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 .
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.
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.
1. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP06331632 to Nishino (cited by applicant) in view of lmura.
Nishino teaches a pipetting device that includes a dispensing head 24 ("aspiration block"), a dispensing nozzle 25 ("aspiration block end") having a channel that extends through the dispensing head and dispensing nozzle as shown in Fig. 1. The dispensing nozzle in Nishino includes a lower extension through which the channel extends.
Nishino does not teach that the dispensing nozzle is attached to the dispensing head by magnets.
As noted above, lmura teaches permanent magnets 44 are provided in the lower face of an aspiration block to attaching the nozzle to the aspiration block as shown in Fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nishino to include magnets in the lower face of the dispensing head to secure the dispending nozzle to the dispensing head as taught by lmura as a known means to attach a nozzle to an aspiration block.
Therefore, Nishino in view of lmura renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant's claim 3, as noted above Nishino in view of lmura renders claim 2 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the one or more magnets are recessed from the aspiration block end.
As shown in Fig. 3 of lmura, magnets 44 are recessed in the lower face of the aspiration block. Therefore, Nishino in view of lmura renders claim 3 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant's claim 5, as noted above Nishino in view of lmura renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the one or more magnets comprise four or more magnets positioned in a surrounding the aspiration opening.
Nishino in view of lmura does not teach that the one or more magnets comprise four or more magnets positioned in a circle surrounding the aspiration opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nishino in view of lmura to include four or more magnets and arrange them around the aspiration opening. Note, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (MPEP 2144.04 (Vl)(B))
Therefore, Nishino in view of lmura renders claim 5 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant's claim 6, as noted above Nishino in view of lmura renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the extension is adapted to fit within an opening in a pipette tip such that the opening in the pipette tip is in fluid communication with the aspiration channel.
As shown in Fig. 3 the dispensing nozzle 25 ("aspiration block end") of Nishino has an extension that is adapted to fit within opening of pipette tip 13.
Therefore, Nishino in view of lmura renders claim 6 obvious.
Regarding applicant's claim 7, as noted above Nishino in view of lmura renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the extension comprises a tapered cone extending from the aspiration block face, and the aspiration channel extends through the tapered cone.
As shown in Fig. 3 the dispensing nozzle 25 ("aspiration block end") of Nishino has a tapered cone extension near the tip.
Therefore, Nishino in view of lmura renders claim 7 obvious.
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino in view of lmura as applied to claim 1 and further in view of and Wikipedia "Neodymium magnet."
I.) Regarding applicant's claim 4, Nishino in view of lmura makes obvious claim 1 from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that the one or more magnets comprise neodymium iron boron magnets.
Nishino et al. in view of lmura does not teach that the magnets comprise neodymium iron boron magnets.
Wikipedia teaches that neodymium iron boron magnets were developed in 1984.
It would have been obvious to use any know magnetic material for the magnets in Nishino et al. in view of lmura, including the neodymium iron boron magnets taught by Wikipedia as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (MPEP 2143 (l)(B))
Therefore, Nishino in view of lmura and Wikipedia renders claim 4 obvious.
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino in view of lmura as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2004177151 to Matsuo (cited by applicant).
I.) Regarding applicant's claim 8, as noted above Nishino in view of lmura renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites a pipette tip sensor in the aspiration block end configured to sense whether a pipette tip is attached to the pipettor.
Nishino teaches magnetic sensors 37 that are provided in the aspiration block to sense the presence of a pipette tip.
Nishino in view of lmura do not teach a pipette tip sensor in the aspiration block end configured to sense whether a pipette tip is attached to the pipettor.
Matsuo teaches a pipette tip sensor 25 that is shown in Fig. 1 has being at the interface of an aspiration block and pipette.
It would have been obvious to modify Nishino in view of lmura to include a pipette tip sensor in the aspiration block end configured to sense whether a pipette tip is attached to the pipettor as taught by Matsuo for purposes of sensing a pipette tip.
Therefore, Nishino in view of lmura and Matsuo renders claim 8 obvious.
4. Claims 9-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0094243 to Ariga et al. (cited by applicant) in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,959,964 to Streitfeld.
Ariga et al. teaches a pipette mounting adaptor 7 that includes proximal and distal ends with a bore extending through the adaptor as shown in Fig. 4.
The pipette mounting adaptor includes radial grooves between sealing portions 21 and 22 as shown in Fig. 4.
The pipette adaptor receives a pipette tube 6 in the central bore opening at the distal end as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Ariga et al. does not teach that the pipette is made from a magnetically attracted material.
Streitfeld teaches a pipette adaptor that is made of metal and includes a compliant material sleeve 28.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pipette mounting adaptor of Ariga et al. to be made from a metallic material as taught by Streitfeld in view of Streitfeld teaching a magnetic material is a suitable for pipette adaptors.
Whereas Streitfeld does not specifically teach a magnetically attracted material, it would have been obvious to use any suitable metallic material, including a magnetically attracted material which would provide sufficient mechanical strength in Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld teaches all the elements of claim 9.
Therefore, Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 9 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the pipette adapter is cylindrical, and the adapter radial groove entirely encircles the adapter side.
The pipette mounting adaptor of Ariga et al. is cylindrical, and the adapter radial groove entirely encircles the adapter side.
Therefore, Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 10 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that the adapter radial groove is dimensioned to engage a storage device.
Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld does not teach that the adapter radial groove that is dimensioned to engage a storage device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld to configure the radial groove to be dimensioned to engage a storage device dimensioned to receive/engage the radial groove.
Therefore, Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 11 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites a compliant material in the adapter radial groove.
Ariga et al. teaches that the adaptor hollow body can be made from a resin with elasticity, for example, preferably, silicon rubber. [0027].
Therefore, Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 12 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the magnetically attracted material is a type of from stainless steel.
Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld does not teach that the magnetically attracted material is a type of stainless steel.
It would have been obvious to make the pipette mounting adaptor of Ariga et al. in view of Streifeld from any suitable magnetically attracted material, including stainless steel.
Therefore, Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 14 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that the adapter proximal end comprises rounded or chamfered edges.
As shown in Fig. 4 of Ariga et al. the proximal end of the pipette mounting adaptor has rounded or chamfered edges.
Therefore, Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 15 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the pipette adapter further comprises an adapter cup having an adapter cup wall extending from the adapter proximal end.
The upper portion of the pipette mounting adaptor shown in Fig. 4 of Ariga et al. is interpreted as forming a cup with a cup wall.
Therefore, Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 16 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites that the adapter cup wall partially or entirely encircles the adapter proximal end.
The upper portion of the pipette mounting adaptor shown in Fig. 4 of Ariga et al. is interpreted 8as forming a cup with a cup wall which, as shown has the cup wall partially or entirely encircles the adapter proximal end.
Therefore, Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 17 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 916 obvious from which claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites that the adapter cup wall comprises a cup wall guide opposite the adapter proximal end, and the cup wall guide comprises a sloped surface.
Ariga et al. Fig. 6 depicts an embodiment of the pipette mounting adaptor that has a cup wall guide opposite the adapter proximal end, and the cup wall guide comprises a sloped surface.
Therefore, Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 18 obvious
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 19, as noted above Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 16 obvious from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 19 recites that the adapter cup wall comprises an interior surface and a radial ring on the interior surface toward the center.
In Fig. 4 of Ariga et al. the pipette mounting adaptor has a cup wall that comprises an interior surface and a radial ring on the interior surface toward the center.
Therefore, Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 19 obvious.
5. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld as applied to claim 12 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180280967 to Gilchrist et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld renders claim 12 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the adapter radial groove comprises an adapter subgroove configured for receiving a portion of the compliant material.
Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld does not teach that the adapter radial groove comprises an adapter subgroove configured for receiving a portion of the compliant material.
Streitfeld teach sleeve of compliant material 28 into which a pipette is inserted.
Gilchrist et al. teaches the conventional use of discrete seal elements that are provided in grooves to provide a sealing connected between pipette element as shown in Fig.3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld to include a subgroove to secure the one or more discrete compliant material elements in position as taught by Gilchrist et al.
Therefore, Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld and Gilchirst et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
6. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino in view of lmura, Ariga et al. and Streitfeld.
As noted above, Nishino teaches a pipetting device that includes a dispensing head 24 ("aspiration block"), a dispensing nozzle 25 ("aspiration block end") having a channel that extends through the dispensing head and dispensing nozzle as shown in Fig. 1. The dispensing nozzle in Nishino includes a lower extension through which the channel extends.
As noted above, Imura teaches permanent magnets 44 are provided in the lower face of an aspiration block to attaching the nozzle to the aspiration block as shown in Fig. 3.
Neither Nishino nor Imura teach a pipette adaptor for attaching a pipette tip to an aspirating block.
As noted above, Ariga et al. teaches a pipette mounting adaptor 7 that includes proximal and distal ends with a bore extending through the adaptor as shown in Fig. 4.
The pipette mounting adaptor includes radial grooves between sealing portions 21 and 22 as shown in Fig. 4.
The pipette adaptor receives a pipette tube 6 in the central bore opening at the distal end as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Ariga et al. does not teach that the pipette is made from a magnetically attracted material.
Streitfeld teaches a pipette adaptor that is made of metal and includes a compliant material sleeve 28.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nishino to include the pipette mounting adaptor of Ariga et al. to attach a pipette to the aspiration block and to make the adaptor from a metallic material as taught by Streitfeld in view of Streitfeld teaching a magnetic material is a suitable for pipette adaptors, therefore allowing the adaptor to be configured to magnetically attach a pipette tip to the aspirating block.
Whereas Streitfeld does not specifically teach a magnetically attracted material, it would have been obvious to use any suitable metallic material, including a magnetically attracted material which would provide sufficient mechanical strength in Ariga et al. in view of Streitfeld
Therefore, Nishino in view of lmura, Ariga et al. and Streitfeld renders claim 25 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Imura to modify Nishino since Imura is directed to manufacturing electronic components.
Imura teaches a nozzle 50 that is magnetically attached to a head 40 that provides for positive or negative pressure though the nozzle. Nishino teaches a nozzle 25 that is attached to a dispensation head 25 for dispensing fluids through the nozzle 25 and a pipette tip 13 attached to the nozzle.
The teachings of Imura and Nishino are analogous as regarding their (dispensation) heads and nozzles so that the magnetic attachment taught by Imura would be applicable to Nishino.
On page 8 of applicant’s response in reference to claims 9-19 applicant argues that Streitfeld is silent regarding any magnetic attachment of a pipette tip.
Applicant’s claim 9 only recites that the pipette comprises a magnetically attracted material. Streitfeld teaches the pipette adaptor has a jacket that is made of metal, rendering it obvious to use any suitable structurally stable metal including a magnetically attracted metal.
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 MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. 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, 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798