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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments and remarks, filed on 4/14/2026, has been entered. The claim amendments overcome the previous prior art rejection and a new prior art rejection is applied to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-25 are pending with claims 1-4 and 6-24 being examined and claim 25 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-2, 4, and 6-24 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. Claim recites the limitation “a removable tray, one of a plurality of interchangeable, removable trays”. The limitation is not supported in the instant specification or the drawings. The Applicant’s provided paragraph citations of the instant specification, but paragraphs 46 and 47 do not teach or suggest multiple/plurality of removable trays. The Examiner notes that “multiple users” does not suggest or require that there is a plurality of removable trays. Further, Figure 1 and 2 only depicts a single tray 183. Claims 2, 4, 6-24 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1. For purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets that if the tray is “removable” then there may be multiple present as the Applicant suggest.
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 1-2, 4, and 6-24 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "standardly-sized microplate" in line 5. The term “standardly-sized” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standardly-sized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is not clear what “standard” the Applicant is referring to. Further, would the standard dimensions be based on the removable tray? Does a different size tray require a different sized microplate? The limitation is unclear as to what defines “standardly sized”. Claims 2, 4, 6-24 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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 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.
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(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20150037803 A1; hereinafter “Park”; already of record on IDS filed 7/28/2021) in view of Goldenberg (US 6353774 B1; hereinafter “Goldenberg”) in view of Tesluk et al (US 20210311082 A1; hereinafter “Tesluk”; priority filed on 9/11/2018; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a liquid handling instrument (Park; Fig. 2, 3; Abstract; an apparatus and a method for automatically analyzing biological samples; examiner notes that the apparatus as taught by Park is capable of handling liquids with the pipettes), comprising:
an instrument housing with an instrument deck (Park; Fig. 1, 3; para [190]; a guide part 130 fixed to the lower surface of the case 100; examiner interprets the instrument deck to comprise the bottom/base and the guide part 130);
a pipetting head above the instrument deck (Park; Fig. 5, 6, 7, 8; para [36]; the moving part 600);
a removable tray wherein the removable tray holds a plurality of standardly-sized microplates (Park; Fig. 1, 2, 9; para [25]; a base plate 700 including the multi-well plate kit 210 and the electrophoresis body 31…the base plate 700 to the outside of the case 100 and mounting the electrophoresis body 310, the pipette rack 510, the multi-well plate kit 210, the biological sample tube rack 280, the waste liquid vessel 740, the marker tube rack 910, and the marker tube 920 of the base plate 700), the instrument deck holding the removable tray (Park; Fig. 1, 2; para [25]; a base plate 700 including the multi-well plate kit 210 and the electrophoresis body 310 that are detachably provided therein and guided by a guide part 130 fixed to a lower surface of the case 100 to be movable through the opening part 110 in the length direction of the case 100).
Park does not teach the removable tray being one of a plurality of interchangeable, removable trays.
However, Goldenberg teaches an analogous art of a pipetting system (Goldenberg; Fig. 1) comprising an instrument deck (col 3, lines 19-20; A main plate 32 is the structural base for the gantry robot 12) and a removable tray being one of a plurality of interchangeable, removable trays (Goldenberg; Fig. 12; col 3, lines 39-40; the main plate 32 is dimensioned to receive two trays). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the removable tray of Park to be on of a plurality of interchangeable, removable trays as taught by Goldenberg, because Goldenberg teaches that the plurality of interchangeable, removable trays holds different types of labware and functions (Goldenberg; col 4, lines 15-35).
Modified Park does not teach wherein at least one of the removable tray and the instrument deck has a unique identification number adapted for scanning or reading and wherein the unique identification number is associated with a protocol for operating the instrument simultaneously with respect to the plurality of microplates and the plurality of interchangeable, removable trays; and a controller adapted to execute program instructions to the liquid handling instrument in accordance with the scanned unique identification number and its associated protocol for optimizing running time of the liquid handling instrument in conjunction with the removable tray.
