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 .
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is NOT a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the statute does not recognize a combination apparatus and method. Note that 35USC101 includes the term “or”.
Claims 1-3,5-10 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.
As to claims 8 and 1, lines 3-4 from bottom are not consistent with the specification/drawings, as the bottom side surface 110 of the sample container carrier 100 is not that which is “closest” to the conveying surface 120 . It is the “rotating body” 111 (line 8 from bottom) of the sample container carrier 100 that is closest to the conveying surface 120. Understand, the claims state that the sample container carrier 1010 either “includes” (line 10, claim 8) or comprises (“comprising” (line 2, claim 1)) the “rotating body”.
As to claim 5, the preamble calls for an apparatus (“carrier”), but the body of the claim calls for a list of unconnected parts because at least one of the “plurality” (line 2) of rotating bodies is not connected to the remaining limitations of the body. Is this claim an apparatus claim (per preamble), or is this claim a collection of unconnected parts (per the body)?
As to claim 9, it’s not clear if this added limitation is (1) improperly a step in combination with an apparatus, (2) mere intended use, or (3) something that the apparatus is configured to do. Presently, it look as if it’s a combination step and apparatus, but 35 USC 101 does not recognize such combination.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,6,7,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Groh 2019/0346473.
As to claim 1, Groh teaches a sample container carrier that grips a sample container containing a sample, the sample container carrier comprising: a magnetic material body 25; a grip 20 that supports the sample container; and a rotating body 15 formed of a non-magnetic material, the rotating body is disposed at a bottom side surface of the sample container carrier
PNG
media_image1.png
168
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, is in contact with a conveying surface for conveying the sample container carrier (visible in Figure 3, as bottom of wheel contacts a support surface), and rotates as the sample container carrier moves, and wherein the bottom side includes a bottom side surface that is a surface of the sample container carrier closest to the conveying surface bottom (as the bottom surface will contact the conveying surface), and wherein the sample container carrier is conveyed by an electromagnetic force acting on the magnetic material body.
As to claims 1-3,5,10, the rotating body 15 is “disposed” as much as is claimed. Also, either the bodies 15 are non-magnetic, or one of ordinary skill would recognize that such is useful so as to not negative affect the container displacement during rotation.
As to claim 6,
PNG
media_image2.png
346
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Groh 2019/0346473.
It’s not clear if the magnets (Figure 6) have a core/coil.
As to claim 8, it would have been obvious to employ an electromagnet as one of ordinary skill would recognize that such magnets are controllable such that they can provide a sufficient level of magnetism to effectively move objects.
Claims 6,7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As to claim 6, the protrusion removes the limitation the bottom side surface of the carrier “is closest to the conveying surface” (line 3 from last, claim 1). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855