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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that applicant has amended claims 1 and 25. However, the amendments are insufficient to overcome all of the prior claim objections and 112 rejections. Furthermore, applicant has not provided for the text of the original specification, specified where each of the amendments are described in the originally filed specification.
As to the claim objection of claims 1. 25, and 26 Applicant states:
“Regarding the allegations that claims 1 and 25 are substantial duplicates, the objection under MPEP § 608.01(m) is not proper because claim 1 is directed to a system comprising multiple components, whereas claim 25 is directed to a robot machine itself. Thus the claims are different classes. As recognized in MPEP § 608.01(m), claims in different statutory classes that define distinct inventions should not be treated as "multiplicitous." Courts have recognized that apparatus claims and system claims are not necessarily duplicative even if they share components (see In re Kelly, 200 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1978), noting that statutory classes and claim scope matter). Multiplicity objections are rare and discouraged if claims have practical distinctions (see MPEP § 2173.05(n), "multiplicity should be applied sparingly") Accordingly, withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. A “system” and “a robot” are not distinct/different statutory classes of inventions as stated by applicant.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
There are only four statutory classifications of inventions, (1) a process; (2) a machine; (3) [process of] manufacture and (4) composition of matter. A “system” (claim 1) and “a robot” (claim 25) are both within the same statutory classification, a machine (apparatus).
It is noted that applicant did not provide for any structural distinctions between the “system” and “robot” as respectively defined by the positively claimed structural elements listed in claims 1 and 25. There is no structural distinction between the claims in terms of the structures that are positively claimed as defining the system of claim 1 and robot of claim 25. The names (“system” and “robot”) of the inventions do not provide for any structural elements of the respective inventions. Each claim (1 and 25, both now amended, including thee same exact additional language) provides for the system and robot being structurally defined the same positively structural elements listed after the transitional phrase “comprising”. Therefore, the objection is hereby maintained. If applicant disagrees, then applicant should provide for the structural distinctions of the positively claimed elements between such claims.
As to the 112(b) rejections, applicant states:
“Independent claim 1 as amended recites, inter alia, "A dispensing system for individually dispensing a specimen accommodated in a specimen container into a dispensing container inside a specimen processing cabinet" ... and "in a state where at least the body of the robot is arranged outside the specimen processing cabinet and the hand provided in the first robot arm and the dispenser provided in the second robot arm are inserted into the specimen processing cabinet, the dispenser dispenses the specimen accommodated in the specimen container held by the hand into the dispensing container" (emphasis added).”
It is noted that the portion of the claim, the preamble, has not been amended nor has the paragraph beginning with “in a state where…” been amended. However, it is noted that the preamble does not provide for any structural elements that define the claimed invention “a dispensing system” (apparatus of claim 1). Such apparatus is defined by the positively claimed structural elements listed on separate indented lines in the body of the clam after the phrase, “the dispensing system comprising:”
The ”a specimen” (not specified as any specific chemical/substance); “a specimen container”; “a dispensing container”; and “a specimen processing container” recited in the preamble of the claim are not positively claimed as structural elements of the system (apparatus).
It is noted that the “for dispensing…” clause of the preamble is directed to intended used. The claimed invention is directed to an apparatus not a process of use. It is noted that the paragraph beginning with “in a state where at…” is essentially the same as stating “when….at least the body of the robot….” which is a condition based upon conditional usage that is never required to occur. As noted above, the specimen processing cabinet is not positively claimed as an element of the system and the body of the robot is never required to be located inside/nor outside of such cabinet that is not a structural element of the system. There is no requirement for the claimed system (apparatus) to be used in any process, to perform any processes steps, including dispensing, processing, etc. of anything. An owner, possessor, operator, purchaser, etc. of the claimed system is not required to ever use the apparatus do anything at all, including for any purpose of use as may be intended by applicant with any unclaimed cabinet nor any other further unclaimed materials/structures..
The paragraph beginning with “in the state where at…” does not provide for any further structural positively claimed element of the system, but is directed to how the first robot and second robot can be used relative to the unclaimed specimen, specimen container, and dispensing container. The recitation of “the dispenser dispenses the specimen container held by the hand into the dispensing container” is a process step. As previously stated above no such “state” is ever required to occur and no specimen, specimen container held by the hand, and dispensing container positively claimed as elements of the invention/system. If applicant intends for such to be claimed as elements, then the claim should clearly recite such. For example,
the dispensing system comprising:
a specimen processing cabinet;
a specimen container containing a specimen;
a dispensing container located inside of the specimen processing cabinet;
a robot comprising:
a first robot arm including a hand for holding the specimen container:
a second robot arm including a dispenser for dispensing the specimen contained in the specimen container into the dispensing container;
and a body that supports the first robot arm and the second robot arm;
a rotatable, disk-shaped placing table including a circumference and the disk-shaped placing table is arranged inside the specimen processing cabinet;
a plurality of the specimen container are located on and in a circumferential shape around the disk shaped placing table at a first radial distance from a center of disk shaped placing table;
a plurality of the dispensing container are located on and in a circumferential shape around the disk shaped placing table at a second radial distance less than the first radial distance from the center of disk-shaped placing table; and
a programmed control unit comprising control communication unit and the control unit is configured to control….
wherein, the hand of the first robot arm is configured to rotate the disk-shaped placing table by an angle so as to allow access to a pair of containers comprising one of the plurality of specimen containers and one of the plurality of dispensing containers that are located along a same radial line extending from the center of the disk-shaped placing table.
In the alternative, applicant could chose to not claim/list the “a specimen container containing a specimen” and “a dispensing container located inside of the specimen processing cabinet” as elements of the invention as above, but instead, claim/list the “a rotatable, disk-shaped placing table arranged inside the specimen processing cabinet;” and then claim a plurality of specimen containers….; a plurality of dispensing containers….with the appropriate, accurate structural description as to where such are located on the rotatable, disk-shaped placing table…and further provide for how the robot arms/hand are related to function via the control unit relative to the plurality of specimen containers and plurality of dispensing containers; or something similar that clearly positively claims, provides for a list of the structural elements that define the system. However, applicant should ensure any such amendments are not directed to new matter, but are consistent with and supported by the originally filed specification.
As to claim 2, applicant states:
“Claim 2 recites that a specimen container lid is opened; claim 3 depends from claim 2 and refers to the opened specimen container lid.”
It is noted that applicant does not provide for the entirety of claims 2 and 3, which are:
2. (Original) The dispensing system according to claim 1,
wherein the specimen container includes a specimen container main body and a specimen container lid that covers an opening of the specimen container main body, and
the robot performs an operation of opening the specimen container lid of the specimen container inside the specimen processing cabinet.
3. (Original) The dispensing system according to claim 2,
wherein the robot performs an operation of closing the opened specimen container lid of the specimen container inside the specimen processing cabinet.
It is noted that neither claim provides for, positively claims any additional/further structural element of the claimed system. Instead, the claims are directed to the unclaimed specimen container and processing cabinet (both not positively claimed as structural elements of the invention) and processes steps what the robot can possibly do relative to the unclaimed specimen container. However, as presently drafted, no specimen container including a lid that covers an opening the specimen container main body is positively claimed as a structural element of the invention (required to be located in any hand nor anywhere else) nor is any specimen container with an opened lid positively claimed as a structural element of the invention. The “performs an operation of…” clauses in both claims are directed to process steps, intended use relative to the unclaimed specimen container and specimen processing cabinet. Furthermore, it is noted that the invention as claimed can not perform such operations without a controller, programmed command unit 91 that controls the system/robot. However, such is not positively claimed as an element of the invention.
Applicant further states:
Claim 1 recites that a specimen container is held by the hand and claim 12 recites that a dispensing container is held by the hand.
It is noted that applicant fails to provide for the entirety of the paragraph that refers to such. Such paragraph of claim 1 recites:
"in a state where at least the body of the robot is arranged outside the specimen processing cabinet and the hand provided in the first robot arm and the dispenser provided in the second robot arm are inserted into the specimen processing cabinet, the dispenser dispenses the specimen accommodated in the specimen container held by the hand into the dispensing container"
As noted above, such paragraph is directed to a conditional use, process step that is not required to ever occur. There is no recitation, positively claimed element, listing that states/requires, the system comprising a specimen container held by the hand. Therefore, there is no prior antecedent basis for “the specimen container held by the hand”. If applicants intends for the invention to comprise a specimen container held by the hand, then the claim should clearly recite such.
Applicant further states:
The Office Action asserts that 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." Office Action, p. 4. The Office Action continues to enumerate a series of alleged clarity issues that appear to be more related to preference than to any genuine issues. See id. pp. 4-6.
Applicants respectfully disagree that the claims are unclear as asserted in the Office Action because no evidence has been provided to show that the scope of the claims as amended do not set out and circumscribe a particular subject matter with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity to one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the claims in light of the specification. Therefore, a prima facie case of indefiniteness has not properly been established.
Instead, the rejection appears to be based on qualitative/subjective preferences. Further, many of the identified problems are non-existent. For example, the Office Action alleges that claim 3 lacks antecedent basis, yet in depending from claim 2, which recites, inter alia, "...the robot performs an operation of opening the specimen container lid of the specimen container..." claim 3 recites, inter alia, "...closing the opened specimen container lid..." Therefore, antecedent basis is provided.
Applicant believes that the Office Action fails to establish that any of the issues are supported by the correct legal standard of indefiniteness, e.g. that from the perspective of one of skill in the art, the scope of the claims would not be discernable. The allegation that the claims "are generally narrative and indefinite" is conclusory and lacks any evidentiary weight. The Office Action fails to identify how the claims fail to "conform with current U.S. practice" and even if such lack of conformance was susceptible of identification, does not form a proper legal basis for indefiniteness. Similarly, the Office Action fails to identify the supposed "grammatical and idiomatic errors" that the claims are replete with.
The Office Action further states that the specimen processing cabinet is not claimed and thus references thereto are indefinite. Yet, the specimen processing cabinet appears in both the preamble and body of the claim. Therefore, there is a presumption that the element must be accorded patentable weight. See e.g. MPEP 2111.02; and 2111.04. Applicant additionally notes that the term "specimen processing cabinet" occurs over 100 times in the specification. Thus, in accordance with the holding in Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the term is limiting, since the specification clearly suggests its importance.
Accordingly, one of skill in the art, when reading the amended claims in light of the specification would understand that the scope of the claims as amended set out and circumscribe a particular subject matter with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity. Therefore, amended independent claims 1 and 25 and, by dependency, claims 2-7, 11-18 are definite.
It is respectfully requested that the rejection of claims 1-18 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) reconsidered and withdrawn.
It is noted that the number of times the phrase “processing specimen cabinet” appears in the specification does not determine the scope of the claimed invention (defined by the language, positively claimed elements of the claims) and does not govern the patentable weight given to the language of the claim and does not provide for the cabinet being defined by/ comprising any specific structures.
Furthermore, the relative, subjective level of “importance” that applicant opines as being based upon the number of times the phrase appears in the specification, preamble, and body of the claims does not govern the scope of the claims nor requires such phrase to be “limiting” of the structure of the invention as claimed. If applicant intends for the invention to comprise a specimen processing cabinet (although no processing of any specimen is required to be performed in the cabinet: the apparatus is not defined by any intended use of the cabinet with any unclaimed, unspecified sample), then the claim should clearly positively claim/list a specimen processing cabinet as an element of the invention in the body of the claim on a sperate indented line (and any other structural element that applicant intends to structurally define the invention).
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-01.2024] Section I. Therefore, while the claims are read in light of the specification, limitations recited in the specification, but not positively claimed will not be read into the claims.
The 112 rejections are proper and the claims remain rejected as given herein.
Applicant asserts that the amendments of claim 1 and 25-26 are supported by claims 8-10 and paragraphs [0067-68] of the publication.
The examiner disagrees. The amendments are not consistent with specification and the same recitations of the prior original claims 8-10 that stated that the containers are in a circumferential shape, not placed around a circumference of the placing table as now provided in the claims. A circumference is the total distance around the edge of a circle (perimeter). The specification nor prior claims described any containers being located at the circumference of placing table and the drawings do not illustrate such. Furthermore, there is no description of any plurality of dispensing containers and specimen containers sharing a common radius (located at a same radial distance from the center of the placing table) as now claimed. As illustrated in applicant’s Figure 24, the specimen containers 7 are located on the placing table 70 at a first radial distance from the center of the placing table 70 and the microtubes 8 are located on the placing table at a second radial distance less than the first radial distance from the center of the placing table and closer to the center than the specimen containers 7. Therefore, the specimen containers and dispensing containers do not share a same radius as claimed. Furthermore, there is no description of any pair of containers being accessed by anything. Therefore, the amendments are inconsistent with originally filed specification, claims and drawings. Therefore, the claims are directed to new matter.
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 claims 1-7, 11-18 and 25 are apparatus claims. It is noted that the claims mention a specimen, a specimen container, a dispensing container, a dispensing container main body, a specimen container lid, a dispensing container lid, and a specimen processing cabinet. However, none of such are positively claimed as elements of the invention and do not structurally define the claimed invention. All of such are materials and/or articles intended to be worked upon, that can possibly be used with the apparatuses. However, it is noted that the apparatuses are not defined by any possible methods of use and are not required to be used in any method at all including with any further unclaimed materials or articles as may be intended by applicant. There is no requirement for any holding, dispensing, inserting, rotating, placing, opening, closing, accessing, performing of any operations, nor any actions at all to be done using the apparatuses. None of such are structures and do not structurally define the apparatuses.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 25 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 claims 1 and 25. The same structure that defines the “system” of claim 1 is the same robot of claim 25.
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 1-7, 11-18, and 25-26 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.
As to claims 1 and 25, it is unclear how the invention can be claimed relative to the specimen processing cabinet, required to be arranged outside of the specimen processing cabinet because as noted above the apparatus is defined by the positively claimed elements listed in the claims. The cabinet is not an element of the invention. Therefore, the invention is not defined by any relative location nor use with any cabinet. The elements of the system cannot be required/claimed to be located in the cabinet because such cabinet is not positively claimed as an element of the invention. (also applicable to the body of the robot recited in claim 18).
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the specimen containers" and “the dispensing containers” in the respective phrases “a plurality of the specimen containers” and “a plurality of dispensing containers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Although not positively claimed as elements, claim 1 only previously mentions “a specimen container” and “a dispensing container”. Therefore, it is also unclear what is the nexus of “a specimen container” and “a dispensing container” to the “a plurality of the specimen containers” and “a plurality of dispensing containers”; the a specimen container and a dispensing container are included amongst the respective plurality or different from such because the claim does not clearly recite such. This is also applicable to claims 25-26.
Furthermore, it is unclear what the phrase “of which” refences in the paragraph beginning with “a plurality of the specimen containers”. It is presumed to refer to the disk-shaped placing table. If so, the claims should clearly recite such.
Furthermore, it is unclear which/what specimen containers and dispensing containers are being referenced by the phrases “the specimen containers” and “the dispensing containers” in the last 2 lines. It presumed to refer to respective plurality. If so, the claims should clear recite such. For example, ….a pair of containers comprising one of the plurality of specimen containers and one of the plurality of dispensing containers….
Claim1 recites the limitation "the same common radius" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior mention of a common radius, nor for anything to comprise such a common radius. Furthermore there is no indication what is required of such radius to be considered as commonly shared. Also applicable to claims 25-26.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 11-18 are rejected via dependency upon rejected claim 1.
It is unclear what is structurally meant, required by claims 2-3, 6-7, 10, and 14 because the claims do not provide for any further structural elements nor further structure of any prior positively claimed structural element. The claims are directed to intended use and/or process steps. Operations, actions, process steps, etc. that can be performed using the invention are not structural elements. Furthermore, as noted above, there is no control This is also applicable to the first paragraph of claim 5, last paragraph of claim 11, last paragraph of claim 14, last paragraph of claim 16, and other such similar recitations provided for throughout the apparatus claims.
As to claims 2-5, 7, 11-15, and 17-18, it is unclear which/what container is being referenced by “the specimen container” recited throughout the claims and what is the nexus of such to the plurality of specimen containers because the claims do not provide for such.
As to claim 4, it is unclear how the lid opener/closer can be claimed as, required to be located in the specimen processing cabinet because such cabinet is not claimed as structural element of the invention. The same is applicable to lid closer of claim 15 and workbench of claim 17 (and any other claimed structure recited as being located inside or outside of the specimen processing cabinet.
As to claims 11-12, it is unclear how the first and second identification information readers can be claimed as being present without claiming the specimen processing cabinet in which such are described as being located within the specification and illustrated in the drawings. The claims are not consistent with the specification and drawings.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the specimen container held by the hand" in lines 1-2 of the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claims 12-16 and 18, it is unclear which/what container is being referenced by “the dispensing container” recited throughout the claims and what is the nexus of such to the plurality of dispensing containers because the claims do not provide for such.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the dispensing container held by the hand" in lines 1-2 of the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No dispensing container has been positively claimed as being held by the hand.
Claim 13 recites the limitations " the specimen container held by the first chuck…” and “the dispensing container held by the second chuck." in the last 2 lines of the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the specimen container held by the hand" in line 1 of the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 17, see prior applicable rejection above directed to the specimen processing cabinet. Furthermore, it is unclear what the phrase “on which” in line 3 modifies because the claim does not clearly provide for such. It is unclear what the base and work bench are required to be integral with. It is presumed that the last line of the claim intends to mean, require the workbench and base to be integral with each other. If so, then the claim should clearly recite such.
As to claim 18, it is unclear how the body of robot can be claimed relative to, required to be locate outside the specimen processing cabinet because such cabinet is not an element of the invention, not required to be present. See prior remarks/rejections above.
It is noted that claim 25 contains the same or similar language of claim 1. Therefore, applicant should refer to the prior applicable rejections of claim 1.
As to claim 26, it is unclear how the method as recited can be performed without the use of a dispenser to first aspirate the specimen from specimen container. Furthermore, it is noted that “at least one” only requires one. Therefore, it is unclear how the same one robot arm holding the specimen container also preforms the dispensing. Furthermore, a hand alone (without a dispenser) is not capable of performing the dispensing. Therefore, the claim as drafted does not appear to be consistent with the specification.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-18, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification nor prior claims described any containers being located at the circumference of placing table and the drawings do not illustrate such. Furthermore, there is no description of any plurality of dispensing containers and specimen containers sharing a common radius (located at a same radial distance from the center of the placing table) as now claimed. As illustrate in applicant’s Figure 24, the specimen containers 7 are located on the placing table 70 at a first radial distance from the center of the placing table 70 and the microtubes 8 are at located on the placing table a second radial distance less than the first radial distance from the center of the placing table and closer to the center than the specimen containers 7. Therefore, the specimen containers and dispensing containers do not share a same radius of anything as claimed. Furthermore, there is no description of any pair of containers being accessed by anything. Therefore, the amendments are inconsistent with originally filed specification, claims and drawings. Therefore, the claims are directed to new matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ju; Wentao et al.; Frankel; Matthew et al.; FUKUSHI; Yudai; KOMORI; Yuki; HASHIMOTO; Shozo; CHEN; Yuanji et al.; KOMORI; Yuki; FUKUSHIMA; Daiki; GILLIGAN; Patrick Clemente et al.; SHIBA; Masaki et al.; MORIURA; Kazuma et al.; FUKUSHI; Yudai et al.; Nakamura; Mizuki; OTSUKI; Kikuko; ODA; Kohei; ARIYOSHI; Shunsuke et al.; HANAFUSA; Nobuhiro et al.; Nakamura; Mizuki; Nakamura; Mizuki; FUJITA; Hiroki et al.; FUJITA; Hiroki et al.; Kraemer; Reinhold et al.; Edens; Ted Carl et al.; McGrath, Andrew et al.; Clark; Frederick L. et al.; Hardie; Robert et al.; Koike; Toshio et al.; and Gork; Fritz-Peter et al. disclose robotic arm systems including rotatable tables.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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