However, Tesluk teaches an analogous art of an automated apparatus with a pipette assembly (Tesluk; Abstract; para [52]) comprising at least one removable tray (Tesluk; para [338]; rack 30) and an instrument deck (Tesluk; Fig. 8A; sample conversion module), wherein at least one of the removable tray and the instrument deck has a unique identification number (Tesluk; para [112]; each rack 30, 40, 50 includes a bar code, RFID, or some other identification tag which can be scanned upon entry into system 10) adapted for scanning or reading and wherein the unique identification number is associated with a protocol for operating the instrument (Tesluk; para [339]; When user inputs a rack 30 containing primary first-type containers 01 into I/O port 120, the barcode scanner at I/O port 120 scans a barcode on rack 30) simultaneously with respect to the plurality of microplates1 (Tesluk; para [340]; system 10 can identify rack 50 at I/O port 120 via a scan of the rack itself and then transport rack 50, once identified as a rack 50, to conversion module 720 or pre-preprocessing module 730 where a container 03 within rack 50 is removed by a decapper robot or a pick-and-place robot and individually scanned to further determine the type of load contained in rack 50); and a controller adapted to execute program instructions to the liquid handling instrument in accordance with the scanned unique identification number and its associated protocol for optimizing running time of the liquid handling instrument in conjunction with the removable tray (Tesluk; para [339]; Processor 804 recognizes sample rack 30…tagging allows processor 804 to determine the process flow for racks 30 and 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the removable tray and the instrument deck as taught by modified Park to comprise the unique identifier as taught by Tesluk, because Tesluk teaches that the barcode is scanned to determine the process flow of the racks (Tesluk; para [339]). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the liquid handling instrument to comprise the processor as taught by Tesluk, because Tesluk teaches that the processor recognizes the barcode and stores the tag to help determine the process flow (Tesluk; para [339]).
1 The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the unique identification number, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Park in view of Tesluk and the unique identification number of modified Park is capable of being “associated with a protocol for operating the instrument simultaneously with respect to the plurality of microplates”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed unique identification number is not differentiated from the unique identification number of modified Park (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 2, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 1, wherein the removable tray includes handles (Park; Fig. 1, 2; para [53]; a base plate 700 including the multi-well plate kit 210 and the electrophoresis body 310 that are detachably provided therein and guided by a guide part 130 fixed to a lower surface of the case 100 to be movable through the opening part 110 in the length direction of the case 100).
Regarding claim 4, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 3, further comprising a tip caddy atop one of the plurality of microplates (Park; Fig. 9; para [36]; a pipette rack 510 capable of storing the pipettes 500).
Regarding claim 6, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 1 (Park is modified to teach the unique identification number as taught by Tesluk discussed above in claim 1), wherein the unique identification number is a 2D barcode or a radio-frequency identification tag (Tesluk; para [112]; each rack 30, 40, 50 includes a bar code, RFID, or some other identification tag which can be scanned upon entry into system 10).
Regarding claim 7, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 1, further comprising a robotics instrumentation (Park; Fig. 4; examiner interprets the robotic instrumentation to be the all of the automated moving parts apparatus 1000) and a controller (Park; para [195]; the control part), the robotics instrumentation adapted to control the movement of the pipetting head with respect to the instrument deck (Park; para [165, 169]; X axis moving motor 622 and an X axis moving belt 623 connected to the X axis moving motor 622 to move the moving part 600 may be formed in the moving part 600… a Z axis motor 642 fixed to the moving part body 610; examiner notes that this is only part of the robotics instrumentation), and the controller adapted to execute program instructions to the liquid handling instrument (Park; para [195]; The control part is a component controlling the purification part 200, the nucleic acid amplification part 400, the electrophoresis part 300, and the moving part 600, and controls all of the components that need to be controlled).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 1, further comprising one or multiple positive displacement pipette tips, the pipetting head being a multi-channel pipetting head integrated with a multi-position stage for manipulating the one or more positive displacement pipette tips (Park; para [36 the moving part 600 may include a pipette block 630 capable of mounting and detaching the pipettes 500). Examiner interprets the pipette 500 to be the “positive displacement” pipette tips because the pipettes taught by Park are replaceable/detachable.
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 8, wherein the pipetting head comprises:
multiple plates arranged in a stack with respect to four threaded rods (Park; Fig. 5; Image 1; examiner interprets the multiples plates to be any of the planar elements that make up the moving part 600 as these “plates” are not further limited structurally);
one or more motors that drive one or more respective timing belts, the one or more motors supported by the multiple plates (Park; Fig. 5; para [165, 169, 177]; X axis moving belt 623 connected to the X axis moving motor 622…Z axis moving belt 643 transferring rotation motion of the Z axis motor 642…a piston moving screw 635 rotated by a piston belt 633); and
a top heat mounting plate (Park; Fig. 5; Image 1; examiner interprets the top heat mounting plate to be the top most planar element that make up the moving part 600 because “the top heat mounting plate” is not further limited structurally).
PNG
media_image1.png
837
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1. Examiner’s interpretation of the multiple plates and four threaded rods.
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 9, wherein the multiple plates are substantially rectangular, the four threaded rods being arranged in substantially rectangular configuration correlating to the four corners of the multiple plates (Park; Fig. 5, 6, 7; Image 1; examiner notes as seen in Fig. 5 and Image 1 that the “plates” are mostly rectangle in shape and the four threaded rods are arranged in a rectangular configuration as seen in Fig. 5 the opening adjacent to arrow 644 is for the threaded rods above).
Claims 11-15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view Goldenberg in view of Tesluk, and in further view of Hamel et al (US 20020176803 A1; hereinafter “Hamel”; already of record on IDS filed 7/28/2021).
Regarding claim 11, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 9, with the multiple plates.
Modified Park does not teach wherein the multiple plates are eight plates arranged in order from bottom to top along the four threaded rods.
However, Hamel teaches an analogous art of a multichannel pipetting system (Hamel; Abstract) comprising multiple plates, wherein the multiple plates are eight plates arranged in order from bottom to top along four threaded rods (Hamel; Fig. 17). Examiner interprets the multiples plates to be any of the planar elements that make up the pipetting head assembly because the “plates” are not further limited structurally and Hamel teaches at least 8 planar elements as seen in Fig. 17. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum number of plates to a range of eight plates which would allow pipette head assembly to withdraw or expel liquids as taught by Hamel (Hamel; para [61]) (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)). Hamel teaches that multiple plate lifters are raised/lowered expel/withdraw fluids.
Regarding claim 12, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 11, wherein the bottom plate of the multiple plates is held fixed at the bottom end of the four threaded rods the top plate is held fixed at the top of the four threaded rods (Park; Fig. 6, 7; examiner interprets the top most plate/structure as the top plate and the bottom most plate/structure, the pipette extrusion plate 638-1, as the bottom plate, and notes the bottom plate and top plate are fixed at the respective locations. The claim does not require the plates to be attached to the four threaded rods, but only that it is fixed above or below the four threaded roads), the remaining plates being arranged in pairs between the top and bottom plates and are moveable along the four threaded rods (Park; Fig. 6, 7; the remaining structures/plates can be arranged into pairs as these structures are movable along the threaded rods).
Regarding claim 13, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 12, wherein the bottom plate is a pipette tip collet holder plate where the one or more positive displacement pipette tips are mounted (Park; para [39]; a pipette extrusion plate 638-1 having a hollow region corresponding to the pipette fixing protrusion part 644-1 and positioned so as to contact between a lower surface of the pipette block fixing plate 644 and an upper surface of the pipette 500 when the pipette 500 is mounted). Examiner interprets the pipette extrusion plate 638-1 as the pipette tip collet holder plate.
Regarding claim 14, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 12, further comprising one or more pipette tip clamping mechanisms (Park; para [37]; the pipette 500 may be mounted on the pipette fixing protrusion part 644-1 through a pipette mounting part).
Regarding claim 15, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 14, wherein the one or more motors is a clamping tip motor, wherein the one or more timing belts is a clamping tip timing belt, and wherein the clamping tip motor and the clamping tip timing belt are adapted to move one or more of the multiple plates away from or toward the bottom plate (Park; para [169, 170]; a Z axis motor 642 fixed to the moving part body 610, and a Z axis moving belt 643 transferring rotation motion of the Z axis motor 642 to the Z axis screw 641 in order to rotate the Z axis screw 641…the Z axis motor 642 is operated, the pipette block fixing plate 644 is moved along the Z axis guide bar 646 by rotation of the Z axis screw 641 fixed to the moving part body 610).
Regarding claim 18, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 12, further comprising a set of zero-insertion force pipette plunger clamping mechanisms (Park; para [37]; the pipette 500 may be mounted on the pipette fixing protrusion part 644-1 through a pipette mounting part), one of one or more motors used for controlling the set of zero-insertion force pipette plunger mechanisms (Park; para [167, 170]; the pipette 500 is fixed to a pipette fixing protrusion part 644-1 by an operation of the pipette block fixing plate 644…the Z axis motor 642 is operated, the pipette block fixing plate 644 is moved along the Z axis guide bar 646). Examiner notes that the protrusion part 644-1 interpreted as the zero-insertion force pipette plunger clamping mechanisms is connected to the pipette block fixing plate 644 that moves with the z-axis motor.
Regarding claim 19, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 18, wherein the one of the one or more motors is a clamping plunger motor, wherein one of the one or more timing belts is a clamping plunger timing belt, the clamping plunger motor and the clamping plunger timing belt being adapted to move one or more of the multiple plates away from or toward the bottom plate (Park; para [169, 170]; pipette block fixing plate 644 to be movable in the height direction, the case in which a Z axis screw 641, a Z axis screw nut 645, a Z axis guide bar 646, a Z axis guide bar slide 647, a Z axis motor 642 fixed to the moving part body 610, and a Z axis moving belt 643 transferring rotation motion of the Z axis motor 642 to the Z axis screw 641…the Z axis motor 642 is operated, the pipette block fixing plate 644 is moved along the Z axis guide bar 646).
Regarding claim 20, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 12, further comprising a pipette plunger (Park; para [38]; a pipette adjusting part including pistons 631), wherein on of the one or more motors is used for controlling the pipette plunger (Park; para [177]; a piston motor 632 vertically moving the piston 631).
Regarding claim 21, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 20, wherein one of one or more motors is a metering plunger motor (Park; para [177]; a piston motor 632 vertically moving the piston 631), wherein one of the one or more timing belts is a metering plunger timing belt (Park; para [177]; a piston belt 633), the metering plunger motor and the metering plunger timing belt being adapted to move one or more of the multiple plates away from or toward the bottom plate (Park; para [177]; a piston motor 632 vertically moving the piston 631, a piston moving screw 635 rotated by a piston belt 633, a piston moving screw nut 636 fixed to the piston fixing plate 634 to vertically move the piston fixing plate 634 by rotation of the piston moving screw 635, and the piston fixing plate 634 fixing the piston 631 and piston moving screw nut 636 on the piston 631).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Goldenberg in view of Tesluk, and in further view of Wasson et al (US 20160370396 A1; hereinafter “Wasson”; already of record).
Regarding claim 16, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 9, wherein the one or more positive displacement pipette tips comprises: a pipette tip having an interface portion and a pipette tip body (Park; Fig. 8; examiner notes that the tip is the bottom of the pipette and the pipette tip body is the top portion which is attached moving part 600), the interface portion having an inner wall and a receptacle, the pipette tip body having a fluid channel along the length of the pipette tip body, and the fluid channel having an opening at the distal end of the fluid channel (Park; para [174]; pipette block fixing plate 644, to thereby adjust suction and discharge operations of the pipette 500). The examiner notes that the pipette comprises the inner wall and receptacle as these structures allow for samples to be discharge or withdrawn.
Modified Park does not teach a pipette plunger positioned along the inside of the pipette tip, the pipette plunger having a plunger upper portion, a plunger centering portion, and a plunger tip having a distal tip portion, wherein the receptacle is adapted to receive the plunger centering portion, wherein the fluid channel is adapted to receive the distal tip portion of the plunger tip, wherein the one or more pipette tip clamping mechanisms are zero-insertion force pipette clamping mechanisms.
However, Wasson teaches an analogous art of system for sample processing (Wasson; Abstract) comprising one or more positive displacement pipette tips (Wasson; Fig. 12; para [703]; positive displacement pipette) further comprising a pipette plunger positioned along the inside of the pipette tip (Wasson; para [706]; the tip of the positive displacement pipette may include a plunger; examiner interprets the pipette plunger to be part of the device attached to the pipette), the pipette plunger having a plunger upper portion, a plunger centering portion, and a plunger tip having a distal tip portion (Wasson; 14; examiner notes that the top is interpreted as the plunger upper portion, a plunger centering portion to be the middle, and the plunger tip to be the portion that attaches to the tubing/pipette), wherein the receptacle is adapted to receive the plunger centering portion (Wasson; para [772]; Tubing 4910 may be provided through the pipette head, and terminating at the pipette nozzle), wherein the fluid channel is adapted to receive the distal tip portion of the plunger tip (Wasson; para [773]; The plunger may provide metering within a pipette cavity), wherein the one or more pipette tip clamping mechanisms are zero-insertion force pipette clamping mechanisms (Wasson; para [271]; pipette tips are attached to and removed from pipettes which are part of the fluid handling system). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the one or more displacement tips of modified Park to comprise the pipette plunger as taught by Wasson, because Wasson teaches that the pipette plunger displaces fluid (Wasson; para [706]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 16 (the one or more displacement tips of modified Park is modified to comprise the pipette plunger as taught by Wasson), wherein the one or more pipette plunger clamping mechanisms are provided in a central portion of the pipetting head, wherein each of the one or more pipette plunger mechanisms couples to a plunger of each of a respective positive displacement pipette tips (Wasson; Fig. 14; para [711]; A significant amount of motion rotating the screw may translate to a small amount of motion for the hammer pin sliding up and down, and thus, the plunger within the pipette tip).
Claims 22-24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Goldenber in view of Tesluk in view of Hamel, and in further view of Wasson et al (US 20160370396 A1; hereinafter “Wasson”; already of record).
Regarding claim 22, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 12.
Modified Park does not teach the liquid handling instrument further comprising one or more pipette plunger clamping mechanisms that are zero-insertion force pipette plunger clamping mechanisms.
However, Wasson teaches an analogous art of system for sample processing (Wasson; Abstract) comprising one or more pipette plunger clamping mechanisms that are zero-insertion force pipette plunger clamping mechanisms (Wasson; Fig. 14; para [711]; The use of a screw helix may provide a high degree of control of the amount of fluid dispensed and/or aspirated. A significant amount of motion rotating the screw may translate to a small amount of motion for the hammer pin sliding up and down, and thus, the plunger within the pipette tip). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the liquid handling instrument of modified Park to comprise the pipette plunger clamping mechanisms as taught by Wasson, because Wasson teaches that the pipette plunger displaces fluid (Wasson; para [706]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 22 (the liquid handling instrument of modified Park is modified to comprise the pipette plunger clamping mechanisms), wherein each of the one or more zero-insertion force pipette plunger clamping mechanisms include a plunger collet (Wasson; para [719]; the collet assembly 1420) and a pipette plunger lock mechanism (Wasson; para [719]; A positive displacement tip plunger 1450), the plunger collet including a shaft portion and a collet chuck portion for fitting around the plunger upper portion of the pipette plunger (Wasson; Fig. 14; para [719]; A positive displacement tip plunger 1450 may be connected to the collet assembly 1420. The plunger may be located beneath the collet assembly. The plunger may be located between the collet assembly and the tip).
Regarding claim 24, modified Park teaches the liquid handling instrument of claim 23 (the liquid handling instrument of modified Park is modified to comprise the pipette plunger clamping mechanisms), wherein the collet chuck portion is a segmented band or sleeve for fitting round the plunger upper portion of the pipette plunger (Wasson; Fig. 12, 13; para [719; A positive displacement tip plunger 1450 may be connected to the collet assembly 1420). Examiner notes the collet mechanism is shown as an exploded image in Fig. 12 and a “portion” of the collet is connected to the plunger as seen in Fig. 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed, 4/14/2026, have been considered and the arguments are found to be persuasive. However, those arguments are directed towards the claim amendments. The examiner notes that the previous prior art rejection is withdrawn and a new prior art rejection is applied to address the claim amendments.
In the Applicant’s arguments on pp 8-9, the Applicant argues that the applicant argues regarding dependent claims merely refer back to the teachings of the references not meeting independent claim 1. However, the arguments regarding claim 1 are addressed above.
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 Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/A.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights