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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, Species B (of claim 3) in the reply filed on October 6, 2025 is acknowledged. The grounds of traversal have been found persuasive. Therefore, the lack of unity has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
As to the device, the claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
It is noted that although the device claim 13, is drafted to refer to method claim 1, the device as defined in claim 13 does not further limit the method as defined by the steps recited in claim 1. Furthermore, the method of claim 1 does not provide for any structural limitations of the device as defined in claim 13. The device of claim 13 is not required to be employed in the method steps of claim 1.
It is noted that the phrase “the following steps” is unnecessary.
It is noted that the phrase “at least one” only requires one, but allows for more than one.
It is noted that the term “plurality” and terms directed to more than one (a plurality; such as “cycles”) only requires two.
It is presumed that the phrase “equipped with” is intended mean comprises as in at least one pipette pipetting unit comprising at least one pipette. If so, it is suggested that the claims be amended to clearly recite such.
It is noted that the method claims do not specify who and/or what performs each of the recited steps. For example, there is no indication as to how the control unit is employed in each of the steps.
It is noted that the term “and/or” minimally means only requires scope “or” to be met.
As to claim 13, it is noted the first workstation and second workstation are not defined as comprising any specific structure(s).
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 1-15 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The formatting and language employed throughout the claims in general is vague, ambiguous, and confusing.
As to claim 1, in the first paragraph it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “with a tip” because it is unclear if it is intended for the at least one pipette to comprise a tip or if the phrase is directed to what is used together with the at least one pipette.
As to claim 1, in the first paragraph it is unclear if it is intended for the method to comprise actual steps of “cooperating” and “controlling” because such are not listed as separate steps nor clearly defined in the claim as to what is required to be done to be considered as “cooperating” and “controlling” (cooperating the pipette unit with what and controlling the pipette unit to do what?). The phrase appears to be directed to capabilities of the control unit rather than actual steps of the method.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of “the pipetting unit” to the prior recited “at least one pipetting unit” if such are the same or different because the claim does not clearly indicate such.
As to claim 1, in the second paragraph, it is unclear what is structurally considered “inside the device” because the device has previously been defined as comprising at least one pipetting unit equipped with at least one pipette with a tip, and a control unit. However, none of such has been recited as comprising any inside. Therefore, it is unclear what defines such “inside of the device”.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what is considered as “starting automatic homogenization…” because the claim does not indicate what initial action is required to be done by who or what to be considered as “starting” such automatic homogenization. If applicant intends for the method to comprise a step of homogenizing..., then the claim should clearly recite such.
Furthermore, it is noted the “substeps” are not drafted in the form of action words (ending in -ing). If applicant intends to require steps such as “diving the tip of….” and “operating the [at least one] pipette to perform a plurality of cycles…”, then the claim should clearly recite such.
As to claim 1, in the paragraph beginning with “the tip”, it is unclear what is the nexus of “the pipette” to the previously recited “at least one pipette”; if such are the same or different because the claim does not clearly indicate such. See also further recitations of the phrase throughout the claims (5 and 13).
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the surface of the non-homogenous biological sample" in the paragraph beginning with “the tip”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 1, in the paragraph beginning with “the pipette operates a plurality of cycles”, it is unclear what is meant by “operates”. It is presumed that the at least one pipette is used to perform a plurality of cycles. Furthermore, it is presumed that “each cycle” is intended to refer to “each cycle of the plurality of cycles”. If so, the claim should clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is unclear how each of such cycles can only be defined by “aspirating the non-homogenous biological sample”. The same non-homogenous biological sample cannot be repeatedly aspirated without being dispensed back in the container after being aspirated. Therefore, the amended claim is not consistent with the specification nor prior version before the amendment of the claim (the dispensing aspect has now been deleted). The claim does not sufficiently define what would be considered as a cycle of aspirating and dispensing the (same) non-homogenous biological sample.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tip end of the pipette" in the paragraph beginning with “the pipette operates…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The entire paragraph reads as a long, run-on clause that is confusing.
As to claim 1, it is unclear if the tip is employed to perform each of the first phase and second phrase, because the claim does not clearly recite such. The clause “wherein the tip is immerged at…” appears to be grammatically incorrect, it is presumed that the term “immerged” is intended to be immersed. However, the last two paragraphs does not recite aspirating the predetermined volume of the non-homogenous biological sample from the container into the tip and subsequently dispensing the aspirated predetermined volume of the non-homogenous biological sample from the tip into….
Dependent claims 2-15 are rejected via dependency upon rejected claim 1.
As to claim 2, the phrase “during homogenization step” appears to be grammatically incorrect. (See also claims 3-5, 10, and 12). As well as, it is unclear how such is related to claim 1, what is being referenced by phrase because as noted above it is unclear what is meant by “starting” and what is “homogenization step”.
As to claim 3, it is unclear what is meant by “consisting in” because the phrase appears to be grammatically incorrect. Also applicable to claim 11.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the liquid height of the sample inside the container" in the first paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is presumed that the sample is intended to refer to “the non-homogenous biological sample”. If so, then consistent language should be employed throughout the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of the detecting step (and steps of claim 3) to the steps of claim 1. For example, it is noted that the non-homogenous biological sample is not always required to be present in the container during the method. Therefore, it is unclear where/when the detecting occurs relative to the steps of claim 1.
As to claim 3, in the second paragraph, it is unclear what is required by “determining theoretically” because the claim does not provide for such. There is no indication as what “theory” is being referenced and how any “theory” is used in the step. It appears that “the” is missing after “dispense” in the phrase “dispense non-homogeneous biological sample”. Furthermore, it is unclear what liquid height, the phrase “the liquid height” is referencing. It is unclear if such is directed to the liquid height of sample, if such are the same or different because the claim does not clearly recite such. It is unclear what is meant, required for such determining to be “based on” each of that recited in the claim.
It is unclear what volume is being referenced by the phrase “the volume of non-homogenous biological sample”, if such is the same or different from the previously recited “a predetermined volume of non-homogenous biological sample” because the claim does not clearly recite such.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the volume and size of the container " in the 2nd paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, it is presumed that “the determination” is meant to be “the determining”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the liquid height variation inside the tube " in the last two lines of the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what liquid height variation of liquid is being referenced because the claim does not clearly indicate. Furthermore, there is no prior mention of any tube and liquid being present inside the tube and any of such liquid height varying during any method steps. Therefore, it is unclear what is required by the “following…” clause, what is required to be done by who/what. It is noted that such monitoring can be done mentally, ,visually with one’s eyes.
It is unclear how claim 4 further limits the method because the claim recites what “can be” done rather than what is required to be done. There is no prior aspiration phrase previously recited. It is presumed that the claim is intended to refer to “during the first phase of the sampling step”. Also applicable to claims 10 and 12.
As to claim 5, it is unclear if the detecting step is required to employ the at least one sensor to be used to perform detecting of pressure or vacuum… sending at least one pressure value …to the control unit because the “configured to…” clause only provides for what the at least one sensor is capable of doing, but does not affirmatively require the at least one sensor to perform such. (Also applicable to claim 11). It appears as if the claim should recite “send to [the] control unit”.
As to claim 6, it is unclear how the claim further limits the method because the claim does not provide for any additional step nor limits any prior claimed step. It is unclear what is required by the “wherein” phrase. It is unclear what is being referenced by “each distinctive pressure indicator” what is the nexus of such to the previously recited “at least one distinctive pressure indicator” (claim 5), if such are the same or different because the claim does not clearly indicate such. The same is applicable to “at least one pressure threshold” and “pressure thresholds” (claim 5). If such are the same, the claim is redundant.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the selected distinctive pressure indicators" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No selecting step has been previously claimed.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "some selected distinctive pressure indicators" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no step that requires anything to be “selected”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required by the claim, how the claim further limits the method because the claim does not provide for any additional step nor further limits any prior claimed step. However, it is unclear what is the nexus of “some selected distinctive pressure indicators” to the previously recited “at least one distinctive pressure indicator” because the claim does not clearly indicate such. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required of any indicator to be “considered characteristic of” of anything because the claim does not clearly indicate such. What any indicator is “considered characteristic of” is subjective/relative. The term “considered characteristic of” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “considered characteristic of” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Furthermore, it is unclear what the phrases “during aspiration”, “during dispensing”, “the aspiration step” (what prior recited step is considered the aspiration step), and “dispensing” references and how such are related to the steps of claim 1. (what/which aspirating and dispensing)? See also claim 10.
Furthermore, it is unclear what the phrases “some others” and “both” are referencing because the claim does not clearly provide for such.
As to claim 8, in the last line, it is unclear what is the nexus of “distinctive pressure indicators” to the previously recited “at least one distinctive pressure indicator” because the claim does not clearly indicate such.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " he best to be monitored" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “best” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “best” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no indication as what is required to be considered as “best”.
It is noted that claims 9 and 12 are directed to “conditions” as indicated by the term “if”. Conditions are not requirements. None of the recited conditions are required to occur, therefore, there is no requirement for anything to occur, be further done. What could possibly happen are not definitive steps of the method.
As to claim 9, it is unclear what/which sensor is being referenced by “the sensor” because claim 5 previously recites “at least one sensor”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “at least one pressure value measured by the sensor” because there is no prior step that requires any measuring of any pressure value. Furthermore, although no detecting is positively claimed as a step, it is unclear what is the difference between detecting a pressure value and measuring a pressure value because the claims do not provide for such.
As to claim 9, it is unclear what is the nexus of “at least one determined pressure threshold corresponding to at least one pressure indicator” (recited twice in claim 9) to the previously recited “pressure thresholds” and “at least one distinctive pressure indicator” of claim 5 because the claim does not provide for such.
Furthermore, it is unclear if the phrases “during sampling step” (recited twice) and “sampling step” are all intended to be the same, refer to the same sampling or different from “the sampling” recited in claim 1 because the claim does not clearly indicate such. See also claim 10.
As to claim 10, see above applicable rejections. Furthermore, it unclear if the phrase “during aspiration of homogenization step and/or during dispensing of homogenization step” are intended to refer to the aspirating and dispensing recited in the 5th paragraph of claim 1. If so, consistent terminology should be employed to indicate such. Furthermore, it is noted that there is no “dispensing phrase” previously recited. It is presumed to be intended to refer to the second phase of [the] sampling step recite in claim 1. If so, the claim should clearly recite such.
As to claim 11, it is unclear if the detecting step is required to employ the control unit to perform a specific step of “commanding…and determining…”because the “configured to…” clause only provides for what the control unit is capable of doing, but does not affirmatively require any step to be performed to define the method.
As to claim 11, it is unclear how the invention currently being defined, an automatic sampling method, can be defined relative to itself, the automatic sampling method (the entire invention) in lines 3-4. It is unclear what is the nexus of “an identified step” to all of the previous recited steps of claim 1 because the claim does not clearly indicate such. Furthermore, it is noted that there is no step claimed that requires “identifying” any step by anyone nor anything. Therefore, it is also unclear what/which step is being referenced by the phrase “the step”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the correspondence of measured pressure value with at least one determined pressure threshold" in the last 2 lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 11, it is further unclear what “measured pressure value” is being reference because there is no prior step that requires any measuring of any pressure value of anything by anyone nor anything. Furthermore, although no detecting and measuring of any pressure value are positively claimed as steps, it is unclear what is the difference between detecting a pressure value and measuring a pressure value.
As to claim 11, it is unclear what is “at least one determined pressure threshold” and what is being reference because there is no prior mention of any determining of at least one pressure threshold of anything nor such being present at all. If applicant intends for the claim to provide for specific steps to further define the method, the claim should clearly recite such.
As to claim 12, see applicable rejections above. It is unclear what is the nexus of “an aspiration step” and “the aspiration” to each other and to the prior “aspirating” recited in the 5th and 7th paragraphs of claim 1 because the claim does not clearly provide for such.
It is noted that that claim 13, employs the same or similar language as claim 1. Therefore, applicant should see applicable rejections of claim 1.
As to claim 13, it is unclear if the container and the at least one well are intended to be positively claimed as elements of the invention because of the language and formatting of the claim (each are not listed on separate indented line) and the phrase “wherein clause is directed to what is done” do not clearly indicate that such are elements of the device. If applicant intends for the device to comprise a container containing the non-homogenous biological sample, wherein the container is in the first workstation, and a least one well in the second work station, wherein the at least one well is configured to receive the predetermined volume of the non-homogenous biological sample, then the claim should clearly recite such.
As to claim 13, it is unclear what is the nexus of a device recited in claim 13 and the structural elements recited in claim 13 (“a container”, “a non-homogenous biological sample”, “a predetermined volume of…”, “at least one pipetting unit…”, “a pipette”, “a tip”, “at least one well”, “at least one control unit” etc.) to the a device (defined by the structures recited in claim 1; and further recitations beginning “a”), if such are the same or different because the claim does not clearly indicate such. Therefore, in claim 13, it is unclear what/which of such structures, materials, etc. (recited in both claims) are being referenced by the respective phrases beginning with “the”, such as “the device”, “the container”, “the well”, “the non-homogenous biological sample”, “the pipette unit”, etc.
As to claim 13, it is unclear what/which well and pipette unit are being referenced by “the well” and “the pipette unit” because claim 13 and claim 1 previously recite “at least one well” and “at least one pipetting unit”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the at least two workstations" in the next-to-last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is the nexus of such to the previously recited a first workstation and second workstation.
It is unclear what is further required by claims 14-15 because the claims do not provide for any additional step nor further limit any prior step of claim 1. There are no detecting and quantifying steps positively claimed. Instead, the claims recite further overall possible, intended uses of the method of claim 1. Possible uses of the method do not further define method. There is difference in scope of claims 14-15 to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al., US 5,555,767.
Makino discloses beginning at column 7, line 29 and further following description and Figs. 2A-2I all features of claim 1,:
automatic sampling method for non-homogenous biological sample ( beginning at col. 1, line 7) contained in a container, said automatic sampling method comprising:
providing a device comprising at least one pipetting unit equipped with at least one pipette with a tip, a control unit cooperating and controlling the pipetting unit (implicit from Fig. 2A-2G),
loading a container containing the non-homogenous biological sample inside the device (at a first workstation)( Fig. 2A-2D),
starting automatic homogenization inside the device, of said non-homogenous biological sample, said homogenization comprising the following substeps:
the tip of the pipette dives into the container at a first predetermined depth under the surface of the non-homogenous biological sample (Fig. 2E),
the pipette operates a plurality of cycles of aspirating and dispensing said nonhomogenous biological sample into the container, wherein in each cycle the pipette aspirates the non-homogenous biological sample at the first predetermined depth, and then dispenses it back inside the container, the tip end of the pipette is being kept under the surface of the non-homogenous biological sample at the first predetermined depth during the plurality of cycles (compare col. 7, line 57- col 8, line 13),
sampling a predetermined volume of non-homogenous biological sample once the plurality of cycles is over, by:
a first phase of aspirating the predetermined volume of non-homogenous biological sample from the container, wherein the tip is immerged at the first predetermined depth (Fig. 2H) and
a second phase of dispensing the predetermined volume previously aspirated, in a well (at a second workstation) distinct from the container containing the non-homogenous biological sample (Fig. 2I).
Makino does not specify the method is automatic and disclose a control unit.
The Applicant is advised that the Supreme Court recently clarified that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Sup. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143).
Common sense, predictability, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art may suffice to establish obviousness.
It would have been obvious to and within the common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide for automation of the method via means such as computer conventionally known in the art or other conventionally known automated means as such would provide for results predictable results and since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. as applied above, and further in view of Bogren et al., US 2006/040403.
Makino does not specify the different aspirating and dispensing speeds.
However, Bogren discloses a method in which a fluid is aspirated and dispensed at different speeds. There are a number of variables that can be adjusted in fluid pulsing, for example the amount of fluid drawn back into the sample probe may be varied, the cycle time between fluid pulses may be varied, the rate at which the fluid is sucked up or squirted out of the sample probe may be changed, and the number of time the fluid is drawn into and then released from the sample probe may be changed. (paragraph 0021, claims 11 and 27).
It would have been obvious to and within the common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide different aspirating and dispensing speeds as taught by Bogren as such would provide for results predictable results, such as uniform mixing (homogenizing) of the fluid.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. as applied above, and further in view of Ueno et al., EP 0527059.
Makino does not detecting a liquid height of the sample in the container by a sensor and monitoring the movement of the tip in the container.
Ueno discloses a method in which a sample is agitated (homogenized) via sucking and discharging the sample into a container. (Abstract). Known means may be used for detecting the liquid surface. The method of determining the moving distance of the pipette from the position information of liquid surface obtained by the liquid surface detecting means is practically described below while referring to fig. 6. (page 5, lines 14-33).
It would have been obvious to and within the common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide detecting liquid level/height in the container and monitoring movement of the tip to ensure the tip is immersed in the liquid during the aspirating and dispensing as taught by Ueno as such would provide for results predictable results.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. as applied above, and further in view of Pionke et al., US 2016/045911
Makino does not disclose detecting pressure during the method.
Pionke discloses method of employing a pipette tip for aspirating and dispensing. The method includes performing pressure sensing (comparing detected values to threshold values) for detecting bubbles or clogs in a pipette tips as a failure of the sampling or dispensing paragraphs [0085 and 136].
It would have been obvious to and within the common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Makino to provide pressure sensing in the pipette tip during the method to detect bubbles or clogs as taught by Pionke as such would provide for results predictable results.
53. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. in view of Pionke et al., US 2016/045911 as applied above, and further in view of Gherson et al., EP 0981048.
The modified teachings of Makino does not disclose triggering an alarm.
Gherson et al. discloses a method of aspirating and dispensing in which pressure is measured and monitored during cycles of aspirating and dispensing to determine the presence of clotting (obstruction). (Abstract). If an obstruction is detected during the method, an alarm is triggered. (paragraphs 0047-48).
It would have been obvious to and within the common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Makino to provide pressure sensing in the pipette tip during the method to detect obstructions and trigger an alarm if such is detected to provide for a fault alert in operation of the device as taught by Gherson as such would provide for results predictable results.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. in view of Pionke et al., US 2016/045911 as applied above, and further in view of Shimoda et al., EP 2006689.
The modified teachings of Makino do not provide for a control unit configured to command a retry.
Shimoda discloses a dispensing and aspirating method performed by a device including a cpu (control unit, providing for automated operation of the device). (Abstract). During the method pressure is detected and monitored to detect clogging. If a clog is detected, the controller provides for resucking (a retry). (paragraph 0003).
It would have been obvious to and within the common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Makino to provide for detecting and monitoring of pressure of the device to detect for a fault in operation and issue a command for resucking (retry) as taught by Shimoda as such would provide for results predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lahdesmaki; Ilkka et al.; Kirk; Brian L. et al.; Small; Nathan A. et al.; Godsey; James Hal et al.; Ou; Boxin et al.; Heavner; David A.; Gorka; Guenther; Kiernan; Urban A. et al.; Plowman; Gregory D. et al.; Tajima; Hideji et al.; Moore, Mathew et al.; Holl; Mark R. et al.; Ishihara, Naruhito et al. and Yahiaoui; Ali et al. disclose devices and methods for aspirating and dispensing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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, Charles 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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798