquid-metering device”.
As to claims 1, 3-6, 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 how such are structurally distinguished from any other element, portion, area, and section.
As to claim 1, it is further unclear what the phrase “that is configured to accommodate…” clause is meant to modify (the pipetting-tip mounting device, a mounting space, or mounting axis, etc.) because the claim does not clearly provide for such. 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. It is noted that the pipetting-tip mounting device is not required to comprise a mounting space nor a virtual mounting axis (which can be any intangible line one chooses).
As to the second paragraph of claim 1, it is unclear what is structurally required by the phrase “movable relative to the pipetting-tip mounting device, wherein the triggering plunger is displaceable between a standby position further retracted from the mounting space and 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 plunger to the mounting device nor any other positively claimed element. The triggering plunger is not required to be mounted to/in the pipetting-tip mounting device nor mounting space (not defined by any structure). Furthermore, it is unclear what has a standby position and a release position 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 retracted than what and further projecting than what because the claim does not provide for such. It is noted that no releasing, retracting, projecting, nor triggering of anything is required to be performed. (See also further dependent claims reciting such phrases or similar comparative phrases).
As to the fourth 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. The phrase“ for intermittently displacing the triggering plunger, at least from the standby position to the triggering releasing position” does not provide for any structural definition nor any further structural element of the displacement drive, but is directed to intended use. The displacement drive does not appear to be an electrical component that controls any timing of any movement.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the triggering position" in in the last line of the fourth paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to the control device, it is noted that such device is not defined as being and specific structure. The “for controlling…” clause is directed to the intended use of the control device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operation of the displacement drive" in the fifth 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 next-to-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. Every positively claimed element listed after “comprising” in line 3 is an element of the device (see also further dependent claims that recite the same/similar phrases). However, it is unclear what 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, “convergeable and retractable from each other” 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 nor is any deforming of anything ever required to be performed. Furthermore, it is noted that the first and second deformations are not required to be structurally connected to any other positively claimed elements. However, it is noted that such formations cannot “float” in air relative to any of the positively claimed structural elements.
It is unclear what the pronoun “its” is meant to reference. It is presumed to refer to the triggering plunger. However, as noted above, positions are structurally defined in the claim nor does the specification describe a triggering plunger as provided for and recited in claim 1 and further dependent claims.
As to the last paragraph of claim 1, it is noted that the paragraph fails to provide for any structural connectivity of the first and second deformations to each other and to any prior positively claimed elements. Such are not capable of floating in air relative to the pipetting tip nor any other structure. As well as, there is no structure claimed that support/holds the formations in any relative positions nor that is capable of moving the deformation formations.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is considered as, structurally defines, and meant by “a further retracted loading position and a more converged deformation position” because there is no prior requirement for anything to be retracted nor converged. The there is no relative basis of comparison provided for in the claim that indicates what is required to be retracted “further” than what and what is considered as required to be “more” converged than what. The paragraph is replete with language directed intended/possible use and process steps. However, there is no requirement for any retracting, converging, loading, fitting, mounting, removing, deforming, etc. of anything required to be performed. The claim is directed to an apparatus not a process.
It is unclear if applicant intends for “a plastic deformation component” to be an element of the claimed invention. As presently drafted, such plastic deformation component is not positively claimed, listed as a structural element of the liquid-metering device. See Claim Interpretations. However, even if applicant intends for such plastic deformation component be an element of the invention it is unclear what is the structural nexus/connectivity of such component to the positively claimed elements because the claim does not provide for such.
Furthermore, although not positively claimed as an element of the device, it is unclear what is the structural nexus of “a plastic deformation component” recited in the last line of claim 1 to the prior recited “a plastic deformation component” in the same paragraph. It is unclear if such are the same or different. As presently drafted, such are not required to be the same nor elements of the claimed device.
Claims 3-21 and 30 are rejected via dependency upon rejected claim 1.
As to claim 3, as noted above, it is unclear what is meant by, being referenced by “ “wherein the liquid-metering device is configured to deform, in the deformation area” because such deformation area and section of the pipette tip are not definitively, structurally defined as noted above. Furthermore, the pipette tip is not required to be fitted within nor located within anything (any other positively claimed structural element). 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 displaces…". 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 noted above positions are not structures, nor structurally defined in the claims.
As to claim 4, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by claim 4 because claim 1 indicates that the triggering plunger and first deformation formation are different, distinct structural elements. Therefore, it is unclear how now in claim 4 the triggering plunger 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 triggering plunger, penetrated or penetrable by the triggering plunger” 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 noted 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 as to indicate further removed from than what. 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. It appears as if the term “is” is missing prior to arranged.
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…” (than what) and “more closely converged to…” (than what).
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 appears as if “a” or “the” is missing after “in”.
As to claim 10, the prior rejection of above of claim 9 is also applicable to triggering plunger. There is no indication as what is structurally required to be considered as the triggering plunger “pre-loaded” in standby or triggering position (pre-loaded meaning what…placed in some specific location, prior to what). Furthermore, it appears as if “a” or “the” is missing after “in”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the displacement trajectory of the r triggering plunger". 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” is not defined as being any specific structure nor positively claimed as an element of the device nor positively claimed element, and a trajectory is not structure. Therefore, it is unclear what is structurally meant by “adjustable along the displacement the triggering plunger”. It is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the mechanical to the prior positively claimed structural elements of claim 1. Furthermore, the claim is grammatically incorrect, unclear, and is not consistent with the prior version of the claim because terms have been deleted, but not properly indicated as such.
As to claim 12, in addition to the prior applicable rejections above, it is noted that the “can be” clause is directed to what is possible, not required. No displacement of anything is ever required to occur. Trajectory is not structure and no trajectory of anything is required to occur (exist). The claim does not provide for any additional structural element nor further structure of any prior positively claimed structural element. See also further claims 13-14, etc. reciting the same or similar language. Therefore, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the claim.
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.
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 parallel”. The claim does not provide for any additional structural element nor further structure of any prior positively claimed structural element.
As to claim 15, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the pipetting-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 “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 of the device.
As to claim 15, 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 structural nexus of such to the prior recited elements because the claim does not recite such. It is further unclear what is meant by the phrase “in a fitted condition…” because conditions are not requirements. If applicant intends for the pipetting tip to be connected/fitted to a specific structural element, the claim should clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is unclear if “the tip axis” and “virtual tip axis” are the same or different because the claim does not clearly indicate such. If the same, consistent terminology should be employed to clearly indicate such.
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 each of such begins and ends to 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.
Furthermore, the entire phrase “wherein the deformation area is arranged completely in the half emanating from the lengthwise metering end of an axial extension area of the pipetting tip” is unclear and confusing because there is no indication as to what is structurally required, meant by the phrase. Including what is meant, required by “half emanating from….” Furthermore, it is unclear what is, structurally required to define “an axial extension area of the pipetting tip” because, no such “area” has been structurally defined in the claim.
As to claim 18, 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/comprises such gap and how such undefined deformation area is now in the pipetting tip that has not been established as comprising any inside. There is no prior basis for “the inside of the pipetting tip” and it is unclear what is intended to be located inside the pipetting tip because the claim does not clearly recite such.
It is unclear what is structurally required by claim 19, because the pipette triggering position and deformation portion have not been structurally defined in the claims. It is also unclear if the claim is now requiring the triggering plunger to actually be located in/at the triggering position or the claim is referring to what occurs if/when the triggering plunger is located in/at the triggering position.
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 further elements listed in the claim 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 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. Therefore, this appears to be an improper dependent claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the operation of the pressure adjustment device” in the fourth paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is noted channel trajectory and mounting axis are not structures. However, it is unclear what mounting axis of what is being referenced in the phrase “a mounting axis” (not defined in the claim) any intangible line can be considered as a mounting axis (as such an axis of anything can be considered as parallel or collinear to any intangible line one desires). Therefore, it is unclear what is structurally required by the last paragraph of the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the coupling formation of the pipetting channel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The pipetting channel has not been previously claimed as comprising a coupling formation (not defined as being/comprising any specific structure).
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the release deformation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No release deformation has been previously claimed nor defined in the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required by the phrase “exclusively elastic” because the claim does not provide for such.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-21, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The examiner fails to locate any description of the invention as provided for in the amended claims as noted above. See Response to Arguments and prior rejections above directed to new matter.
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.
55. Claim(s) 1, 3-21, and 30 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, 138, 142, 146; device portions, actuation drives; see also subassemblies 112 including drive structures that are moveable between positions). 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; including coupling and metering ends and a reservoir chamber between the ends; and a deformation area, portion, section; Figures 1B-7, 11B-12+) 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].
The deformation formations 138 can be plastic (“a plastic deformation component” that can be used to deform a portion of the pipette tip 114. (paragraphs [0153]).
As to claim 20, the device can comprise a positive displacement pump, vacuum and other means to adjust pressure in the pipetting channel and pressure sensing means. (paragraphs [0136, 138, 146).
As to claim 21, the pipette tip is couple to a pipette channel. (see for example Figure 1A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, 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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights