FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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/Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of GROUP I and SPECIES A in the reply filed on 31 DEC 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 31 DEC 2025.
Priority
NONE.
Specification
The abstract is acceptable.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (MPEP 606.01). The title should mention the different motions imparted during mixing - see the last section of elected claim 1. The title is not descriptive and could read on thousands+ of inventions.
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 terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.
Initial remarks on the rejections to follow: Elected claims 1-9 are still considered drawn to the subcombination of the mixing apparatus only. Accordingly, any language relating to a particular sample container or the sample containers cooperation with the mixing apparatus is not considered germane to the patentability of the mixing apparatus subcombination. The use of the mixing apparatus with a specified sample container (such as one with a syringe, per claim 3) that is not part of the claimed mixing apparatus subcombination is tantamount to an intended use of the mixer. Although the applied prior art below teaches mixing devices intended for use with one or more sample container(s) employed in the mixer, the claim language "for housing at least one sample container therein” (claim 1, line 6 and claims 2 and 3) is merely a statement of intended use which imparts no structure to the claimed mixing apparatus. It is well settled that the intended use of an apparatus is not germane to its patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 177 USPQ 705 (CCPA 1973); In re Finsterwalder, 436 F.2d 1028, 168 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1971 ); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BODIE et al. (US 7438462 B1) that discloses a mixing apparatus comprising a base 12; motor 24; a shaft 26 driven by said motor; a head unit 32 with a plate thereon supporting receptacles 34 that are disposed at offset locations from an axis of the motor; the receptacles 34 having an axis and capable of receiving one or more sample containers of various sizes; the recited motion/translation is described at col. 5, line 9 - col. 6, line 29 and wherein the directions of translation are substantially perpendicular to each other; wherein the magnitude of the translation effected by the motor is adjustable per switch control 16 (col. 9, lines 38-49).
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 2941421 that discloses a mixing apparatus comprising a base 1 or 23; motor drive assembly 3, 4, 9-12, 14-15 for driving a shaft 7; a head unit 21 with a plate 5 supporting a concentric receptacle 21 therein is disposed concentric to an axis of the motor assembly portion 4; the receptacle 21 having an axis and capable of receiving one or more sample containers of various sizes; the recited motion/translation is described in the translation below and wherein the directions of axial translation 18 along the axis of the receptacle 21 and the radial translation 16 are substantially perpendicular to each other; wherein the frequency/rate of rotation of the motor drive assembly is adjustable and the magnitude of the translation effected by the motor drive assembly is adjustable per controller 24 per the machine translation:
Description of DE 2941421
translated from German
Mixing device for flowable goods, especially paints
The invention relates to a mixing device according to the preamble of the patent claim 1.
Known mixing devices for colors are designed as agitators. she offer the advantage that the container is open during the mixing process, so that for example during the production of colors according to given recipes pigments or the like can still be entered during the mixing process but the fundamental disadvantage that after the mixing process the protruding into the color Parts need to be cleaned thoroughly.
Other known mixing devices then necessarily have a clamping device with a lid closed container in a horizontal position. Apart from their relatively complicated and heavy construction, especially with regard to the achievement of movements of the container in several coordinate directions, these have known Devices accordingly have the fundamental disadvantage that during the mixing process the Well no more additions or the like can be added.
The invention has for its object to provide a mixer according to the Form the preamble of claim 1 so that during the mixing process the Container can remain open and protruding parts of the material to be mixed Device are avoided.
The inventive solution to this problem is characterized by the features of claim 1. A major advantage of the invention is therein to see that as a result of using a flexible plate according to the claims 4 and 5 also provided with a recess or in several substantially horizontal extending parts can be divided, by means of a single, advantageously designed as an electric motor drive motor several coordinate movements of the Receiving plate and thus the material to be mixed can be achieved. The movements this drive are implemented in fact in movements of the flexible plate around the essentially vertical restraint, torsional movements of the flexible plate around a substantially horizontal torsion axis and thus pivoting movements of the Axis of the mounting plate and finally in height movements of the means of a Spring on the flexible plate, preferably indirectly supported by the guide Mounting plate.
In addition, reciprocating rotary movements can also be carried out in the simplest possible manner the mounting plate can be generated by the single drive, for example at an embodiment of a motorless rotary drive according to claim 2.
An embodiment of the invention is described below for the case a color mixing device explained with reference to the drawing. In this represent: Fig. 1 shows the structural design of the mixer after removing the housing and Fig. 2 shows a perspective view of the mixing device together with the housing.
If one looks first at FIG. 1, then all the individual parts are bearing Base plate 1, the essentially perpendicular clamping 2 for the flexible plate 3 attached, which in the embodiment shown made of plastic and its plane is essentially perpendicular. In one of the places the restraint 2 remote point, the flexible plate 3 carries the substantially perpendicular guide 4 of the mounting plate 5, which with holding magnets 6 for Definition of the containers for, usually made using iron the material to be mixed, for example colors, is equipped. The mounting plate 5 passes through the guide 4 with the axis 7 connected to it in a rotationally fixed manner, namely so that both rotary movements and longitudinal movements of the axis 7 relative to the guide 4 are possible.
The receiving plate 5 is supported in this by means of the helical spring 8 Fall indirectly, namely via the guide 4, on the flexible plate 3.
The motion drive for several coordinate movements of the mounting plate 5 with the material to be mixed contains the electric motor c whose output shaft 10 approximately runs parallel to the flexible plate 3 and carries the eccentric 11, which over the Rod 12 articulated with the flexible plate 3 at one between the restraint 2 and the guide 4 lying position is in connection. The point of attack of the The rod 12 on the flexible plate 3 lies below the center line 13 of the plate, which, as will be explained, is an axis in the event of torsional deformation of the flexible plate 3 represents.
In this embodiment, the drive described and before especially the motor 9 at the same time for generating reciprocating rotary or
Pivoting movements of the mounting plate 5 are used. As soon as the flexible plate 3 to its clamping 2 back and forth by the drive described is here-bent, causes the fixed with its one end on the base plate 1 Crank drive 14 as it were a via the arm 15 connected to the axis 7 in a rotationally fixed manner Holding the axis 7 in the direction of its circumference and thus a relative pivoting regarding leadership 4.
In detail, the following movements of the mounting plate 5 result: Around the vertical restraint 2 results in a movement of the guide 4 and thus of the receiving plate 5 in the direction of arrows 16. In addition, under the influence of the mass of Receiving plate, the container and the goods in connection with the selected articulation point of the rod 12 a torsion of the flexible plate 3 around the line 13 according to the arrows 17. As a result, the mounting plate 5 also performs nodding movements, as it were. Herewith connected are vertical movements of the mounting plate 5 according to the arrows 18, the spring 8 contributes to their creation. Finally, the crank drive produces 14 rotary movements or reciprocating pivoting movements of the mounting plate 5 about its axis 19 according to the arrows 20.
[AltContent: rect]As has been shown, these are four achieved with minimal effort Movements of the receiving plate and thus of the material to be mixed is a prerequisite for an effective mixing without effervescence, sc that that indicated at 21 in FIG Container for the material to be mixed open / and an addition to the contents of the same can be made during the mixing process.
In particular to achieve a certain twistability of the flexible Plate 3 may be useful to provide a recess 22 in this.
The construction described can be accommodated in a small housing 23 (see Figure 2), from which only the mounting plate 5 protrudes. The knob 24 is used, for example, to adjust a potentiometer to change the Speed of the electric motor 9 and thus the frequency of the movements of the to be mixed Guts.
