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
Applicant amendments filed 08/12/2025 have been entered. Applicant amendments overcomes the previous claim objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 06/03/2025, the previous claim objection is withdrawn. Applicant amendments do not overcome each and every 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 06/03/2025, please see 112 section below.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A receiving system in claim 1.
[0033] describes where the receiving system 351 may be a chip driver 351a. [0037] describes where the chip driver 351a includes a loading device 3511, a driving device 3513, and sensing device 3515.
A transfer system in claim 1.
[0033] describes where the transfer system can be a mechanical manipulator. [0036] describes the mechanical manipulator to have double clamping claws. [0041] describes where the clamping claws are arranged at the end of the mechanical arm.
The transfer system in claim 2
The transfer system in claim 3
The loading device in claim 4
The driving device in claim 5
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the transfers system” on line 3, where it is understood that this should be a singular transfer system.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 9 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 6 recites “wherein the sensing device comprises a position sensor… and another position sensor” on lines 1-3, where it is unclear if the position sensor and another position sensor are in addition to the sensing device of claim 4 because claim 4 recites “the sensing device comprises a confirmation sensor” and now claim 6 is saying “the sensing device comprises a position sensor… and another position sensor”.
For examination, it will be interpreted that the position sensor and another position sensor of claim 6 are in addition to the confirmation sensor of claim 4, as [0037] describes the sensing device 3515 includes a position sensor 3515a, [0038] describes that position sensor 3515a includes a position sensor and another position sensor, and [0039] states that sensing device 3515 also includes a confirmation sensor 3515c.
Line 2 recites “the first site” and “the second site” on lines 3-4 where there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations, as neither a first site nor a second site has been recited prior and therefore it is unclear what sites are being referred to.
It is noted that claim 5 describes a first site and a second site.
Claim 9 recites “there are a plurality of biochemical reaction platforms” on lines 1-2, where it is still unclear if these biochemical reaction platforms are the same or different from the biochemical reaction platform described in claim 1 on lines 4-5.
Line 3 recites “a plurality of sample containers” where it is unclear if the plurality of sample containers are the same or different from the sample carrier described on line 3 of 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamiya (US-2013/0034466-A1) in view of Kurosaki (US-5658532-A) and Ingber (US-2011/0093207-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wakamiya teaches a scheduling system (measuring section 2) ([0032], Figure 2), comprising:
a receiving system (cuvette supplying section 270 and cuvette table 210) ([0032], Figure 2); and
a transfer system (catchers 261a, 221, 266), wherein the receiving system (270 and 210) is configured to receive a sample carrier, the transfer system (261a, 221, 266) is configured to transfer the sample carrier between a biochemical reaction platform (primary bound free (BF) separation section 220) and a detection platform (detecting section 250), so that a sample in the sample carrier performs a biochemical reaction on the biochemical reaction platform (220), and a signal from the reacted sample is detected on the detection platform (250) ([0032], [0033] see supplying section houses a plurality of cuvettes and sequentially supplies cuvettes to cuvette setting portion P1 on cuvette table 210, [0039], [0042], [0057], Figure 2. The catchers make up a transfer system);
the transfer system (261a, 221, 266) is further configured to transfer the sample carrier between a transfer platform (reaction table 200) and the biochemical reaction platform (220), the transfer system (261a, 221, 266) temporarily stores the sample carrier on the transfer platform (200) before transferring the sample carrier to the biochemical reaction platform (220) when the biochemical reaction platform (220) is occupied, and transfers the sample carrier to the biochemical reaction platform (220) when the biochemical reaction platform (220) is unoccupied ([0042] see where catcher 221 moves the cuvette from the reaction table 200 and moves the cuvette to standby section 223 of primary BF separation section 220 and [0045] where once primary BF separation process is complete the catcher 221 returns the cuvette to position C22 on the reaction table 200, and then [0057] where catcher 266 removes the cuvette from reaction table 200 and moves it to the detecting section 250);
“a receiving system” is being interpreted under 112f as described above, where from [0033] and [0037] of the instant spec, the receiving system may be a chip driver and the chip driver includes a loading device, a driving device, and a sensing device. The cuvette table 210 is a loading device, however while cuvette table 210 is described by [0034] to be a rotatable table, it is unclear how exactly the table is rotated. Further, Wakamiya does not teach a sensing device.
In the same problem solving area of containers for holding a specimen and transporting apparatuses, Kurosaki teaches a cuvette and cuvette-transporting apparatus (Kurosaki; column 1 lines 5-10).
Specifically, Kurosaki teaches a cuvette-transporting apparatus 200 that includes a chute 3 for transferring cuvettes 1 to a positioning unit 4 (Kurosaki; column 4 lines 23-28, Figure 5). The positioning unit 4 is provided with a cylindrical space 5 having rotator 8 rotatably inserted therein, and comprises circular boards 8 and 9 that are provided with arc-like notches 20 and 9 that hold cuvette 1 (Kurosaki; column 4 lines 28-41). The positioning unit 4 also has a motor 10 with a rotating shaft 11 fixed into rotator 8 such that cuvettes 1 slidingly fall while sustained on chute 3 and into notches 20 and 9 by rotation of motor 10 (Kurosaki; column 4 lines 42-50). As seen in Figure 5 of Kurosaki, there is a microswitch 15 for detecting the presence or absence of cuvette 1 and 16 denotes its actuator (Kurosaki; column 5 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the cuvette table of Wakamiya such that it includes the microswitch and actuator, as well as the motor with rotating shaft as taught by Kurosaki because Kurosaki teaches that the microswitch and actuator are effective for detecting the presence or absence of a cuvette (Kurosaki; column 5 lines 1-3), and because Kurosaki teaches that a motor and rotating shaft are effective for rotating a rotator that accepts cuvettes.
“a transfer system” is being interpreted under 112f as described above, where from [0033], [0036], and [0041] of the instant specification it describes where the transfer system can be a mechanical manipulator, and that the mechanical manipulator has double clamping claws that are arranged at the end of a mechanical arm. Wakamiya teaches catchers, however does not provide specific detail as to the components making up the catchers.
In the same problem solving area of transferring samples, Ingber teaches a transfer system (Ingber; abstract).
Specifically, Ingber teaches a transfer system 600 that includes a tower assembly 610 and robot assembly 612 (Ingber; [0193], Figure 28A). It is further described by [0193] of Ingber that the transfer system includes a pair of arms 602 seen in Figure 28B that are configured for simultaneously removing centrifuge tubes 18 from both sides of magazine 26, where the arms include a pair of grippers 604 seen in Figure 28C that can each move two tubes 18 to centrifuge 31 at one time such that four tubes can be moved with one transfer.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the each of the catchers of Wakamiya so that they each have a tower assembly, robot assembly, and pair of arms as taught by Ingber because Ingber teaches that the transfer system simultaneously moves two tubes at a time, which allows for more tubes to be moved with one transfer (Ingber; [0193]).
Further, Wakamiya is silent with regards to specific catcher, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional catchers that transfer cuvettes. Ingber provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a transfer system with a pair of arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a transfer system that has a pair of arms because it is taught by Ingber that a transfer system with a pair of arms is effective for moving two tubes at a time.
The limitations of claim 1 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Wakamiya and the apparatus of modified Wakamiya is capable of receiving a sample carrier, transferring the sample carrier between a biochemical reaction platform and a detection platform, transferring the sample carrier between a transfer platform and biochemical reaction platform, temporarily stores the sample carrier on the transfer platform before transferring the sample carrier to the biochemical reaction platform when the biochemical reaction platform is occupied, transfers the sample carrier to the biochemical reaction platform when the biochemical reaction platform is unoccupied, and be applied in a gene sequencing system. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Wakamiya (see MPEP §2114).
The catchers (transfer system) are capable of transferring the sample carrier to the reaction table 200 (transfer platform) when the primary BF section 220 (biochemical reaction platform) is occupied, and then transferring the sample carrier to the primary BF section 220 (biochemical reaction platform) when it is unoccupied (see Wakamiya; [0037], [0039], [0042], [0045], [0057]).
Further, the sample, the sample carrier, biochemical reaction platform, detection platform, transfer platform and the gene sequencing system have not been positively recited in the claim, and are therefore not a part of the system.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wakamiya teaches the scheduling system of claim 1. The limitations of claim 2 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Wakamiya and the apparatus of modified Wakamiya is capable of transferring the sample carrier between the detection platform and transfer platform, the transfer system temporarily storing the sample carrier on the transfer platform before transferring the sample carrier to the detection platform when the detection platform is occupied, and transfers the sample carrier to the detection platform when the detection platform is unoccupied. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Wakamiya (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the sample carrier, the detection platform, and the transfer platform have not been positively recited by the claim, and are therefore not a part of the system.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wakamiya teaches the scheduling system of claim 1. The catchers of Wakamiya have been modified by Ingber, where these make up the transfer system that is further configured to transfer the sample carrier that completes all detection processes to a recycling bin (discarding port W) (Wakamiya; [0058] see catcher 266 moves the cuvette above discarding port W and the cuvette is discarded from the discarding port W to the discarding bag, Figure 2).
Note that the limitations of claim 3 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Wakamiya and the apparatus of modified Wakamiya is capable of transferring the sample carrier after detection processes to a recycling bin. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Wakamiya (see MPEP §2114).
Note that the sample carrier nor the recycling bin have been positively recited in the claims, and therefore they are not a part of the system.
Regarding claim 4, modified Wakamiya teaches the scheduling system of claim 1. Wakamiya teaches a cuvette table 210 (loading device), where Wakamiya has been modified by Kurosaki such that the cuvette table 210 will include a microswitch and actuator that detect the presence or absence of the cuvette, the microswitch being a confirmation sensor.
The limitations “the loading device is configured to load the sample carrier; the sensing device comprises a confirmation sensor configured to confirm whether the sample carrier is loaded on the loading device.” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Wakamiya and the apparatus of modified Wakamiya is capable of loading the sample carrier and capable of confirming if the sample carrier is loaded on the loading device. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Wakamiya (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the sample carrier has not been positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a part of the system.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wakamiya teaches the scheduling system of claim 4.
Wakamiya has been modified by Kurosaki to include a motor with rotating shaft, where these make up a driving device that drives the cuvette table 210 (loading device) of Wakamiya.
The limitations of claim 5 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Wakamiya and the apparatus of modified Wakamiya is capable of driving the loading device to move between a first site and a second site, the second site available to the transfer system. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Wakamiya (see MPEP §2114).
The cuvette table 210 of Wakamiya will be rotated such that the cuvette will be available to catcher 261a, where catcher 261a is part of the transfer system.
Further, the sample carrier has not been positively recited by the claim, and is therefore not a part of the system.
Regarding claim 7, modified Wakamiya teaches the scheduling system of claim 1. Wakamiya has been modified by Ingber such that each of the catchers are now a tower assembly, robot assembly, with a pair of arms. The tower assembly 610 and robot assembly 612 seen in Figure 28A of Ingber are understood to make up a mechanical arm, and the pair of grippers 604 are clamping claws.
The limitations “the at least one clamping claw is configured to clamp the sample carrier; the mechanical arm is configured to drive the at least one clamping claw to move between different positions.” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Wakamiya and the apparatus of modified Wakamiya is capable of clamping a sample carrier and moving between different positions. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Wakamiya (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the sample carrier has not been positively recited by the claims, and is therefore not a part of the system.
Regarding claim 8, modified Wakamiya teaches the scheduling system of claim 7. Wakamiya has been modified by Ingber such that each of the catchers are now a tower assembly, robot assembly, with a pair of arms. The tower assembly 610 and robot assembly 612 seen in Figure 28A of Ingber are understood to make up a mechanical arm, and the pair of grippers 604 are clamping claws.
The limitations “wherein the at least one clamping claw comprises two clamping claws configured to simultaneously clamp two sample carriers; one of the two clamping claws loads one of the two sample carriers to the biochemical reaction platform; the other of the two clamping claws removes the other of the two sample carriers from the biochemical reaction platform.” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Wakamiya and the apparatus of modified Wakamiya is capable of simultaneously clamping two sample carriers, where one of the claws loads one of the two sample carriers to the biochemical reaction platform and is capable of the other of the two clamping claws removes the other of the two sample carriers from the biochemical reaction platform. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Wakamiya (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the sample carrier nor the biochemical reaction platform have been positively recited by the claims, and is therefore not a part of the system.
Regarding claim 9, modified Wakamiya teaches the scheduling system of claim 1.
Wakamiya further teaches wherein there are a plurality of biochemical reaction platforms; the scheduling system is configured to receive a plurality of sample carriers, and successively transfers the plurality of sample carriers to the plurality of biochemical reaction platforms for performing the biochemical reaction.
As described by [0032] of Wakamiya, there is a primary BF separation station 220 and a secondary BF separation section 230, and a reagent supplying section 240. These three stations make up a plurality of biochemical reaction platforms, where catchers 221, 231, and 242 transfer cuvettes to each of the sections. The catchers have been modified by Ingber to each have a tower assembly, robot assembly, and pair of grippers.
The limitation “the scheduling system is configured to receive a plurality of sample carriers, and successively transfers the plurality of sample carriers to the plurality of biochemical reaction platforms for performing the biochemical reaction.” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Wakamiya and the apparatus of modified Wakamiya is capable of receiving a plurality of sample carriers and transferring the plurality of sample carriers to the plurality of biochemical reaction platforms. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Wakamiya (see MPEP §2114).
Further, the plurality of sample carriers have not been positively recited in the claim, and are therefore not a part of the system.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamiya (US-2013/0034466-A1), Kurosaki (US-5658532-A) and Ingber (US-2011/0093207-A1), and in further view of Saralegui (US-5439645-A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wakamiya teaches the scheduling system of claim 4. Wakamiya describes where the cuvette table 210 is a rotatable table that rotates the received cuvette from cuvette setting position P1 to reagent dispensing position P2 and sample dispensing position P3, where at P3 the catcher 261a removes the cuvette (Wakamiya; [0034], [0037]). Further, the cuvette table of Wakamiya has been modified by Kurosaki to be rotated by a motor and rotating shaft and to include a microswitch and actuator that sense the presence or absence of a cuvette. Wakamiya does not teach wherein the sensing device comprises a position sensor configured to sense whether the loading device has reached to the first site and another position sensor configured to sense whether the loading device has reached to the second site, the driving device is configured to stop driving the loading device when the position sensor senses that the loading device has reached to the first site, and drives the loading device to move toward the second site when the confirmation sensor senses that the sampler carrier is loaded on the loading device at the first site; the driving device is further configured to stop driving the loading device when the another position sensor senses that the loading device has reached to the second site.
In the same problem solving area of rotatable carousels holding a multiplicity of individual sample containers, Saralegui teaches a carousel with two position sensing mechanisms (Saralegui; column 1 lines 67-68, column 2 line 1, column 8 lines 3-5).
Specifically, Saralegui teaches a carousel 20 with two position sensing mechanisms 106 and 100, where one is utilized to place the carousel near the actual “home” position and the other to accurately position the carousel at any of the tube positions including “home” position (Saralegui; column 8 lines 3-8). Column 8 lines 12-21 describe that by reading the state of position sensors 106 and 100 and pulsing stepper motor 88, the MCL controller 282 can position the carousel to any desired location (see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the cuvette table of modified Wakamiya so that it includes the two position sensors taught by Saralegui because it is taught by Saralegui that the two sensors allow for accurate positioning (Saralegui; column 8 lines 11-15).
The sensors of Saralegui and the microswitch and actuator of Kurosaki together make up a sensing device.
The limitations of claim 6 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Wakamiya and the apparatus of modified Wakamiya is capable of sensing whether the loading device has reached the first site and sensing whether the loading device has reached the second site, stop driving the loading device when the position sensor senses the loading device has reached the first site, driving the loading device to move toward the second site when confirmation sensor senses the sample carrier is loaded on the loading device at the first site, and stopping driving the loading device when the loading device has reached the second site. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Wakamiya (see MPEP §2114).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments, see page 2/6, filed 08/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wakamiya (US-2013/0034466-A1), Kurosaki (US-5658532-A) and Ingber (US-2011/0093207-A1).
Please note that Wakamiya in view of Kurosaki and Ingber were previously cited in the Office Action mailed 06/03/2025. Wakamiya teaches the newly added limitations presented, please see both the above rejection and arguments below.
In response to applicant's argument that Wakamiya fails to disclose the feature “the transfer system temporarily stores the sample carrier on the transfer platform before transferring the sample carrier to the biochemical reaction platform when the biochemical reaction platform is occupied, and transfers the sample carrier to the biochemical reaction platform when the biochemical reaction platform is unoccupied”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Additionally, it is emphasized that the sample carrier, the biochemical reaction platform, the detection platform, the transfer platform, and the gene sequencing system have not been positively recited in the claim, and therefore they are not a part of the system.
Further, applicant argues on page 4/6 that the catcher transfers the cuvette from cuvette table 210 to the reaction table 200 no matter whether the primary BF separation section 220 is occupied, and that therefore the catcher cannot transfer to cuvette from the cuvette table 210 to the primary BF separation section 220.
It is noted that as the claims are currently phrased, it can be read as sequential steps rather than two alternative scenarios (occupied vs unoccupied). Additionally, there is nothing in the claim that limits the direct transfer to the biochemical reaction platform, and therefore there can be intermediate components/steps.
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 SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571) 272-7129. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights