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 .
This is a FINAL REJECTION in response to applicant’s claim amendment and arguments filed October 1, 2025. Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 16 are currently amended. Claims 19 and 20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending review in this correspondence.
Drawings
The amended drawings were received on October 1, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Amendment
Objections to claims 1, 2, 10, and 16 for various informalities is withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
Rejection of claims 1-15, 17, and 18 for being indefinite is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to claim 1, 11, 15, and 16. A new rejection of claim 16 is provided in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 16.
Rejection of claims 1-9, 11, and 14-16 as being anticipated by Blaszcak et al (WO 2018/213196) is maintained in view of applicant’s amendments to claim 1.
Rejection of claims 12, 13, and 18 as being unpatentable over Blaszcak et al (WO 2018213196) in view of Smith (US 8,202,495 B1) is maintained in view of applicant’s amendments to claim .
Rejection of claim 17 as being unpatentable over Blaszcak et al (WO 2018213196) is modified.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: line two has a repeated “one”. The examiner believes it should read “at least one of….” 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.
Claim 16 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.
Applicant has amended the claim to remove the recitation that previously said the pipette tip had “one or more of the following features,” but there is no “and” separating the last recitation from the second-to-last recitation. Thus, it is unclear if applicant intended for this claim to be amended to require that the prior art teach all of the recitations, or if applicant incorrectly amended the claim and intended for claim 16 to read as a Markush claim. Pgs. 14-15 of applicant’s specification (filed 9/20/2022) utilizes the phrase “one or more of the following features” but the examiner notes that none of the recitations preclude the other recitations, and thus, it would appear that all of the parameters can exist together. For the purpose of examination the examiner will utilize the second interpretation (Markush claim), but clarification is requested.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 14-16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Blaszcak et al (WO 2018213196) (provided by applicant in the IDS dated 6/7/2024); examiner will be utilizing and referring to US PG Pub. 2020/0122136 A1.
With respect to claim 1 Blaszcak discloses a pipette tip (pipette tip 400, See Fig. 15 and Para. 0075) made of plastic (See Para. 0099 for discussion of manufacture of the pipette tips and associated materials, to include thermoplastics) with an elongated tubular body (combination of proximal region 430 and distal region 435, See Fig. 15 and Table ) with a lower opening (distal region distal terminus 425, See Fig. 15 and Table 1) at the lower end for the passage of liquid and an upper opening (proximal region proximal terminus 405, See Fig. 15 and Table 1) at the upper end for clamping onto an attachment of a pipetting device (See Para. 0007), wherein a seating region (proximal region interior surface 480, See Fig. 17; Para. 0042 discusses the sealing zone of the pipette tip; Para. 0074 describes alternative groove and panel geometries for Figs. 7-18, and Para. 0072 describes embodiment 180 as the proximal region interior surface) for the attachment is present next to the upper opening on the inner circumference of the tubular body (See Figs. 15 and 17), characterized in that at least one flattened area (groove 440 with groove floor 450, See Fig. 17 and Para. 0075) extending in the axial direction (See Para. 0039 for discussion of how the grooves and panels are axially extended) is present next to the upper opening on the outer circumference of the tubular body, the wall thickness of the tubular body gradually decreases in the at least one flattened area towards its central region in a cross-section through the tubular body, starting from one of the two regions of the tubular body adjacent to the at least one flattened area (See fig. 17 for depiction of the stepped decrease in wall thickness from panel protrusion 462 to the face of the groove 450), and the at least one flattened area has in the cross-section through the tubular body (i) a straight profile or (ii) a profile that is less strongly curved that the adjoining regions (See Para. 0075 for discussion of the groove floor 450 being linear or flat). Applicant should note the italicized limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Blaszcak and the apparatus of Blaszcak is capable of the recitation of claim 1. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Blaszcak (see MPEP §2114).
With respect to claim 2, Blaszcak discloses that the tubular body has, in a cross-section on the outer circumference in the regions adjoining the at least one flattened area, a circularly curved profile (See Para. 0069 for discussion of how the latitudinal profile of or more protrusions or protrusion faces 465 can be stepped or curved, and that the transition surfaces can be stepped, beveled, or curved) and has, in the flattened area, a straight profile (See Para. 0075 for discussion of the groove floor being linear or flat) or a circular profile with a larger curvature radius than in the regions adjoining the at least one flattened area.
With respect to claim 3 Blaszcak discloses that the tubular body has in the at least one flattened area a straight and/or a curved profile in all cross-sections through the at least one flattened area (See Para. 0075 for discussion of the groove floor 450 being linear or flat).
With respect to claim 4 Blaszcak discloses and depicts that the at least one flattened area extends in the axial direction at least over a part of the seating region (See Figs. 15 and 17 for depiction of how the groove 440 and groove floor 450 extend on the outside of the pipette tip, surrounding the proximal region interior surface 480 of the pipette tip 400).
With respect to claim 5 Blaszcak discloses that the at least one flattened area extends upwards up to a distance from the upper end of the tubular body (See Fig. 15 for depiction of how the groove and groove floor extends from a distal terminal shoulder 415 up to an annular flange 410; See Para. 0045 for discussion of embodiments relative to Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 6 Blaszcak discloses that the at least one flattened area extends up to the upper end of the tubular body (See Fig. 15 for depiction of how the groove and groove floor extends from a distal terminal shoulder 415 up to an annular flange 410; See Para. 0045 for discussion of embodiments relative to Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 7 Blaszcak discloses that the at least one flattened area extends downwards to a shoulder (distal terminal shoulder 415, See Fig. 15 and Para. 0045) on the outer circumference of the tubular body or beyond it.
With respect to claim 8 Blaszcak discloses that the at least one flattened area is three flattened areas on the circumference (See Fig. 17 for depiction of three flattened areas; applicant should note that the incorporation of additional flattened areas still suffices to read upon the recitation of three flattened areas).
With respect to claim 9 Blaszcak discloses that the flattened areas are distributed uniformly over the outer circumference of the tubular body (See Figs. 15 and 17; Paras. 0059-0066 discloses how the sum of all groove widths and panels widths of a pipette tip equals the circumference of a pipette tip measured around the exterior surface of the pipette tip; Para. 0040 discloses that the grooves can be regularly distributed around the exterior surface of a pipette tip).
With respect to claim 11 Blaszcak discloses that in which, in the cross-section through which the tubular body, the at least one flattened area comprises multiple flattened areas with a straight profile that defines an outer circumference of the tubular body in the form of a polygon (See Fig. 15 and 17 for depiction of the groove 440 taking a slender, rectangular form).
With respect to claim 14 Blaszcak discloses that the tubular body has a widened area (annular flange 410, See Table 1) and/or an insertion bevel on the upper opening (See Para. 0043 for discussion of how the annular flange may be flared).
With respect to claim 15 Blaszcak discloses that the tip is produced from at least one polyolefin (See Para. 0099 for discussion of how the tips may be molded from a thermoplastic such as polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene, etc.).
With respect to claim 16, Blaszcak discloses the following features (See 112b rejection above):
- the wall thickness of the tubular body in the circumferential direction next to the at least one flattened area falls in the range from 0.3 to 1 mm (See Para. 0051 for discussion of the distance W between a panel face and an interior surface of a pipette tip opposite the panel face being about 0.015 inches to about 0.03 inches = 0.381mm to 0762mm),
- the wall thickness of the tubular body is at most 0.3 mm at the thinnest location in the region of the flattened area (outside of the sealing structure and/or guide structure and/or braking structure) (See Para. 0048 for discussion of the distance Z between a groove floor and an interior surface of a pipette tip opposite the groove floor, wherein Z is 0.002 inches to about 0.010 inches = 0.051mm to 0.254mm), and
- the wall thickness of the tubular body is at a minimum 0.1 mm at the thinnest location in the region of the flattened area (outside of the sealing structure and/or guide structure and/or braking structure) (See Para. 0048 for discussion of the distance Z between a groove floor and an interior surface of a pipette tip opposite the groove floor, wherein Z is about 0.010 inches or less = 0.254mm).
With respect to claim 19, Blaszcak discloses that the at least one flattened area is multiple flattened areas on the circumference (See Fig. 17).
With respect to claim 20 Blaszcak discloses that that the pipette tip is produced from at least one of polypropylene and/or ethylene (See Para. 0099 for discussion of the methods and materials of manufacture).
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.
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) 12, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaszcak et al (WO 2018213196) (provided by applicant in the IDS dated 6/7/2024; examiner will be utilizing and referring to US PG Pub. 2020/0122136 A1) in view of Smith (US 8,202,495 B1).
Refer above for the disclosure of Blaszcak.
With respect to claim 12, Blaszcak fails to disclose that the tubular body has on the inner circumference of the seating region at least one sealing structure projecting inwards and running in the circumferential direction and/or at least one guide structure projecting inwards and running in the circumferential direction or having multiple portions spaced apart from each other and/or at least one braking structure projecting inwards and running in the circumferential direction or having multiple portions spaced apart from each other.
Smith teaches an ergonomic pipette tip which includes an elongated tubular member 62 with an upper portion 42 having an inwardly facing surface 37 defining a central receiving cavity 90. The inwardly facing surface 37 includes a two-lobed sealing surface for sealing engagement with the pipetter barrel sealing surface 49 of the pipetter barrel 48 inserted into the entrance of the receiving cavity 90. The first sealing ring protrusion 112 adjacent the entrance includes an arched shaped sealing surface 116 created through axis 75 which is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 100 of the pipette tip. The second or lower sealing ring protrusion 114 is juxtaposed to the first sealing ring protrusion 112 including an arched shaped sealing surface 118 which is also disposed in a generally perpendicular relation to the central axis 100 (See Figs. 7, 7A, and 7B and Col. 20, lines 4-18). Between the first arched-shaped sealing surface 116 and the second arched-shaped sealing surface 118 there is an arched shaped recessed groove. This recessed grove 113 defines the distance between the two sealing surfaces 116 and 118 and is also generated through a perpendicular axis to the central axis 100. The two-lobed sealing design creates an alternative to the use of an elastomeric sealing member. The two sealing surfaces 116 and 118 adjacent one another gives a positive seal with less friction than a single sealing lobe. Twice the sealing surface means less radial squeeze is needed to create an effective seal resulting in less breakaway friction between the parts and thus reducing the axial forces needed to install and eject the pipette tip from the pipetter (See Col. 20, lines 19-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sealing ring protrusions taught by Smith into the inner circumference of the seating region of Blaszcak to ensure a more effective seal between the pipette tip and a pipetter, thus reducing the axial forces needed to install and eject the pipette tip from the pipetter (See Col. 20, lines 25-31 of Smith).
With respect to claim 13 the combination of Blaszcak and Smith teaches that the tubular body has on the inner circumference multiple sealing structures and/or guide structures and/or braking structures that have a wave-like contour in a longitudinal section through the tubular body (See Figs. 7-7B and Col. 20, lines 4-31 of Smith for discussion of the two sealing ring protrusions and two-lobed sealing design that is created between the two sealing surfaces 116 and 118).
With respect to claim 18, although Blaszcak discloses at least one pipette tip according to claim 1, there is discussion of a pipetting system that also includes a single-channel pipetting device with a single attachment for mounting a pipette tip and/or multichannel pipetting device with multiple attachments for simultaneously mounting multiple pipette tips.
Smith teaches a multi-channel pipetter with 6 barrels ready to be installed into a new ergonomic multi-pipette tip comprising 6 ergonomic pipette tips all connected together by ribs. This configuration shown is for illustration purposes only and can accommodate any multiple numbers of the described ergonomic tips in the prior figures including but not limited to 2, 4, 8 or 12 or more pipette tips (See Fig. 13 and Col. 12, lines 12-18). The multi-channel pipetter 32 with individual pipetter barrels 48 is shown ready to being installed into the strip of the new multi-channel ergonomic pipette tips 56 (See Col. 23, lines 45-47), and were developed primarily to increase the number of dispensing one was capable of doing at one time (See Col 24, lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a multi-pipetter, as taught by Smith, to the use of pipette tips as disclose in Blaszcak, in order to increase the number of dispensing one is capable of performing at one time (See Col. 24, lines 13-15).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaszcak et al (WO 2018213196) (provided by applicant in the IDS dated 6/7/2024); examiner will be utilizing and referring to US PG Pub. 2020/0122136 A1.
Refer above for the disclosure of Blaszcak.
With respect to claim 17, although Blaszcak discloses that the pipette tips can have different configuration and embodiments (See Figs. 1-20 and Para. 0074 for discussion of various alternative groove and panel geometries), there is no discussion of a pipette tip system having multiple pipette tips. However, the courts have held In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) that even if a reference does not teach a plurality of a feature, a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest cited prior art of reference fails to disclose or fairly teach that the flattened areas take up a larger part of the outer circumference of the tubular body overall than the regions of the tubular body adjoining them in the circumferential direction overall. Specifically, Blaszcak discusses that a panel width is typically greater than a groove width (See Paras. 0017 and 0058) and groove widths are smaller than panel widths, with grooves representing a smaller percentage of a pipette tip external surface than panels. Panels principally provide the structural integrity of a pipette tip wall, allowing the thickness of a pipette tip wall at the groove floor (distance between a groove floor and an interior surface of a pipette tip opposite the groove floor) to be minimized. Axial forces generated when a fluid dispensing device member (e.g., barrel, nozzle or mounting shaft) is inserted into the interior of a pipette tip are focused to the thin wall regions under grooves, as these represent the weakest portions of a pipette tip wall. Accordingly, less force is required to stretch (expand) a pipette tip wall to accommodate and seal a mounting shaft or nozzle as these regions not only are structurally favorable to expansion and hoop stretching (thin walls), but also represent a small portion of the overall pipette tip wall surface. An insertion force required to cause hoop stretching (expansion) for a pipette tip having grooves and panels with the described dimensions is substantially less than the insertion force required to cause hoop stretching (expansion) for a pipette tip not having these features. Also, without being limited by theory, a disengagement force (ejection force) required to disassociate a pipette tip having the described features is substantially less than the disengagement force required to disassociate a pipette tip not having the described features. Reduced insertion and disengagement forces can reduce strain on a user associated with attaching and ejecting pipette tips and can reduce the occurrence and severity of repetitive motion conditions, for example (See Para. 0066 of Blaszcak).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant ultimately argues that the wall thickness of the pipette tip depicted in Fig. 17 of Blaszczak does not gradually decrease in a circumferential direction, but rather, has an abrupt transition between the circumferential segments (See Pgs. 10-11 of applicant’s arguments filed October 1, 2025). The examiner respectfully disagrees and rebuts that Fig. 17 of Blaszczak does represent a gradual transition in thickness of the outer circumference of the pipette tip from area 470 to the flattening 440, and the presence of steps does not negate that the transition does happen incrementally/gradually. The applicant does provide for discussion of what a gradual change is intended to encompass on Pg. 10 of the specification filed September 20, 2022 (“…the flattened area has, in various cross sections, an outwardly curved profile and an inwardly curved profile”). Applicant might consider the incorporation of more descriptive language that more clearly defines what is intended to be encompassed using the term “gradually”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRITTANY I FISHER whose telephone number is (469)295-9182. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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.
/BRITTANY I FISHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1796 January 18, 2026
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796