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 Amendment
The amendment filed on January 21, 2026 is acknowledged. The application will be examined accordingly.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1, 3-7 and 9-12 in the reply filed on January 21, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8, 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, albeit they are subject to rejoinder upon the allowance of claims 1, 1 and 13, respectively.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 6, 2023, April 2, 2025 and November 11, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 9-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 9-12, the limitation “the robotic arm” should be changed to “the at least one robotic arm” to maintain nomenclature consistency.
In claims 4, 5 and 12, the limitation “and” at the end of the penultimate line of the claims should be changed to “or” (see claim 6).
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman et al. (“Berman”) (US 2021/0215607 A1). The provisional application to which Berman claims benefit provides support for the subject matter relied upon in the rejection below.
With respect to claim 1, Berman discloses a robotic sample handling system (see [0195]) for performing sample handling tasks in a laboratory environment, the system comprising (see Fig. 15):
a work area 1520 for holding samples;
at least one robotic arm for manipulating a sample (see [0195] disclosing a robot for retrieving a sample and inserting the sample into an instrument, meaning it comprises a structure corresponding to the broadest reasonable interpretation of “arm”); and
a controller configured to control the at least one robotic arm to position and operate the at least one robotic arm as part of a sample handling task (it is evident that the at least one robotic arm is linked to a controller), wherein
the work area comprises a module 1526 for use with one or more of the samples, wherein the module 1526 comprises a push-push mechanism which is actuatable by downward force and is arranged to, by repeated pushes, alternately assume a latched position and an unlatched position (see [0198]).
The system differs from the claimed invention in that Berman does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to control the at least one robotic arm in the claimed manner to actuate the push-push mechanism. However, given that Berman discloses that the system is automated (see [0152]) and the at least one robotic arm is configured to place a sample capsule 1522 into an analyzer (i.e. the module) (see [0195]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the controller to control the at least one robotic arm to be positioned in a plane parallel to the work area 1520 and move along a Z-axis perpendicular to the work area 1520 to actuate the push-push mechanism (see [0198]).
With respect to claim 3, the module 1526 is a stand, wherein the stand comprises:
a receiving part (receptacle) for receiving and removably holding a sample container 1522 (see Fig. 15); and
an effector (e.g. ZMW array comprising a port) (see Fig. 15 and [0197]) for acting on a sample which is placed within a predefined vicinity of the effector; wherein
the push-push mechanism is arranged to:
in the latched position (see right figure of Fig. 15), position the sample container 1522 in the predefined vicinity of the effector, and
in the unlatched position (see left figure in Fig. 15), position the sample container 1522 out of the predefined vicinity of the effector (see [0198]).
With respect to claim 4, if the modification is made (see rejection of claim 1), then the controller would be configured to control the at least one robotic arm to actuate the push-push mechanism by pushing on a part of the sample container (see [0198] and Fig. 15).
With respect to claim 5, the effector comprises a radiation source for irradiating the sample (see [0073] disclosing that the ZMW array comprises a light source for irradiating the sample with evanescent waves).
With respect to claim 6, the sample container 1522 is a liquid container (see Fig. 15 and [0195] disclosing volumetric capacity of the container 1522).
With respect to claim 9, the at least one robotic arm comprises a liquid-handling head*, wherein the controller would be configured to control the at least one robotic arm to actuate the mechanism with the liquid-handling head (see rejection of claim 1 above).
*Absent the claim further limiting the scope of “liquid-handling head” any structure that handles a liquid is deemed to satisfy the limitation. In this case, the at least one robotic arm taught by Berman handles sample container 1522, which contains liquid.
With respect to claim 12, the at least robotic sample handling system is a robotic liquid handling system comprising an automated robotic gripper (see [0195]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 12 above, and further in view of Hawkins (US 5,705,628).
With respect to claim 7, the sample container 1522 is a liquid container, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 6). However, Berman does not disclose that the effector comprises a magnet for subjecting a liquid sample in the liquid container to a magnetic field. However, the system taught by Berman is intended to perform nucleic acid sequencing (see title), and it is well-known in the art to use magnetic beads and a magnetic field to purify and isolate nucleic acid in a sample mixture (e.g. bodily fluid) prior to performing sequencing (see abstract of Hawkins). That said, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the effector with a magnet for purifying and isolating nucleic acid. If the modification is made, then the controller would be configured to control the at least one robotic arm to perform at least part of an automated magnetic bead separation process by operating the push-push mechanism to bring the liquid sample into and out of the magnetic field.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 12 above, and further in view of Lange (US 6,264,814 B1).
With respect to claim 10, Berman does not disclose that the “liquid-handling head is arranged to mount a disposable tip”. However, Berman discloses that the liquid sample can be introduced into a cartridge (e.g. container 1522) using a pipette (see [0129]), and further discloses that the system is automated (see [0152]). Based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system with a multi-functional robotic arm that can pipette liquids into container 1522 and further actuate the push-push mechanism. For example, Lange discloses a multi-functional robotic arm used in a laboratory setting, the robotic arm comprising a pipette tip mount 190 for mounting a pipette tip 290 and a separate gripper 400 (e.g. tongs, fork) for manipulating objects (see Fig. 7 and lines 54-67, col. 13). If the system taught by Berman is modified pursuant to the teachings of Lange, then the liquid-handling head would comprise a mount for attaching a disposable tip, and the controller would be configured to control the at least one robotic arm to actuate the push-push mechanism with the liquid-handling head with or without a mounted disposable tip (e.g. using a separate tool of the at least one robotic arm).
With respect to claim 11, as discussed above, the liquid-handling head of the modified Berman system would be arranged to mount a fixed tip, and the controller would be configured to control the at least one robotic arm to actuate the mechanism with the liquid-handling head with a mounted fixed tip (see Fig. 8 of Lange illustrating a separate tool 400 for manipulating objects).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796