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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract employs legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the integrated pipetting pump (claim 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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).
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”.
A claim is only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus.
It is noted that the claims mention a Z-shaft, two L-bearings, spring loaded counter bearings, plate, clamping screw, oblong hole, etc. However, none of such are positively claimed (listed on separate intended lines in the body of the claims) as elements of the inventions.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims are not drafted according to US practices such that each structural element is listed on a separate indented line. The claims are formatted as and read as long run-on clauses. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
There is no structural difference between the device of claim 1 and system of claim 10. Referring to the device of claim 1 as a system in claim 10 does not provide for any structural distinction from the device . The system of claim 10 is defined by the same device as that of claim 1.
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 language employed throughout the claims is vague, ambiguous, and confusing to the extent such that the metes and bounds, scope of the claims is unclear.
As to claims 1 and 10, it is unclear how the positively claimed elements provided for in the claims, define “a pipette device” because the positively claimed elements are insufficient to provide for what is conventionally known in the art as a pipette. It appears that applicant has elected to only positively claim some parts of the entire invention that is considered as defining a pipette (an apparatus/device with sufficient structure for aspirating and dispensing fluids) instead of sufficient components that would actually define a pipette. There are no structures (such as pump, plunger, piston, etc.) provided for in the claims that can provide for any motive forces to any fluid.
As to claims 1-15, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the positively claimed elements because none of the recited elements are required to be structurally connected to each other so as to define a single apparatus/device. A list of parts that are not required to be structurally connected do not define a single apparatus. Therefore, it is unclear how the claims as drafted are considered to define a single apparatus/device.
As to claim 1, it is unclear how a housing can be defined by only two parallel flat surfaces because the two parallel surfaces that are not required to be structurally connected to each other do not define a housing (an enclosure) that would surround, enclose, circumscribe, etc. anything. Furthermore, it is unclear what structures in the drawings are considered as the two flat surfaces because such are not labeled by any reference numbers. It is noted that the there are multiple components/structures of the device that have flat surfaces.
As to claims 1, 7, 10, and 12, it is unclear what nouns/structures are being referenced by the pronouns “them”, “its”, and “its” respectively.
It is unclear if applicant intends for the device to comprise a Z-shaft because the claim does not clearly recite such. Reciting that the housing “surrounds” a Z-shaft (not structurally defined by any specific structures in the claim) does not require the Z-shaft to be an element of the device. Furthermore, it is noted that two flat surfaces cannot surround anything as stated above. Furthermore, it is noted that the term “surround” does not provide for any structural connectivity between the housing and Z-shaft.
As to claims 1-11 and 15, it is unclear what is required of the structures to be considered as “Z”, “Y”, and “L”. For example, there is no indication as to what is required of a shaft, drive, drive gear, motor, gear rod, bearings, direction, etc. to be considered as a “Z-…”, “Y….”, and “L…”. There is no structural distinctions between such labels Z, Y, and L provided for in the claims.
As to claim 1, it is unclear if applicant intends for the device to comprise two L-bearings and spring loaded counter bearings because reciting what the Z-shaft is pushed by does not require what is intended to do the pushing to be elements of the device (note: the claims are directed to a device, not a method of use…no pushing of anything is ever required to occur). Furthermore, it is noted that the phrase does not provide for nor require any structural connectivity between any structures. It is further unclear if the L-bearings are required to comprise spring loaded counter bearings because the term “with” does not mean “comprise”. It could mean “along with”…as in what is also further used with…. See also the term “with” recited throughout the claims. Therefore, it is also unclear what is meant, required by the phrase “with a first outer surface towards a first longitudinal end of the housing” and what such phrase is meant to modify. It is unclear what is structurally meant by “towards” and what is the nexus of such longitudinal end of the housing to the two flat plates because such end is not defined relative to such. There is no indication as to what structures define such “end” and what are the structural boundaries, dimensions, etc. so as to determine where such “end” begins and ends, so as to determine what is such end and distinguish such end from any other part.
It is further unclear if applicant intends for the spring loaded counter bearings (not clearly structural defined in the claim) to comprise any spring. Just because a structure is labeled as “spring loaded” does not meant the structure comprises any spring. A structure can be “spring loaded” by a spring or some other structure that is not an element of the counter bearings. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required of bearings to be considered as “counter” bearings.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer surface of the Z-shaft opposite the first surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “a first outer surface” and “the outer surface of the Z-shaft” are the same or different. There is no prior mention of any surface being opposite any other surface. It is unclear what is the nexus of “the first surface” to any other previously mentioned surface because the claim does not clearly recite such. It is unclear what surface is being referenced by the phrase.
As to claims 1, 7, 10, and 12, it is unclear what is structurally required, considered by the term “outer” because there is no relative basis provided for in the claim. Any structure can be considered as relatively “outer” to something else that the structure is not located within or some other basis.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the “Z-motor gear unit” to the housing (only defined by two flat parallel surfaces) because the claim does not provide for such. See also above remarks/rejections. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally meant required by the phrase “with a Z-drive and Z-drive gear wheel” (neither of such are structurally defined by any specific structures) because of the term “with” addressed above. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the Z-drive and Z-drive gear wheel” because the claim does not provide for such (as noted above a single apparatus, device, unit, etc. cannot be defined by structures that are not structurally connected). It is noted that the phrase “which engages” does not provide for nor require any structural connectivity.
Furthermore, it is unclear what the phrase “its teeth” references and what/which surface it being referenced by “the toothed surface of the Z-shaft” (if this is meant to refer to the outer surface of the Z-shaft, the claim should clearly recite such).
As to claim 1, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the “Y-drive” and “Y-drive gear wheel” to the housing (only defined by two flat parallel surfaces and Z-motor gear unit) because the claim does not provide for such. See also above remarks/rejections. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the phrase “a Y-drive gear wheel that is arranged next to an opening of the housing” because of the housing has not been claimed as comprising any opening. It is unclear what is the nexus of such opening to the prior flat surfaces and Z-motor gear unit because the claim does not provide for such.
The term “arranged next to” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “arranged next to” 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. It is noted that the phrase does not provide for nor require any structural connectivity nor any definitive relative location, distance of any structures. What may be considered as “arranged next to” to one person may not be considered as such to another and vice versa. Furthermore, it is unclear what is shown in the figures is considered as such opening because such is not referenced by any reference number.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what the phrase “configured for accomodating a Y-gear rod” is meant to modify, …the housing, opening, or Y-gear drive wheel. However, it is noted that no Y-gear rod (not referenced in the specification and drawings by any reference number) is not structurally defined in the claim nor positively claimed as an element of the device. The “configure for” clause is directed to intended use.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim.
As to claim 2, it is presumed that term “magnetised” (misspelling) is intended to be “magnetized”. See also other such terms employed throughout the claims, such as “initialising” (claim 3).
It is unclear what is structurally meant, required by claim 2 because it is unclear what is the nexus of a Z-drive motor shaft’s to the Z-drive motor because the claim does not clearly recite such. If applicant intends for the such motor to comprise such a shaft then the claim should clearly recite such. As noted above, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of such Z-drive (Z-drive motor) to the Z-drive gear wheel. Furthermore, it is unclear what structurally constitutes an “end” and “opposite end” of such shaft because such “ends” are not structurally defined in the claim. See the prior rejection above directed to “end”. Therefore, it is also unclear what is meant by “at an….end”.
It is also unclear what is the nexus of a Z-drive motor shaft to the previously recited “Z-shaft” in claim 1 because the claim does not provide for such. Both are Z-shafts.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the rotation angle of a magnetic field” and “the position of the Z-drive’s motor shaft". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Although no determining, rotating, nor applying of any magnetic field to anything is required to be performed, it is unclear what is the nexus of such magnetic field to the previously recited magnet and what is structurally required of a magnet to be considered as “a diametrically magnetised round magnet” because the claim does not provide for such.
As to claim 2, it is unclear what is “a circuit board arranged encoder chip” because the phrase implies that this is a single chip. However, this not consistent with the specification because the specification recites encoder chip 23 and a circuit board 24.
As to claim 3, it is unclear what is structurally required to be considered “a slotted light barrier” because such is not structurally defined in the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structurally connectivity of such barrier to the prior previously positively claimed elements of the housing because the claim does not provide for such. It is unclear what is the structurally connectivity of the barrier to the Z-shaft because the phrase “for initialising the Z-shaft” does not provide for nor require any structural connectivity. Although no initializing of anything of the Z-shaft is required to be performed, it is unclear what about the shaft is intended to be initialized because the claim does not provide for such.
As to claim 4, it is unclear what is required of a pump to be considered as “an integrated pipetting pump” because such is defined in the claim by any specific structures nor is there any indication as to what such pump is required to be integrated with. Although, the “for providing…” clause is directed to intended use. It is noted that the pump alone is not capable of providing liquid (to anywhere) nor taking up any liquid (into anything).
As to claim 4, it is unclear how one can have the pump without the pump unit that the pump is an element of. (See paragraph 0046 of the publication).
As to claim 5, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the Y-drive motor to the prior positively claimed structures of the housing because the claim does not provide for such. It is noted that claim 1 previously states the housing comprises a Y-drive. It is noted that any claimed structure of, comprising the housing is the housing. The Y-drive, Y-drive motor is not connected to itself.
As to claim 6, it is unclear if applicant intends for the plate, clamping screw, and oblong hole to be elements of the invention. However, as presently drafted all of such are not positively claimed as elements of the invention. It is noted that reciting that a previously positively claimed element is connected to a plate (not previously positively claimed) does not require the plate to be an element of the device. It is noted that the “for engaging…” clause is directed to intended use. It is noted that what “can be” done and what any action/step can be done with (a clamping screw, oblong hole, …) does not further structurally define the device.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the position of the axis". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "its outer circumference" and “its axis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Nothing has been previously claimed as having an outer circumference and an axis. It is unclear what “a shape” references and what is required to have such a shape as recited in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required by the “configured to allow a play compensation”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is considered “play compensation” because such is not structurally defined in the claim.
As to claim 8, it is unclear what is the structural nexus/connectivity of the Y-drive gear wheel and a first side because “arranged at a first side” does not provide for nor require any structurally connections. It is unclear what how the opening has any sides. There is no prior establishment that the hole comprises any sides.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the opposite side to the first side of the opening". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what “is a ball bearing arranged as a counter bearing” and what is structurally required of such ball bearing to be considered as a counter bearing because the claim does not provide for such. If the phrase is referring to the Y-drive gear wheel, it is unclear how such wheel is a ball bearing.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the Z-drive motor shaft’s end of the Z-drive". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such shaft and shaft end has been previously claimed. See also applicable rejection above directed to “end”.
As to claim 9, it is unclear what is the structurally connectivity of the Z-drive motor gear unit, Z-drive motor shaft’s end of the Z-drive, and Z-drive gear wheel because the claim does not provide for such. The term “between” does not require nor provide for any structural connectivity.
Claim 10 employs the same or similar language as claim 1. Therefore, applicant should see the applicable rejections of claim 1 above. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structural difference between claims 1 and 10 because the system of claim 10 is only defined by the same device of claim 1. Renaming the device a system does not provide for any structural distinction.
As to claim 11, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the Y-drive gear rack (not structurally defined in the claim by any specific structure), opening, and Y-drive gear wheel of the Y-drive because the claim does not provide for such. It is noted that there is no requirement for anything to be “guided” by nor “engaged” (not structurally defined) with anything. Such terms do not provide for nor require any structural connectivity.
As to claim 12, it is unclear what/which surface corresponds to the outer surface of the housing because such is not labeled in the specification and drawings by any reference numeral and specifically structurally defined in the claim. It is noted that every positively claimed element of the housing can be considered as having an outer surface of the housing. Therefore, it is unclear what is the structural nexus, connectivity of the at least two vertically spaced ball bearings to the prior positively claimed elements of the housing. It is unclear if applicant intends for “a guiding bar” be a structural element of the invention. As presently drafted, such guiding bar is not positively claimed. It is further noted that the term “between” does not provide for any structural connectivity/contact of any structures. Furthermore, it is unclear what/which ball bearings are the at least two vertically spaced ball bearings because the specification does not clearly provide for such. Furthermore, it is noted that “at least two” provides for more than two. As noted above, the examiner fails to located what are the at least two and more than two ball bearings and where such are described in the specification and shown in the drawings.
As to claims 13-14, see above rejection of claim 12. As to claim 13, it is unclear if the “an adjusting slide” is intended to be an element of the invention because such has not been previously listed as an element of the invention (system nor device). As presently drafted, the “an adjusting slide” is not positively claimed as a structural element of the invention. See also the prior rejections/remarks above directed to structural connectivity and claim 6.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the first ball bearing” and “the distance between the at least two ball bearings". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear what is the structural nexus of “the first ball bearing” to the at least two vertically spaced ball bearings because the claim does not provide for such. It is noted as stated above that no process steps/actions (adjusting, moving, etc.) are required to be performed. The apparatus is not structurally defined by any process steps.
As to claim 14, it is unclear if the “an eccentric” is intended to be an element of the invention (and what is structurally required to be considered as an eccentric) because such has not been previously listed as an element of the invention (system nor device) nor defined as being and specific structure. As presently drafted, the “an eccentric” is not positively claimed as a structural element of the invention. See also the prior rejections/remarks above directed to structural connectivity and claim 6.
Furthermore it is unclear what is considered as a “height” of the housing because it is unclear if such refers to a specific “height” of the housing (or some structure of the housing) above some other structure, a height of a structure that the housing comprises, an overall height of the entire/whole (as defined by all of the elements of the) housing, etc. because the claim does not clearly indicate such.
As to claim 15, it is unclear what is structurally meant and required by “further slide bearings” and “further openings” because no prior slide bearings and openings have been previously claimed. It unclear what are such further slide bearings and further openings because the examiner fails to locate such being labeled by any reference numerals in the specification and drawings. It is noted that the “for movement of the pipetting device in Y-direction” is directed to intended use and a “Y-direction” has not been defined as being specific direction relative to anything. Although, the pipetting device is not required to be moved at all in any direction, it is unclear what is structurally required, meant by the “for supporting movements of the pipetting device in Y-direction”. There is nothing precluding and owner, possessor, user, etc. of the invention from moving the pipetting device by hand (or any other means) in any direction one chooses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WANG KENG MENG; Albert et al.; Schroer; Erhard et al.; Kunsch; Matthias; Moskalev; Anatoly et al.; COTE; Richard; Hunt; Barry F. et al.; SCHNEIDER; Kieran et al.; Wilmes; Hugo; LIU; Dan et al.; BOLLI; Beat; Wilmer; Jens; Briscoe, Matt et al.; Wilmer; Jens et al.; Wells; John R.; Meltzer; Walter; Peetz; Torsten et al. disclose devices comprising gears and/or wheels.
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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571-272-1267. 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