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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 03, 2026 has been entered and thoroughly reviewed. Any previous objection/ rejection not repeated herein has been withdrawn. New and/or modified grounds for rejection, necessitated by the amendments, are discussed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11, 13-17, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motadel (US 2006/0172433-already of record) in view of Tsutsui et al., (CN 110305768; already of record; hereinafter “Tsutsui”).
As to claim 1, Motadel teaches a pipette tip of a pipette assembly configured to aspirate and dispense a liquid, comprising:
a tip body 2 having a first end 4 configured to detachably couple to a pipette (a hollow body having a proximal opening 4 at its proximal end 6 for mounting to a mounting shaft of a pipettor (not shown), see para [0026] et seq.), and a tip (interpreted as distal end 10) located opposite from the first end,
the tip comprises:
an opening 8; and
one or more blades (reads on ribs 7 and ribs 18 a-d) having a length extending at least partway from the tip to the first end (see Figs. 1-5);
wherein at least some of the one or more blades 18 a-d of comprise an acute-angled cutting edge along at least a portion of the length, each of the at least some of the one or more blades including a first planar surface and a second planar surface each extending outward from the tip body and along the at least a portion of the length, the acute-angled cutting edge formed by the first planar surface intersecting with the second planar surface to form an acute angle at the acute-angled cutting edge.
Specifically, Motadel teaches the ribs 18a-d are raised from the outside surface 16 of the barrel 12. The pipette tip 2 has a central longitudinal axis, denoted by line 4-4 in FIG. 2. Each rib 18a-d has an outer surface, point, or apex designated as 20a, 20b, 20c and 20d. As demonstrated, the outer surface 20a-d of the ribs 18a-d is preferably flat and co-planer with outer surface 16 of the barrel portion 12. However, one of skill in the art will realize that the outer surface 20a-d may take many configurations, for example, converging to a point, having a convex curve or having a concave curve; see para [0029] et seq.) A “point” at the apex requires the surfaces of the ribs to form an acute angle and thus acute-angled cutting edge.
Motadel does not explicitly teach the pipette tip further comprising a respective triangular-shaped planar surface extending between each of the one or more blades and the tip. In the related art of pipettes configured to open a cover placed over a laboratory container, Tsutsui discloses a pipette tip as shown in FIG. 10, including a reamer part 28 protruding to the front side of the cutting portion 27 of the cutting tool 27b and the sealing film 104 contact along forming direction with a cutting knife 27b of forming cut on the sealing film 104 (corresponds to the claimed triangular shaped planar surface at the tip of the pipette). Tsutsui recognizes that making the reaming portion relatively inclined to the central axis O of the cutting knife 27b to move downwardly, can be periodically formed on the cut the sealing film 104. As a result, it is possible to properly prevent the sealing film 104 of a portion of the separated and isolated membrane fall of the kit in the hole 100 (see Fig. 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the claimed invention was effectively filed to have included in pipette tip of Motadel a portion between the blades and the tip, like the reamer part 28, as taught by Tsutsui, since Tsutsui discloses that the configuration of the reamer can properly prevent the sealing film 104 of a portion of the separated and isolated membrane from falling into the container thereby possibly contaminating the container contents.
Note: that the recited “pipette assembly configured to aspirate and dispense a liquid” and “pipette”, are not considered as part of the claimed device structure and is therefore not given patentable weight. The Court has held that "[e]xpressions relating the apparatus contents thereof during an intended use operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim." See Ex parte Thilbault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.1969) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
For apparatus claims, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g)).
As to claims 2-4, Motadel teaches two or more of the blades, three or more of the blades and four of the blades (see Fig. 3).
As to claim 5, Motadel teaches four blades 18a-d each comprising the acute-angled cutting edge along the length (see Fig. 3).
As to claim 6, modified Motadel teaches the one or more blades further comprise, in plan view, a first tapered profile 24 and a second tapered profile 22, wherein the second tapered profile 22 is less steep than the first tapered profile (see Figs. 2-5). However, Tsutsui teaches the first tapered profile extending from the tip and comprising the triangular shaped planar surface (see Tsutsui Fig. 10, as discussed above).
As to claims 7-11, Motadel teaches the first tapered profile 24 is angled at a first taper angle. However, Motadel does not explicitly teach the first taper angle ranges from 22.5 degrees to 60 degrees measured relative to an axial axis of the pipette tip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to determine the desired angles of the blades in Motadel for the expected benefit of determining the optimum angle needed to penetrate the cover without too much resistance. The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine the desired angles of the blades to perforate a covering on a receptacle. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 13, Motadel teaches the pipette body comprises a first body portion comprising first conical taper segments 22 and a second body portion comprising second conical taper segments 24, the one or more blades extending outwardly between respective ones of the first conical taper segments and the second conical taper segments (see Fig. 4).
As to claim 14, Motadel teaches the second conical taper segments comprise a steeper cone angle than the first conical taper segments (see Fig. 4, see para [0030] et seq.)
As to claim 15, Motadel teaches multiple blades extending at least partway from the tip wherein each of the blades includes an acute-angled cutting edge (the ribs 18a-d are raised from the outside surface 16 of the barrel 12. The pipette tip 2 has a central longitudinal axis, denoted by line 4-4 in FIG. 2. Each rib 18a-d has an outer surface, point, or apex designated as 20a, 20b, 20c and 20d. As demonstrated, the outer surface 20a-d of the ribs 18a-d is preferably flat and co-planer with outer surface 16 of the barrel portion 12. However, one of skill in the art will realize that the outer surface 20a-d may take many configurations, for example, converging to a point, having a convex curve or having a concave curve. See para [0030] et seq.)
As to claim 16, Motadel teaches the tip 10 comprises a planar annulus surrounding the opening (see Fig. 3, area defined by element 8).
Motadel does not explicitly disclose the planar annulus comprising an annular thickness greater than 0.5 mm and less than 1.0 mm. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to determine the desired angles of the blades in Motadel for the expected benefit of determining the thickness of the planar annulus such that it does not bend and yet able penetrate the cover without too much resistance. In addition, the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine the desired angles of the blades to perforate a covering on a receptacle. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 17, Motadel teaches the planar annulus surrounding the opening lies in a plane perpendicular to an axial axis of the pipette tip (see Fig. 2).
As to claims 20-22, Motadel teaches pipette assembly configured to aspirate and dispense a liquid, comprising:
a moveable body (mounting head of a robotic arm; see para [0041] et seq.),
a pipette coupled to the moveable body (see Fig. 9),
the pipette further comprising
a pipette tip 2 portion comprising a tip having an opening 10,
wherein the pipette tip portion further comprises multiple blades 18a-d each having a length extending at least partway from the tip, wherein the blades 18 a-d of comprise an acute angled cutting edge along at least a portion of the length (the ribs 18a-d of Motadel are raised from the outside surface 16 of the barrel 12. The pipette tip 2 has a central longitudinal axis, denoted by line 4-4 in FIG. 2. Each rib 18a-d has an outer surface, point, or apex designated as 20a, 20b, 20c and 20d. As demonstrated, the outer surface 20a-d of the ribs 18a-d is preferably flat and co-planer with outer surface 16 of the barrel portion 12. However, one of skill in the art will realize that the outer surface 20a-d may take many configurations, for example, converging to a point, having a convex curve or having a concave curve; see para [0029] et seq.)
Motadel does not explicitly teach the pipette tip further comprising a respective triangular-shaped planar surface extending between each of the one or more blades and the tip. In the related art of pipettes configured to open a cover placed over a laboratory container, Tsutsui discloses a pipette tip as shown in FIG. 10, including a reamer part 28 protruding to the front side of the cutting portion 27 of the cutting tool 27b and the sealing film 104 contact along forming direction with a cutting knife 27b of forming cut on the sealing film 104 (corresponds to the claimed triangular shaped planar surface at the tip of the pipette). Tsutsui recognizes that making the reaming portion relatively inclined to the central axis O of the cutting knife 27b to move downwardly, can be periodically formed on the cut the sealing film 104. As a result, it is possible to properly prevent the sealing film 104 of a portion of the separated and isolated membrane fall of the kit in the hole 100 (see Fig. 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the claimed invention was effectively filed to have included in pipette tip of Motadel a portion between the blades and the tip, like the reamer part 28, as taught by Tsutsui, since Tsutsui discloses that the configuration of the reamer can properly prevent the sealing film 104 of a portion of the separated and isolated membrane from falling into the container thereby possibly contaminating the container contents.
As claim 23, Motadel does not explicitly teach the opening in the pipette tip portion surrounded by an annular planar surface having a diameter greater than a diameter of the opening by at least 1.0mm, However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to determine the desired angles of the blades in Motadel for the expected benefit of determining the thickness of the planar annulus such that the tip does not bend and yet able penetrate the cover without too much resistance. In addition, the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine the thickness of the annular planar surface perforate a covering.
As to claim 24, Motadel teaches a method of accessing a well that is covered by a well cover (a sealed container assembly 28) with a pipette, comprising:
providing a pipette body portion 2 having an axial length and a tip comprising an opening, 14 wherein the pipette body portion further comprises multiple blades 18a-d extending from the tip along the axial length, at least some of the multiple blades comprising an acute-angled cutting edge along at least a portion of the axial length; and cutting the well cover 34 with at least some of the multiple blades comprising the acute-angled cutting edge (see para [0029] et seq.) Specifically, Motadel teaches the ribs 18a-d are raised from the outside surface 16 of the barrel 12. The pipette tip 2 has a central longitudinal axis, denoted by line 4-4 in FIG. 2. Each rib 18a-d has an outer surface, point, or apex designated as 20a, 20b, 20c and 20d. As demonstrated, the outer surface 20a-d of the ribs 18a-d is preferably flat and co-planer with outer surface 16 of the barrel portion 12. However, one of skill in the art will realize that the outer surface 20a-d may take many configurations, for example, converging to a point, having a convex curve or having a concave curve; see para [0029] et seq.) A “point” at the apex requires the surfaces of the ribs to form an acute angle and thus acute-angled cutting edge.
Motadel does not explicitly teach the pipette tip further comprising a respective triangular-shaped planar surface extending between each of the one or more blades and the tip. In the related art of pipettes configured to open a cover placed over a laboratory container, Tsutsui discloses a pipette tip as shown in FIG. 10, including a reamer part 28 protruding to the front side of the cutting portion 27 of the cutting tool 27b and the sealing film 104 contact along forming direction with a cutting knife 27b of forming cut on the sealing film 104 (corresponds to the claimed triangular shaped planar surface at the tip of the pipette). Tsutsui recognizes that making the reaming portion relatively inclined to the central axis O of the cutting knife 27b to move downwardly, can be periodically formed on the cut the sealing film 104. As a result, it is possible to properly prevent the sealing film 104 of a portion of the separated and isolated membrane fall of the kit in the hole 100 (see Fig. 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the claimed invention was effectively filed to have included in pipette tip of Motadel a portion between the blades and the tip, like the reamer part 28, as taught by Tsutsui, since Tsutsui discloses that the configuration of the reamer can properly prevent the sealing film 104 of a portion of the separated and isolated membrane from falling into the container thereby possibly contaminating the container contents.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motadel and Tsutsui, as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of De Vos (US 20150283540).
As to claims 18, modified Motadel teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the tip having a conical portion surrounding the planar annulus. In the related art of pipettes piercing covered receptacles, De Vos teaches a pipette tip 5. De Vos teaches in FIGS. 4a-4c examples of openings 15 of pipette tips 5a. In general terms, they show examples of openings 15 defined by a conical portion 10 surrounding a planar annulus 10a which is cut in such a way that the edge 10 itself is inclined at an angle β relative to opening 15. Specifically, with respect to claim 19, FIG. 4a shows an embodiment where the cone angle β1 is angled between 45 and 120 degrees. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to have included in Motadel an angled conical portion, like that taught by De Vos, since De Vos recognizes the use of angled tips has the expected effect of easily perforating a foil using less force (see para [0033] et seq.)
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 03, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Motadel does not does not recognize the problem of a striction much less the significance of a cutting edge forming an acute angle, the examiner does not necessarily disagree, but the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. (MPEP 2112.02). Where the claimed invention and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produce by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this case, it is expected that the outer surfaces of the ribs converging to a point, like that taught by applicant’s invention, would inherently provide the properties and/or functions, such as reducing or eliminating the striction there between and not punch out a small film disc from the resilient barrier. Furthermore, at least Tsutsui recognizes the problem of modifying the piercing tip to prevent the sealing foil from breaking off and falling into the container, as discussed above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Thus, for the reasons delineated above, the claims remain rejected over the prior art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am-7:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights