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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 26 September 2025 have been entered. Applicant's remarks filed 26 September 2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 12 are in status “Currently Amended.” Claim 8 is in status “Original.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 6, filed 26 September 2025, with respect to the objection to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 6, filed 26 September 2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The rejection of claims 3 – 6 and 9 - 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 6, filed 26 September 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the disclosure of Flores Gonzalez et al teaches a “passive cover” is not correct. The cover of Flores Gonzalez et al is explicitly designed to move, as read on (Abstract, “The case comprises a movable cover that exposes only the well or wells being loaded at any moment, while keeping the rest covered.” Emphasis by examiner).
However, the examiner appreciates applicant’s arguments regarding the association of the cover with the moving member. In light of the amendments to the claims, which provide further patentable weight and structure to the protective panel moving part, clarification is provided to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is provided over Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzales et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse et al (US 20170335373 A1) in view of Flores Gonzalez et al (WO 2017212099 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Buse et al teaches;
The claimed “a main body” has been read on the taught (Fig 1, first module 100; [0134], “In some embodiments, diagnostic system 10 comprises a first module 100 configured to perform at least one of the steps of a first target nucleic acid amplification reaction…”);
The claimed “a multi-well plate” has been read on the taught ([0126], “FIG. 2 illustrates one embodiment of MRD 160 that comprises a plurality of individual receptacles…”; [0127], “…the receptacle may be any container suitable for holding a fluid or liquid, including, for example, […] well of a microtiter plate…”);
The claimed “a multi-well plate mounting part” has been read on the taught ([0138], “First module 100 can include receptacle-receiving components configured to receive and hold one or more reaction receptacles…”);
The claimed “circuit board […] the circuit board being configured to record and communicate the positional information of the well acquired by the position measuring unit and the barcode information of the sample acquired by the barcode sensor” has been read on the taught ([0295], “Aspects of the disclosure are implemented via control and computing hardware components, user-created software, data input components, and data output components. Hardware components include computing and control modules (e.g., system controller(s)), such as microprocessors and computers… Such data inputs may comprise positions sensors, motor encoders…”);
The claimed “barcode sensor” has been read on the taught ([0233], “The machine code reader device may comprise a barcode reader 774 configured to read a barcode label 772…”; [0286], “…barcodes on the sample receptacles indicate the appropriate assay…”);
The claimed “a position measuring unit comprising a magnetic sensor and configured to acquire positional information of the well of the multi-well plate” has been read on the taught ([0041], “Each of the tracks has home sensors (or limit switches) for indicating when substance transfer pipettor 410 […] 418 is in one or more designated positions… Such sensors for indicating a home position may include… magnetic sensors…”).
Buse et al additionally teaches a moving pipettor capable of moving the protective caps of receptacles, as read on the taught ([0040], “…the second module further comprises a cap/vial tray configured to hold a plurality of processing vials and/or associated caps…. the associated caps are accessible by the robotic pipettor to move each cap into an associated vial to form a cap/vial assembly.”; the cap reads on a protective panel. The robotic pipettor which moves a cap reads on a protective panel moving part. Buse et al clarifies that the robotic pipettor may be provided on the first module, [0147], “Although not exemplified in the plan drawings of first module 100, the first module 100 may comprise one or more substance transfer devices, for example, robotic pipettors…”).
However, Buse et al fails to teach wherein the protective panel is positioned on an upper surface of the main body including the multi-well plate mounting part and including an inlet penetrating vertically at a selected position to inject a sample into one selected well, and wherein the multi-well plate mounting part is formed in a groove shape on an upper portion of the main body and into which a multi-well plate is inserted and mounted.
In the analogous art of devices for multi-well plates, Flores Gonzalez et al teaches;
The claimed "a main body" and "a multi-well plate mounting part formed in a groove shape on an upper portion of the main body and into which a multi-well plate is inserted and mounted" have been read on the taught (Figure 1, base platform 2, central cavity 5; [0018], "the instrument object of the present invention comprises two main parts… 1. a base platform having a central cavity into which a standard-sized microplate fits precisely"; The base platform reads on a main body. The central cavity reads on a multi-well plate mounting part. The microplate reads on a multi-well plate. Figure 1 shows the details of the groove-shaped cavity into which the microplate is inserted.);
The claimed "a protective panel positioned on an upper surface of the main body including the multi-well plate mounting part and including an inlet penetrating vertically at a selected position to inject a sample into one selected well" has been read on the taught (Figure 1, lid 1, central window 5; [0018], "the instrument object of the present invention comprises two main parts… 2. a lid that covers all wells of the microplate except the one being loaded at any given time, which is uncovered by an opening or window in said lid."; The lid reads on a protective panel. The opening or window in said lid reads on an inlet penetrating vertically to inject a sample into one selected well);
“Wherein the protective panel is movable” has been read on the taught ([0021], “The cover is placed superimposed on the base platform so that it can slide in both dimensions of the plane.”).
The protective panel of Flores Gonzalez et al as taught is manually moved. However, per MPEP 2144.04(III), automating a manual activity may be prima facie obvious—please see In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the movable protective panel designed for use with a pipettor, as taught by Flores Gonzalez et al, with the device including a main body, a multiwell plate, a multiwell plate mounting part, a positional measuring unit, a barcode sensor, a circuit board, and a moving pipettor capable of moving protective caps as taught by Buse et al, for the benefit of creating an automated system with a lid which minimizes aerosol contamination and which protects the underlying well from light exposure (Flores Gonzales et al, [0017], “In this way, this invention helps prevent airborne and aerosol contamination of reaction mixtures during microplate filling, while also making it easier for the operator to follow the loading pattern. The lid can also be opaque to certain wavelengths, allowing the operator to work in full light, even if the microplate wells contain photosensitive compounds.”).
With regards to claim 2, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al.
Buse et al fails to teach wherein the multi-well plate mounting part is formed to have a height at which the protective panel and the multi-well plate are spaced apart.
Flores Gonzalez et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the multi-well plate mounting part has a height at which the protective panel and the multi-well plate are spaced apart” has been read on the taught ([0024], “To prevent the lid and microplate from coming into contact, the case design should ensure that the two always remain at a minimum distance of about 2-3 mm from each other.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of claim 1 as taught by Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al with the multi-well plate mounting part formed with a height such that the panel and the multi-well plate are spaced apart as taught by Flores Gonzalez, for the benefit of minimizing contact-based contamination between the panel and the plate ([0011], “Contamination in PCR samples can have various origins… Sometimes it comes from […] the materials or instruments with which they are manipulated (reaction tubes, pipette tips, etc.).”).
With regards to claim 4, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al.
Buse et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the protective panel moving part includes a first protective panel moving part” has been read on the taught ([0166], “The robotic pipettor system 402 comprises a Cartesian gantry assembly with two transverse tracks 404, 406, a back arm longitudinal track 420, and a front arm longitudinal track 412.”; The cartesian gantry assembly reads on the first protective panel moving part);
The claimed first protective panel moving part including “Y-axis parts coupled to the main body, spaced apart from each other and extending in a Y-axis direction, Y-axis slides configured to move in the Y-axis direction along the Y-axis parts, respectively, an X-axis part extending in an X-axis direction and having both ends coupled to the Y-axis slides, respectively, and an X-axis slide moving along the X-axis part and coupled with an upper surface of the protective panel” has been read on the taught (Figure 1, second module 400, robotic pipettor system 402; Figure 21; [0166], “The robotic pipettor system 402 comprises a Cartesian gantry assembly with two transverse tracks 404, 406, a back arm longitudinal track 420, and a front arm longitudinal track 412.”);
Buse et al teaches the details of the XY gantry assembly in Figure 21, [0166], and [0167].
Figure 1 shows robotic pipettor 402 with fixtures coupled to the main body, per the claim language. While Figure 1 shows the gantry attached to module 2, Buse et al teaches that this may be associated with module 1 ([0147], “Although not exemplified in the plan drawings of first module 100, the first module 100 may comprise one or more substance transfer devices, for example, robotic pipettors…”).
With regards to claim 5, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al.
Buse et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the protective panel moving part includes a second protective panel moving part” has been read on the taught ([0166], “The robotic pipettor system 402 comprises a Cartesian gantry assembly with two transverse tracks 404, 406, a back arm longitudinal track 420, and a front arm longitudinal track 412.”; The cartesian gantry assembly reads on the second protective panel moving part);
The claimed second protective panel moving part including “Y-axis screws coupled to the main body, spaced apart from each other and extending in a Y- axis direction, Y-axis slides configured to move in the Y-axis direction along the Y-axis screws, respectively, an X-axis screw extending in an X-axis direction and having both ends coupled to the Y-axis slides, respectively, and an X-axis slide moving along the X-axis screw and coupled to an upper surface of the protective panel” has been read on the taught (Figure 1, second module 400, robotic pipettor system 402; Figure 21; [0166], “The robotic pipettor system 402 comprises a Cartesian gantry assembly with two transverse tracks 404, 406, a back arm longitudinal track 420, and a front arm longitudinal track 412.”);
Buse et al teaches the details of the XY gantry assembly in Figure 21, [0166], and [0167].
Figure 1 shows robotic pipettor 402 with fixtures coupled to the main body. While Figure 1 shows the gantry attached to module 2, Buse et al teaches that this may be associated with module 1 ([0147], “Although not exemplified in the plan drawings of first module 100, the first module 100 may comprise one or more substance transfer devices, for example, robotic pipettors…”).
With regards to claim 6, the device of claim 5 is obvious over Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al.
Buse et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the second protective panel moving part further includes a motor for operating the Y-axis screws and the X-axis screw” has been read on the taught ([0167], “The substance transfer pipettor 410 may be driven back and forth along the front arm longitudinal track 412 by a belt, drive screw, or other motion transmission device coupled to a motor… The front arm longitudinal track 412 may be driven back and forth along the transverse tracks 404, 406 by a belt, drive screw, or other motion transmission device coupled to a motor…”).
With regards to claim 11, the device of claim 5 is obvious over Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al.
Buse et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the protective panel moving part further includes a Y-axis driving unit connected to the one or more Y-axis screws to operate simultaneously” has been read on the taught ([0167], “The front arm longitudinal track 412 may be driven back and forth along the transverse tracks 404, 406 by a belt, drive screw, or other motion transmission device coupled to a motor, and the back arm longitudinal track 420 may be driven back and forth along the transverse tracks 404, 406 by a belt, drive screw, or other motion transmission device coupled to a motor.”; The motion transmission devices coupled to the two transverse tracks reads on a Y-axis screw and driving unit connecting the one or more Y-axis screws to operate simultaneously.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse et al (US 20170335373 A1) in view of Flores Gonzales et al (WO 2017212099 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Fredrick (US 20050277122 A1).
With regards to claim 3, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al.
However, Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al fails to teach wherein the inlet comprises an upper portion and a lower portion having a diameter smaller than that of the upper portion, and wherein the lower portion of the inlet is provided with a hollow anti-contamination plate.
In the analogous art of plates for use with microwell arrays, Fredrick teaches;
The claimed “wherein the inlet comprises an upper portion and a lower portion having a diameter smaller than that of the upper portion” has been read on the taught ([0104], “The diameter or width of the holes may be any suitable width any may be constant throughout the hole or may change, e.g., the diameter may increase or decrease from opening 411b to 411a.”);
The claimed wherein “the lower portion of the inlet is provided with a hollow anti-contamination plate” has been read on the taught ([0105], “In certain embodiments, the perimeter of an opening of one or more holes of a reservoir plate may be surrounded by a fluid retaining structure 450 such as a gasket or surface treatment (hydrophilic) or the like which may serve to help maintain a fluid at a particular location of an array assembly, e.g., about a particular array...”; The gasket reads on a hollow anti-contamination plate. See also [0119].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device including a protective panel with inlet as taught by Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al as applied to claim 1 with the hollow anti-contamination plate as taught by Fredrick, in order to prevent cross-contamination of fluids between arrays ([0088], “One particular feature of the subject reservoir plates is that, when used, there is no cross-contamination of fluids between fluid contacted with one array, e.g., an array of a set of arrays, and fluid contacted with any other arrays, e.g., any other arrays of a set of chemical arrays.”).
Claims 7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse et al (US 20170335373 A1) in view of Flores Gonzalez et al (WO 2017212099 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ausserlechner et al (US 20130043863 A1).
With regards to claim 7, the device of claim 1 is obvious over Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al.
Buse et al additionally teaches that movable portions of the gantry may include magnetic sensors for determining designated positions ([0167], “Each of the tracks has home sensors (or limit switches) for indicating when the substance transfer pipettor 410 or the vial transfer arm 418 is in one or more designated positions, such as a designated “home” position... Such sensors for indicating a home position may include […] magnetic sensors…”).
However, Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al do not explicitly disclose the arrangement of parts within a magnetic sensor for establishing this home position.
In the analogous art of position sensing, Ausserlechner et al teaches that a permanent magnet can be coupled to a first object and a magnetic sensor can be placed apart from the first object, in order to determine the position of the first object, as read on the taught (Claim 19, “A method of sensing a linear position of an object comprising: coupling one of a permanent magnet or a sensor to the object […]; arranging the other of the sensor or the permanent magnet proximate to and spaced apart from the one of the permanent magnet or the sensor in a y-direction…”).
While Ausserlechner et al fails to disclose the use of a plurality of magnets, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) teaches that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”—see In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
According to MPEP 2143(A), combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may support a prima facie case of obviousness. In the case of claim 7, the prior art teaches the device of claim 1, including a protective panel and main body, as seen in Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al. The prior art further teaches permanent magnets and magnetic sensors, as seen in Ausserlechner et al. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements by the known method taught by Ausserlechner, and found that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, and that the combination would have the predictable result of a system which could measure the position of the protective panel with respect to the main body. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the disclosure of a gantry system including a magnet “home” position sensor, as taught by Buse et al, with the magnetic sensor system as taught Ausselechner et al, to arrive at the claimed “wherein the position measuring unit includes a plurality of permanent magnets provided in the protective panel and the magnetic sensor coupled to the main body to detect the permanent magnets.”
With regards to claim 9, the device of claim 5 is obvious over Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al.
Buse et al additionally teaches that movable portions of the gantry may include magnetic sensors for determining designated positions ([0167], “Each of the tracks has home sensors (or limit switches) for indicating when the substance transfer pipettor 410 or the vial transfer arm 418 is in one or more designated positions, such as a designated “home” position... Such sensors for indicating a home position may include […] magnetic sensors…”).
However, Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al do not explicitly disclose the arrangement of parts within a magnetic sensor for establishing this home position.
In the analogous art of position sensing, Ausserlechner et al teaches that a permanent magnet can be coupled to a first object and a magnetic sensor can be placed apart from the first object, in order to determine the position of the first object, as read on the taught (Claim 19, “A method of sensing a linear position of an object comprising: coupling one of a permanent magnet or a sensor to the object […]; arranging the other of the sensor or the permanent magnet proximate to and spaced apart from the one of the permanent magnet or the sensor in a y-direction…”).
According to MPEP 2143(A), combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may support a prima facie case of obviousness. In the case of claim 9, the prior art teaches the device of claim 5, including a Y-axis and X-axis slide as well as a main body, as seen in Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al. The prior art further teaches permanent magnets and magnetic sensors, as seen in Ausserlechner et al. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements by the known method taught by Ausserlechner, and found that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, and that the combination would have the predictable result of a system which could measure the position of the Y-axis slide and X-axis slide with respect to the main body. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the disclosure of a gantry system including a magnet “home” position sensor, as taught by Buse et al, with the magnetic sensor system as taught Ausselechner et al, to arrive at the claimed “wherein the position measuring unit includes at least one permanent magnet provided on the Y-axis slides and the X-axis slide, and the magnetic sensor coupled the main body to detect the permanent magnet.”
With regards to claim 10, the device of claim 9 is obvious over Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al and further in view of Ausserlecher et al.
According to MPEP 2143(A), combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may support a prima facie case of obviousness. In the case of claim 10, the prior art teaches the device of claim 9, including a Y-axis and X-axis slide, Y-axis slide block, and a main body, as seen in Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al. The prior art further teaches permanent magnets and magnetic sensors, as seen in Ausserlechner et al. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements by the known method taught by Ausserlechner, and found that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, and that the combination would have the predictable result of a system which could measure the position of the slides and slide block with respect to the main body. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the disclosure of a gantry system including a magnet “home” position sensor, as taught by Buse et al, with the magnetic sensor system as taught Ausselechner et al, to arrive at the claimed “wherein the position measuring unit includes one or more permanent magnets provided on one of the Y-axis slides, and the magnetic sensor is configured to detect the permanent magnets.”
With regards to claim 12, the device of claim 11 is obvious over Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al.
Buse et al additionally teaches that movable portions of the gantry may include magnetic sensors for determining designated positions ([0167], “Each of the tracks has home sensors (or limit switches) for indicating when the substance transfer pipettor 410 or the vial transfer arm 418 is in one or more designated positions, such as a designated “home” position... Such sensors for indicating a home position may include […] magnetic sensors…”).
However, Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al do not explicitly disclose the arrangement of parts within a magnetic sensor for establishing this home position.
In the analogous art of position sensing, Ausserlechner et al teaches that a permanent magnet can be coupled to a first object and a magnetic sensor can be placed apart from the first object, in order to determine the position of the first object, as read on the taught (Claim 19, “A method of sensing a linear position of an object comprising: coupling one of a permanent magnet or a sensor to the object […]; arranging the other of the sensor or the permanent magnet proximate to and spaced apart from the one of the permanent magnet or the sensor in a y-direction…”).
According to MPEP 2143(A), combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may support a prima facie case of obviousness. In the case of claim 12, the prior art teaches the device of claim 11, including a Y-axis driving unit and main body, as seen in Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al. The prior art further teaches permanent magnets and magnetic sensors, as seen in Ausserlechner et al. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements by the known method taught by Ausserlechner, and found that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, and that the combination would have the predictable result of a system which could measure the position of the Y-axis driving unit with respect to the main body. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the disclosure of a gantry system including a magnet “home” position sensor, as taught by Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al, with the magnetic sensor system as taught Ausselechner et al, to arrive at the claimed “wherein the Y-axis driving unit includes one or more permanent magnets and the magnetic sensor is configured to detect the permanent magnets.”
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse et al (US 20170335373 A1) in view of Flores Gonzalez et al (WO 2017212099 A1) in view of Ausserlechner et al (US 20130043863 A1) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Bruwer et al (US 20210285795 A1, effective filing date 10 March 2020).
With regards to claim 8, the device of claim 7 is obvious over Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al and further in view of Ausserlechner et al.
However, this combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the position measuring unit further includes a pure iron rod that is formed on the magnetic sensor and has a length corresponding to a movement length of the protective panel.
In the analogous art of magnetic position sensors, Bruwer et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein the position measuring unit further includes a pure iron rod that is formed on the magnetic sensor and has a length corresponding to a movement length of the protective panel.” has been read on the taught ([0006], “Magnetic flux-guides or flux-conductors may be used to guide magnetic fields along a specific path or to focus magnetic fields onto a magnetic field sensor, for example a Hall sensor.”; [0016], “Using material with a high magnetic permeability (compared with air) it is proposed to create guides (flux-guides) for the magnetic fields. This allows the capturing of magnetic fields at a preferred location within the magnetic circuit and to route (guide) these fields to the magnetic field sensors located at another point along the magnetic circuit. A magnetic circuit may be understood to, amongst others, contain elements which guide or conduct magnetic fields, as well as magnetic field sources, e.g. a magnet, and/or elements which store magnetic energy, as is known in the art.”; [0063], “The flux-guides can be made with ferromagnetic metal such as iron rods…”).
According to MPEP 2143(A), combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may support a prima facie case of obviousness. In the case of claim 8, the prior art teaches the device of claim 7, including a protective panel and a magnetic sensor, as seen in Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al and further in view of Ausserlechner et al. The prior art further teaches iron rod wave guides formed on the magnetic sensor, as seen in Bruwer et al. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements by the known method taught by Bruwer et al, and found that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, and that the combination would have the predictable result of a system which could measure the position of a protective panel across its entire movement length. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the disclosure of a gantry system including a magnet “home” position sensor, as taught by Buse et al in view of Flores Gonzalez et al and further in view of Ausserlechner et al with the iron rod flux guide as taught by Bruwer et al, to arrive at the claimed “wherein the position measuring unit further includes a pure iron rod that is formed on the magnetic sensor and has a length corresponding to a movement length of the protective panel.”
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 ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30pm EST.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797