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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks filed on 01/20/2026. Claims 1 and 4-15 are pending. Claims 1, 6 and 9 have been amended.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites “the attachment section” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
1. Claims 1, 6, 7, 11 and 12 are rejected under USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by European Patent Application Publication No. EP3575000 to Rethwisch.
Rethwisch teaches a pipette tip that includes an end section, a first section adjacent the end section, a second section adjacent the first section and a third section adjacent the second section as shown in annotate Fig. 1a:
[AltContent: textbox (Third section)][AltContent: textbox (Second section)][AltContent: textbox (First section)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (End section)]
PNG
media_image1.png
144
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rethwisch does not teach angles between the inner surface of the first section and the inner surface of the second section or between the inner surface of the second section and the inner surface of the third section; however, claim 1 recites that such angles can be smaller 5° (which encompasses angles of 0°) which is shown in Fig. 1b of Rethwisch.
As for the kinks recited in claim 1, the kinks are recited between the first and second section and between the second and third section in reference to the angles between these sections – which the last two subparagraphs of claim 1 provides for angles of 0° as noted above. In this regard, the recitation of the angle “is larger than 1° and/or is smaller than 5°“ is interpreted that the angle “is larger than 1°” or that the angle is smaller than 5°” (i.e., 0°).
On page 12, lines 13-14 applicant discloses that “[T]he kinks 42, 44, 46 are formed by a sudden step in the angle between the inner surface 40 of the pipette tip and the axis A.”
Therefore when the angles between the sections are 0° as provided in claim 1, the kinks are not present.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Rethwisch teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Therefore, Rethwisch anticipates claim 1.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Rethwisch anticipates claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that a length of the third section along the central axis is chosen, such that an inner volume of the pipette tip between the orifice and the length is at least a nominal volume of the pipette tip.
In Rethwisch the length of the third section along the central axis is such that an inner volume of the pipette tip between the orifice and the length is at least a “nominal” volume of the pipette tip. Note, any volume is a “nominal” volume.
Therefore, Rethwisch anticipates claim 6.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Rethwisch anticipates claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the inner surface of the first section is conical; wherein the inner surface of the second section is conical; wherein the inner surface of the third section is conical.
In Fig. 1b Rethwisch depicts the inner surface of the first section as being conical; the inner surface of the second section as being conical; and the inner surface of the third section as being conical.
Therefore, Rethwisch anticipates claim 7.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Rethwisch anticipates claim 1 from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that a common outer surface of the first section, the second section and the third section is conical.
As shown in Fig. 1b of Rethwisch, a common outer surface of the first section, the second section and the third section is conical.
Therefore, Rethwisch anticipates claim 11.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Rethwisch anticipates claim 1 from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites an attachment section for attaching the pipette tip to a nozzle of a laboratory automation device for changing a pressure inside the pipette tip; wherein the attachment section is aligned along the central axis of the pipette tip following the third section.
The pipette tip of Rethwisch includes an attachment section 9 with an opening 6 that can be used for attachment to a laboratory automation device for changing a pressure inside the pipette tip.
Therefore, Rethwisch et al. anticipates claim 12.
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.
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.
2. Claims 4, 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Rethwisch.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Rethwisch anticipates claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 4 recites that the angle (α1) between the inner surface of the first section and the central axis is larger than 2° and smaller than 5°; the angle (α2) between the inner surface of the second section and the central axis is larger than 3° and smaller than 9°; and that the angle (α3) between the inner surface of the third section and the central axis is larger than 4° and smaller than 13°.
In Fig. 1b Rethwisch shows that the inner surface of the first, second and third sections form angles with the central axis and the angle formed by the second section is greater than the angle formed by the first section. However, Rethwisch not specifically teach the angle ranges recited in claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to configure the pipette tip of Rethwisch to provide an angle between the inner surface of the first section and the central axis that is larger than 2° and smaller than 5°; an angle between the inner surface of the second section and the central axis that is larger than 3° and smaller than 9°; and an angle between the inner surface of the third section and the central axis that is larger than 4° and smaller than 13° as a matter design choice since changes in size are not patentable if they do not perform differently. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Therefore, Rethwisch renders claim 4 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Rethwisch anticipates claim 1 from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that a position of the first kink is chosen, such that an inner volume of the pipette tip between the orifice and the first kink is between 0.3 µl and 0.6 µl; and/or wherein a position of the second kink is chosen, such that an inner volume of the pipette tip between the orifice and the second kink is between 0.8 µl and 1.2 µl.
In Rethwisch the junctions between the first, second and third sections are interpreted as “kinks.”
Rethwisch does not teach that a position of the first kink is chosen, such that an inner volume of the pipette tip between the orifice and the first kink is between 0.3 µl and 0.6 µl; and/or wherein a position of the second kink is chosen, such that an inner volume of the pipette tip between the orifice and the second kink is between 0.8 µl and 1.2 µl.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Rethwisch so that the distances between the orifice and the junction (“kink”) between the first and second sections and the second and third sections are long enough to use the junctions to visually measure the volumes recited in claim 5. As noted above, changes in size are not patentable if they do not perform differently. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Therefore, Rethwisch renders claim 5 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Rethwisch anticipates claim 1 from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the pipette tip comprises a cylindrical section aligned along the central axis of the pipette tip following the third section; wherein the cylindrical section is longer than the pipette tip between the orifice and the cylindrical section.
Rethwisch teaches a cylindrical section 9 following the third section, but does not teach that the cylindrical section is longer than the pipette tip between the orifice and the cylindrical section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Rethwisch so that the cylindrical section is longer than the pipette tip between the orifice and the cylindrical section. Note, changes in size are not patentable if they do not perform differently. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Therefore, Rethwisch renders claim 14 obvious.
3. Claims 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Rethwisch as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,794,664 to Pelletier et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Rethwisch anticipates claim 1 from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that a further kink is formed in the inner surface of the pipette tip between the end section and the first section.
Rethwisch does not teach that a further kink is formed in the inner surface of the pipette tip between the end section and the first section.
Pelletier et al. teaches a pipette tip that has an end section that has a cylindrical inner surface and forms a junction (change of angle or “kink”) with the adjacent section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Rethwisch to modify the end section to have a cylindrical inner surface and forms a junction (change of angle or “kink”) with the adjacent section as taught by Pelletier et al. as a matter of design choice using a known shape for the end section.
Therefore, Rethwisch in view of Pelletier et al. renders claim 8 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Rethwisch anticipates claim 1 from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that an angle between the inner surface of the end section and the inner surface of the first section is larger than 2° and is smaller than 5°.
Rethwisch does not teach that an angle between the inner surface of the end section and the inner surface of the first section is larger than 2° and is smaller than 5°.
Pelletier et al. teaches a pipette tip that has an end section that has a cylindrical inner surface and forms a junction (change of angle or “kink”) with the adjacent section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Rethwisch to modify the end section to have a cylindrical inner surface and forms a junction (change of angle or “kink”) with the adjacent section as taught by Pelletier et al. as a matter of design choice using a known shape for the end section.
As for the angle between the inner surface of the end section and the inner surface of the first section it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to configure the function to have any suitable angle including an angle that is larger than 2° and is smaller than 5° since changes in shape are not patentable unless a particular configuration is significant. (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B))
Therefore, Rethwisch in view of Pelletier et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Rethwisch anticipates claim 1 from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the inner surface of the end section is cylindrical.
Rethwisch does not teach that the inner surface of the end section is cylindrical.
Pelletier et al. teaches a pipette tip that has an end section that has a cylindrical inner surface and forms a junction (change of angle or “kink”) with the adjacent section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Rethwisch to modify the end section to have a cylindrical inner surface as taught by Pelletier et al. as a matter of design choice using a known shape for the end section.
Therefore, Rethwisch in view of Pelletier et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Rethwisch in view of Pelletier et al. renders claim 10 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the attachment section is formed, such that a further pipette tip is partially insertable into the attachment section to at least the third section, for stacking the further pipette tip and the pipette tip.
Rethwisch teaches an attachment section 9 with and opening that will allow further pipette tip to be partially insertable into the attachment section to at least the third section, for stacking the further pipette tip and the pipette tip.
Therefore, Rethwisch in view of Pelletier et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
4. Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rethwisch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cadotte et al.
I.) Regarding applicant's claim 15, as noted above Rethwisch renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that the pipette tip comprises a filter section aligned along the central axis of the pipette tip, the filter section following the third section; wherein the inner surface of the filter section comprises ribs extending radially around the central axis.
Rethwisch does not teach a filter section following a third section.
Cadotte et al. teaches "embodiments where the pipette tip is fitted with an internal filter, the filter insertion should not cause deformation or damage to the tip." [0045]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Rethwisch to include a filter above where filtered aspirated fluids would enter an aspirating instruments in view of Cadotte et al. teaching the use of filters in pipettes.
The use of structures including radially extending rids would have been obvious to secure an inserted filter in position.
Therefore, Rethwisch in view of Cadotte et al renders claim 15 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection that relies upon Rethwisch as necessitated by applicant’s amendments to claim 1.
It is noted that while applicant amended claim 9 to change “and/or” in line 3 to “and,” claim 1 still recites “and/or” in reference to the angle ranges between the first and second and second and third sections that allow for angles of 0° (i.e., less than 5°).
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 MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charlie 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights