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 .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-21, drawn to a method of framing a workspace and positioning a dispenser.
Group II, claim(s) 22-27, drawn to a method of framing a workspace and positioning a framing tool.
Group III, claim(s) 28-32, drawn to a robotic fluid handling system with a stationary deck and a transport device with a liquid dispenser.
(The examiner notes that this restriction is in regards to the claims filed on 2/20/23)
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I, II, III lacked unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups required the technical feature of a method of a workspace of a robotic fluid handler, the method comprising: positioning a framing tool within a workspace of the robotic fluid handler using a transport device; moving the framing tool to a general location of a component of the workspace; contacting the framing tool to a feature of the component; detecting the contacting of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance- based sensor electrically coupled to the framing tool; determining a location of the feature; and registering/storing the location, this technical feature were not a special technical feature as they did not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Wilson et al (US 20130130369; hereinafter “Wilson”), Haddad et al (US 20130345894; hereinafter “Haddad”), Hirano et al (US 20140093426; hereinafter “Hirano”), and Clark et al (US 20100288056; hereinafter “Clark”). Wilson discusses a method of a workspace of a robotic fluid handler, the method comprising: positioning a framing tool within a workspace of the robotic fluid handler using a transport device; moving the framing tool to a general location of a component of the workspace; contacting the framing tool to a feature of the component; detecting the contacting of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance- based sensor electrically coupled to the framing tool; determining a location of the feature; and registering/storing the location (Wilson teaches a pipettor that moves in 3D; [261, 622, 607-610, 617, 622]. Wilson teaches that the pipettor has a capacitance sensor, where the capacitance would be sensed when the conductive pipette contacted conductive features; [261, 610]. Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson also teaches using known conductive features on the system to calibrate the pipettor; [610]. Wilson teaches that the location of the framing tool is determined, and then used to calibrate or automate alignment which would involve registration of the features and compensation for any potential differences; [610, 622]). Haddad discusses a method of a workspace of a robotic fluid handler, the method comprising: positioning a framing tool within a workspace of the robotic fluid handler using a transport device; moving the framing tool to a general location of a component of the workspace; contacting the framing tool to a feature of the component; detecting the contacting of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance- based sensor electrically coupled to the framing tool; determining a location of the feature; and registering/storing the location (Haddad teaches pipettor 104 uses capacitance to calibrate the positioning between the sample container and the pipettor; [33]. Haddad teaches that labware/sample containers, which are in holders/racks, are used as the calibration target, and where the location/positioning of the labware is calculated/determined and where the proper seating/presence is verifying/determined based on the positioning information; [33, 43, 48]). Hirano discusses a method of a workspace of a robotic fluid handler, the method comprising: positioning a framing tool within a workspace of the robotic fluid handler using a transport device; moving the framing tool to a general location of a component of the workspace; contacting the framing tool to a feature of the component; detecting the contacting of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance- based sensor electrically coupled to the framing tool; determining a location of the feature; and registering/storing the location (Hirano teaches a probe 124 with a capacitance detector 128; Fig. 2, 3A, [53, 54]. Hirano teaches that locations of labware are determined based on calibration of the probe with the positioning member 129, where various positions are used to determine correct alignment; [55, 57, 56, 62-69], Fig. 4, 5-10). Clark discusses a method of a workspace of a robotic fluid handler, the method comprising: positioning a framing tool within a workspace of the robotic fluid handler using a transport device; moving the framing tool to a general location of a component of the workspace; contacting the framing tool to a feature of the component; detecting the contacting of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance- based sensor electrically coupled to the framing tool; determining a location of the feature; and registering/storing the location (Clark teaches pipettor 354 which includes a capacitance sensor to help teach/calibrate positioning on receptacle 10 which includes multiple position locators; [117, 118], Fig. 17).
During a telephone conversation with Ben Tramm on 9/18/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-21. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 22-32 were withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner notes that applicants filed a preliminary amendment was then filed on 9/17/25 and 9/19/25, where applicants have amended the claims, such that groups II and III were canceled and that all claims were only directed to the elected group I.
Based on the amended claims, the application also contained claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
species I
A (the framing tool is a dispensing tip- corresponding to claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 33, 34, 35. See [109, 143])
B (the framing tool is a gripper- corresponding to claim 8. See [96, 110, 144])
species II
A (the feature of the component is a wall of a receptacle- corresponding to claim 10)
B (the feature of the component is a flange- corresponding to claims 10/11)
C (the feature of the component is a corner of a receptacle- corresponding to claim 12)
D (the feature of the component is a pedestal of a receptacle- corresponding to claim 13)
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: 1, 2, 9, 14-21, 23-27, 36-38.
During a telephone conversation with Ben Tramm on 9/30/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of species IA (the framing tool is a dispensing tip- corresponding to claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 33, 34, 35) and species IIB (the feature of the component is a flange- corresponding to claims 10/11). Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8, 12, 13 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendments on 9/17/25 and 9/19/25 have been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/28/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-21, 23-27, 33-38 are pending with claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-21, 23-27, 33-38 being examined and claims 8, 12, 13 deemed withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-21, 23-27, 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 101 based on the following analysis
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “determining” a location and “registering” the location, which are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. Once the determination and registration take place, then no action is taken. Therefore, there is no application much less a particular practical application.
The claim also recites positioning a framing tool of a fluid handler using a transport device; moving and contacting the framing tool to a feature of a component of the workspace; detecting contact of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance-based sensor. However, this is just using the framing tool to gather data to be used in the abstract idea. However, data gathering to be used in the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, this is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which is not a particular practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
The claim recites the additional elements of a framing tool of a fluid handler using a transport device; moving and contacting the framing tool to a feature of a component of the workspace; detecting contact of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance-based sensor. These additional elements do not amount to significantly more as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art as evidenced by Wilson et al (US 20130130369; hereinafter “Wilson”), Haddad et al (US 20130345894; hereinafter “Haddad”), Hirano et al (US 20140093426; hereinafter “Hirano”), and Clark et al (US 20100288056; hereinafter “Clark”). Wilson discusses a framing tool of a fluid handler using a transport device; moving and contacting the framing tool to a feature of a component of the workspace; detecting contact of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance-based sensor (Wilson teaches a pipettor that moves in 3D; [261, 622, 607-610, 617, 622]. Wilson teaches that the pipettor has a capacitance sensor, where the capacitance would be sensed when the conductive pipette contacted conductive features; [261, 610]. Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson also teaches using known conductive features on the system to calibrate the pipettor; [610]. Wilson teaches that the location of the framing tool is determined, and then used to calibrate or automate alignment which would involve registration of the features and compensation for any potential differences; [610, 622]). Haddad discusses a framing tool of a fluid handler using a transport device; moving and contacting the framing tool to a feature of a component of the workspace; detecting contact of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance-based sensor (Haddad teaches pipettor 104 uses capacitance to calibrate the positioning between the sample container and the pipettor; [33]. Haddad teaches that labware/sample containers, which are in holders/racks, are used as the calibration target, and where the location/positioning of the labware is calculated/determined and where the proper seating/presence is verifying/determined based on the positioning information; [33, 43, 48]). Hirano discusses a framing tool of a fluid handler using a transport device; moving and contacting the framing tool to a feature of a component of the workspace; detecting contact of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance-based sensor (Hirano teaches a probe 124 with a capacitance detector 128; Fig. 2, 3A, [53, 54]. Hirano teaches that locations of labware are determined based on calibration of the probe with the positioning member 129, where various positions are used to determine correct alignment; [55, 57, 56, 62-69], Fig. 4, 5-10). Clark discusses a framing tool of a fluid handler using a transport device; moving and contacting the framing tool to a feature of a component of the workspace; detecting contact of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance-based sensor (Clark teaches pipettor 354 which includes a capacitance sensor to help teach/calibrate positioning on receptacle 10 which includes multiple position locators; [117, 118], Fig. 17).
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, 14-21, 23-27, 33-38 undergo a similar analysis and do not appear to resolve any of the above issues. Claims 2-7, 9-11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 recite further details of the data gathering steps which do not further integrate the exception under step 2A prong two, and are also WURC under step 2B (See prior art citations below). Claims 4 (determining), 15 (determining), 18 (registering, determining), 19 (determining), 20 (determining, comparing), 21 (determining), 25 (calculating, verifying), 26 (mapping), 27 (mapping), 38 (calculating) recite further details of the abstract ideas themselves under step 2A prong one, where these abstract ideas are not integrated into any application or any particular practical application under step 2A prong two because they are data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP 2106.05(g), and they amount to just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which are not particular practical applications.
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 11, 15, 25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 11, it is unclear how the singular feature can be both a wall as in claim 10 and also a flange extending from the wall in claim 11. Specifically, there is a singular feature, and it is unclear how the feature can be two different features as recited in claim 11 without further clarification.
As to claim 15, it is unclear how the determination of a proper orientation is made. Claim 9 relates to a holder for labware, and there is no recitation of any process that relates to actual labware, and therefore it is unclear how the method makes this determination. Further, it is unclear what makes the determination in relation to the labware.
Regarding claim 25, it is unclear how the feature of the labware is no calculated and sensed as recited in lines 6-12. Specifically, the feature of claim 24 is the labware holder, not the labware. Claim 25 then recites that the feature is of the labware. This is contradictory and creates ambiguity, and is indefinite without clarification as to how the feature can be the labware holder (claims 1/24) and also the labware itself (claim 25).
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 16-21, 23, 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Wilson et al (US 20130130369; hereinafter “Wilson”).
As to claim 1, Wilson teaches a method of framing a workspace of a robotic fluid handler (Wilson; [610, 622]), the method comprising: positioning a framing tool within a workspace of the robotic fluid handler using a transport device (Wilson teaches a pipettor that moves in 3D; [261, 622, 607-610, 617]); moving the framing tool to a general location of a component of the workspace (Wilson teaches moving the pipettor within the device; [610, 622]); contacting the framing tool to a feature of the component; detecting the contacting of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance- based sensor electrically coupled to the framing tool; determining a specific location for the general location based on contacting of the framing tool to the feature; and registering the specific location to the workspace (Wilson teaches that the pipettor has a capacitance sensor, where the capacitance would be sensed when the conductive pipette contacted conductive features; [261, 610]. Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson also teaches using known conductive features on the system to calibrate the pipettor; [610]. Wilson teaches that the location of the framing tool is determined, and then used to calibrate or automate alignment which would involve registration of the features and compensation for any potential differences; [610, 622]).
As to claim 2, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the impedance-based sensor comprises a capacitance sensor (Wilson; [261, 610, 617, 622]).
As to claim 3, Wilson teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the framing tool comprises a liquid dispenser and the liquid dispenser comprises a pipettor including a mandrel, wherein the capacitance sensor is electrically coupled to the mandrel, and wherein the contacting of the liquid dispenser framing tool to the feature is by the mandrel (Wilson teaches a pipettor that moves in 3D and has a mandrel; [261, 622, 607-610, 617]. Wilson teaches that the pipettor has a capacitance sensor, where the capacitance would be sensed when the conductive pipette contacted conductive features; [261, 610]. Wilson teaches that the conductive pipette tips and conductive through the mandrel; [261, 271, 278, 387, 388, 575]).
As to claim 4, Wilson teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising: loading a pipette tip onto the mandrel, wherein the pipette tip is electrically coupled to the capacitance sensor via the mandrel; and determining a specific location of an additional component of the workspace based on contacting the pipette tip to a feature of the additional component (Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets/components/features, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson uses the plurality of targets in a 3D space to calibrate/align/determine the position of the pipette; [610, 622]).
As to claim 5, Wilson teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the framing tool comprises: a pipette tip loaded onto a mandrel and electrically coupled to the capacitance sensor to detect the contacting of the liquid dispenser to the feature (Wilson teaches a pipettor that moves in 3D and has a mandrel; [261, 622, 607-610, 617]. Wilson teaches that the pipettor has a capacitance sensor, where the capacitance would be sensed when the conductive pipette contacted conductive features; [261, 610]. Wilson teaches that the conductive pipette tips and conductive through the mandrel; [261, 271, 278, 387, 388, 575]).
As to claim 6, Wilson teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the pipette tip comprises a plastic material with a conducting material added thereto (Wilson; [261, 271, 278, 387, 388, 575]).
As to claim 7, Wilson teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising loading a framing tip onto the mandrel of the liquid dispenser of the robotic fluid handler, wherein the mandrel is configured to sense capacitance at the framing tip loaded onto the mandrel (Wilson teaches a pipettor that moves in 3D and has a mandrel; [261, 622, 607-610, 617]. Wilson teaches that the pipettor has a capacitance sensor, where the capacitance would be sensed when the conductive pipette contacted conductive features; [261, 610]. Wilson teaches that the conductive pipette tips and conductive through the mandrel; [261, 271, 278, 387, 388, 575]).
As to claim 16, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the general location is programmed into a control panel of the robotic fluid handler (Wilson; [609, 610, 622, 623]).
As to claim 17, Wilson teaches the method of claim 6, wherein geometries of labware configured to be loaded into the workspace are programmed into the control panel of the robotic fluid handler (The examiner notes that there is not a positive method step being described here. Wilson teaches that various consumables of known geometries are loaded into the device, and that the device automatically pipettes from these various consumables, such that the geometries/positions would be programmed into the automated device. See the various consumables that the pipette and mandrel interacts with in Figures 1-16).
As to claim 18, Wilson teaches the method of claim 16, wherein registering the specific location to the workspace comprises determining x, y, and z coordinates in the workspace for the specific location (Wilson calibrates movement in 3D/XYZ coordinates, where the pipettor would need to move in each of these directions to calibrate at different positions; [610, 622]. Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets/components/features, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson uses the plurality of targets in a 3D space to calibrate/align/determine/calculate the position of the pipette, where calibrating and aligning means that the location is stored/set/pre-programmed such that the device remembers and uses the updated calibration/alignment positions; [610, 622]).
As to claim 19, Wilson teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: a motor configured to at least partially move the transport device; and an encoder configured to determine at least one directional parameter of the framing tool in x, y, and z coordinates in the workspace from the motor (Wilson teaches a pipettor that moves in 3D; [261, 622, 606-610, 617]. Wilson teaches an encoder; [609, 612, 622]. Wilson calibrates movement in 3D/XYZ coordinates, where the pipettor would need to move in each of these directions to calibrate at different positions; [610, 622]. Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets/components/features, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson uses the plurality of targets in a 3D space to calibrate/align/determine/calculate the position of the pipette, where calibrating and aligning means that the location is stored/set/pre-programmed such that the device remembers and uses the updated calibration/alignment positions; [610, 622]).
As to claim 20, Wilson teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: determining specific locations for a plurality of general locations of a deck of the workspace; comparing the specific locations to stored general locations; and determining an installation location of the deck in the workspace relative to a factory installation (Wilson calibrates movement in 3D/XYZ coordinates, where the pipettor would need to move in each of these directions to calibrate at different positions; [610, 622]. Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets/components/features, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson uses the plurality of targets in a 3D space to calibrate/align/determine/calculate the position of the pipette, where calibrating and aligning means that the location is stored/set/pre-programmed such that the device remembers and uses the updated calibration/alignment positions; [610, 622]. Updating alignment/calibration would mean that after initial setup from the factory that the new locations/positions were determined and used for the calibration/alignment).
As to claim 21, Wilson teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: moving the framing tool to determine a first coordinate; moving a carriage of the transport device to which the framing tool is mounted to determine a second coordinate; and moving a bridge of the transport device to which the carriage is mounted to determine a third coordinate (Wilson teaches a pipettor that moves in 3D; [261, 622, 606-610, 617]. Wilson calibrates movement in 3D/XYZ coordinates, where the pipettor would need to move in each of these directions to calibrate at different positions; [610, 622]. Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets/components/features, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson uses the plurality of targets in a 3D space to calibrate/align/determine the position of the pipette and the feature(s); [610, 622]).
As to claim 23, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, where contacting the framing tool to the feature of the component comprises: moving the framing tool into contact with the feature by executing a series of movements of the framing tool to contact multiple surfaces of the feature to define a location of the feature in three-dimensional space relative to the transportation device (Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets/components/features, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson uses the plurality of targets in a 3D space to calibrate/align/determine the position of the pipette and the feature(s); [610, 622]).
As to claim 33, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the framing tool comprises a liquid dispenser (Wilson teaches a pipettor that moves in 3D and has a mandrel; [261, 622, 607-610, 617]. Wilson teaches that the pipettor has a capacitance sensor, where the capacitance would be sensed when the conductive pipette contacted conductive features; [261, 610]. Wilson teaches that the conductive pipette tips and conductive through the mandrel; [261, 271, 278, 387, 388, 575]).
As to claim 34, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the framing tool comprises a pipette tip (Wilson teaches a pipettor that moves in 3D and has a mandrel; [261, 622, 607-610, 617]. Wilson teaches that the pipettor has a capacitance sensor, where the capacitance would be sensed when the conductive pipette contacted conductive features; [261, 610]. Wilson teaches that the conductive pipette tips and conductive through the mandrel; [261, 271, 278, 387, 388, 575]).
As to claim 35, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein contacting the framing tool to the feature of the component comprises contacting the framing tool to multiple features of the component, and wherein determining the specific location is based on the contacting of the framing tool to the multiple features (Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets/components/features, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson uses the plurality of targets in a 3D space to calibrate/align/determine the position of the pipette; [610, 622]).
As to claim 36, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the general location is an expected starting location for the feature of the workspace that is pre-programmed into a controller of the robotic fluid handler (Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets/components/features, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson uses the plurality of targets in a 3D space to calibrate/align/determine the position of the pipette, where calibrating and aligning means that the location is stored/set/pre-programmed such that the device remembers and uses the updated calibration/alignment positions; [610, 622]).
As to claim 37, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the impedance-based sensor is part of a controller of the robotic fluid handler (Wilson; [623], Fig. 15e, and see claim 1 above).
As to claim 38, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein registering the specific location to the workspace further comprises: calculating an actual location for the feature; and storing the actual location in the controller (Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets/components/features, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson uses the plurality of targets in a 3D space to calibrate/align/determine/calculate the position of the pipette, where calibrating and aligning means that the location is stored/set/pre-programmed such that the device remembers and uses the updated calibration/alignment positions; [610, 622]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Haddad et al (US 20130345894; hereinafter “Haddad”).
As to claim 1, Haddad teaches a method of framing a workspace of a robotic fluid handler, the method comprising: positioning a framing tool within a workspace of the robotic fluid handler using a transport device; moving the framing tool to a general location of a component of the workspace; contacting the framing tool to a feature of the component; detecting the contacting of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance- based sensor electrically coupled to the framing tool; determining a specific location for the general location based on contacting of the framing tool to the feature; and registering the specific location to the workspace (Haddad teaches pipettor 104 uses capacitance to calibrate the positioning between the sample container and the pipettor; [33]. Haddad teaches that labware/sample containers, which are in holders/racks, are used as the calibration target, and where the location/positioning of the labware is calculated/determined and where the proper seating/presence is verifying/determined based on the positioning information; [33, 43, 48]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Hirano et al (US 20140093426; hereinafter “Hirano”).
As to claim 1, Hirano teaches a method of framing a workspace of a robotic fluid handler, the method comprising: positioning a framing tool within a workspace of the robotic fluid handler using a transport device; moving the framing tool to a general location of a component of the workspace; contacting the framing tool to a feature of the component; detecting the contacting of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance- based sensor electrically coupled to the framing tool; determining a specific location for the general location based on contacting of the framing tool to the feature; and registering the specific location to the workspace (Hirano teaches a probe 124 with a capacitance detector 128; Fig. 2, 3A, [53, 54]. Hirano teaches that locations of labware are determined based on calibration of the probe with the positioning member 129, where various positions are used to determine correct alignment; [55, 57, 56, 62-69], Fig. 4, 5-10).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Clark et al (US 20100288056; hereinafter “Clark”).
As to claim 1, Clark teaches a method of framing a workspace of a robotic fluid handler, the method comprising: positioning a framing tool within a workspace of the robotic fluid handler using a transport device; moving the framing tool to a general location of a component of the workspace; contacting the framing tool to a feature of the component; detecting the contacting of the framing tool to the feature using an impedance- based sensor electrically coupled to the framing tool; determining a specific location for the general location based on contacting of the framing tool to the feature; and registering the specific location to the workspace (Clark teaches pipettor 354 which includes a capacitance sensor to help teach/calibrate positioning on receptacle 10 which includes multiple position locators; [117, 118], Fig. 17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 9-11, 14, 15, 24, 26, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Clark et al (US 20100288056; hereinafter “Clark”).
As to claim 9, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the component is part of the system that holds a piece of labware (Wilson teaches the component includes various features spaced throughout the laboratory system, where the laboratory system includes receptacles/spaces for holding labware; see above. Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets/components/features, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson uses the plurality of targets in a 3D space to calibrate/align/determine the position of the pipette; [610, 622]).
Wilson does not specifically teach that the component is a receptacle for holding labware. However, Clark teaches the analogous art of a system that includes a pipettor/tool that has a capacitance sensor to detect a receptacle for holding labware (Clark teaches pipettor 354 which includes a capacitance sensor to help teach/calibrate positioning on receptacle 10 which includes multiple position locators; [117, 118], Fig. 17. Clark teaches that receptacle 10 holds lab containers; [80, 112], Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the conductive targets located throughout the system to assist in calibration/alignment of Wilson to have been on a receptacle for holding labware as in Clark because Clark teaches that the position locators on the receptacle assist in the self-teaching/calibration of the position of the pipettor (Clark; [117, 118]). Additionally, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the conductive targets located throughout the system to assist in calibration/alignment of Wilson to have been on a receptacle for holding labware as in Clark because to allow for calibration of the pipettor (Clark; [117, 118]) since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.'
As to claim 10, Wilson teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the feature of the component comprises a wall of the receptacle (The modification of the conductive targets located throughout the system to assist in calibration/alignment of Wilson to have been on a receptacle for holding labware as in Clark has already been discussed above. Wilson teaches that the targets are various features of the system, each of which could be considered a wall; [622]. Further, Clark also teaches various locators as pins or projections which could be considered a wall; [117, 118]).
As to claim 11, Wilson teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the feature comprises a flange extending from the wall (In as much as claimed and as best understood, the flange will be interpreted as any projection/protrusion or structure formed by a gap/discontinuity in a wall. The modification of the conductive targets located throughout the system to assist in calibration/alignment of Wilson to have been on a receptacle for holding labware as in Clark has already been discussed above. Wilson teaches that the targets are various features of the system, each of which could be considered a flange as a projection from a wall or a gap formed by a wall, and Wilson specifically teaches projections, tabs, gaps, and discontinuities; [622]. Further, Clark also teaches various locators as pins or projections/flanges; [117, 118]).
As to claim 14, Wilson teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the receptacle is configured to hold one of a bulk reservoir container, a labware container, a tube holder, a tip rack or microplate storage container, and a thermocycler reservoir container (The modification of the conductive targets located throughout the system to assist in calibration/alignment of Wilson to have been on a receptacle for holding labware as in Clark has already been discussed above. Clark teaches that receptacle 10 holds lab containers; [80, 112], Fig. 1).
As to claim 15, Wilson teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising determining a proper orientation of a piece of labware loaded into the receptacle (The modification of the conductive targets located throughout the system to assist in calibration/alignment of Wilson to have been on a receptacle for holding labware as in Clark has already been discussed above. Wilson calibrates movement in 3D/XYZ coordinates, where the pipettor would need to move in each of these directions to calibrate at different positions; [610, 622]. Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets/components/features, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson uses the plurality of targets in a 3D space to calibrate/align/determine/calculate the position of the pipette, where calibrating and aligning means that the location is stored/set/pre-programmed such that the device remembers and uses the updated calibration/alignment positions; [610, 622]. Updating alignment/calibration would mean that after initial setup from the factory that the new locations/positions were determined and used for the calibration/alignment. Therefore, Wilson determines the proper alignment of the labware, where the alignment would include determining how the labware was oriented such that the device could operate autonomously. Wilson also teaches detecting various labware articles; [610]. Further, Clark teaches self-teaching/calibrating, which involves determining positions, of the receptacle such that the labware container opening positions are determined for accurate positioning; [117, 118]).
As to claim 24, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the feature of the component is part of the system that holds a piece of labware (Wilson teaches the component includes various features spaced throughout the laboratory system, where the laboratory system includes receptacles/spaces for holding labware; see above. Wilson teaches contacting the pipettor to conductive targets/components/features, which can be located throughout the system, and can include projections, tabs, pins, holes, gaps, a discontinuity in any conductive element; [622]. Wilson uses the plurality of targets in a 3D space to calibrate/align/determine the position of the pipette; [610, 622]).
Wilson does not specifically teach that the component is a labware holder attached to the deck of the workspace. However, Clark teaches the analogous art of a system that includes a pipettor/tool that has a capacitance sensor to detect a labware holder attached to the deck of the workspace (Clark teaches pipettor 354 which includes a capacitance sensor to help teach/calibrate positioning on holder 10 which includes multiple position locators, where holder 10 is attached to the workspace deck; [117, 118], Fig. 17. Clark teaches that holder 10 holds lab containers; [80, 112], Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the conductive targets located throughout the system to assist in calibration/alignment of Wilson to have been on a holder for holding labware on the workspace deck as in Clark because Clark teaches that the position locators on the holder assist in the self-teaching/calibration of the position of the pipettor (Clark; [117, 118]). Additionally, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the conductive targets located throughout the system to assist in calibration/alignment of Wilson to have been on a holder for holding labware on the workspace deck as in Clark to allow for calibration of the pipettor (Clark; [117, 118]) since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not othe