Claims (6)
Hide Dependent
translated from German
Claims mixing device for flowable goods, in particular colors, with a receptacle for at least one container containing the goods and one with the drive connected to the recording for generating a multi-coordinate movement of the Recording, characterized in that the than in all movements essentially horizontal mounting plate (5) with a substantially vertical mounting Axis (7) pivotable and displaceable a guide (4) on one with its plane perpendicular extending flexible plate (3) penetrated, on which it is via a spring (8) supported and the clamping (2) removed by one of the guide (4) by the Drive (9 to 12) is bendable, with the mass of the receiving plate (5) and At the same time, torsional movements of the plate (3) by an essentially horizontal one are good Torsion line (13) and thus pivoting movements of the axis (7) are carried out with a Rotary drive (14,15) is provided. 2. Mixing device according to claim 1, characterized in that the rotary drive by an articulated connection designed in the manner of a crank drive (14, 15) a fixed part (1) of the device is formed. 3. Mixing device according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that the drive a motor (9) with a substantially parallel to the flexible Plate (3) extending output shaft (10) with an eccentric (11) which is in an articulated connection with the flexible plate (3) via a rod (12). 4. Mixing device according to one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that that the flexible plate (3) is provided with a recess (22). 5. Mixing device according to one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that that the flexible plate extends substantially horizontally in at least two Parts is divided. 6. Mixing device according to one of claims 1 to 3 5, characterized in that that the mounting plate (5) is provided with holding magnets (6).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (RECEPTACLE 21
on PLATE 5)]
PNG
media_image1.png
675
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2921221 A1 that discloses a mixing apparatus comprising a base with a motor 7 therein for driving a shaft disposed about axis 5: a head unit 3 with a plate supporting receptacles disposed axially offset from the axis 5; the receptacles 9 having an axis and capable of receiving one or more sample containers of various sizes; the recited motion/translation is described in the translation below and wherein the directions of translation are substantially perpendicular to each other; wherein the frequency/rate of rotation of the motor 7 is adjustable and the magnitude of the translation effected by the motor 7 is adjustable per the machine translation of EP 2921221 A1:
High energy mixer for automatic sample preparation in a serial workflow
Abstract
translated from German
The invention relates to a mixer having a shaking head (3) with at least one receptacle for a sample container (11), the shaker head (3) being connected to the motor axis (5) of a stepping motor (7) and the sample container (11) being eccentric is arranged to the motor axis (5), and wherein the mixing in the sample container (11) causing movement of the shaking head (3) corresponds to a segment of a circle. This movement is caused by a change in the direction of rotation of the motor (7) and the frequency of the direction of rotation of the motor (7) and the amplitude are variably adjustable. The invention also relates to a method for mixing a small amount of samples from the biological-medical field. The mixing effecting shaking is done by a change of direction of the motor (7). The frequency of the direction of rotation of the motor (7) and the amplitude within a mixing process are changed. The invention also relates to the use for automatic sample preparation in serial process flow within a fully automatic analysis system.
Images (2)
PNG
media_image2.png
120
94
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
120
97
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Classifications
B01F31/10 Mixers with shaking, oscillating, or vibrating mechanisms with a mixing receptacle rotating alternately in opposite directions
View 1 more classifications
Landscapes
Chemical & Material SciencesChemical Kinetics & Catalysis
Show more
EP2921221A1
European Patent Office
Download PDF Find Prior Art Similar
Other languages
German
French
Inventor
Werner DÖBELIN
Current Assignee
Individual
Worldwide applications
2014 2015
Application EP15000816.7A events
2015-03-19
Application filed by Individual
2015-09-23
Publication of EP2921221A1
Status
Withdrawn
Description
translated from German
The present invention relates to a high-energy mixer for automatic sample preparation in a serial process sequence within a fully automatic analysis system, in particular in the field of LC-MS analysis.
It is part of everyday life, especially of biological, biochemical and medical laboratories, to have to mix solutions or generally reaction mixtures as contents of reaction vessels. These reaction vessels may be, for example, Erlenmeyer flasks or microtiter plates. In the prior art mixing devices are known for this mixing. Such a mixing device is a so-called vortex mixer. In this vortex mixer, the reaction vessel in which the solutions or other substances to be mixed are pressed on a shaker attachment in the form of a rubber mold, which is located on the upper base plate of the mixer. The mixing is then carried out by intensive vibration with usual speed ranges of up to 2500 min -1 . Such vortex mixers can be used in continuous or in short-term operation.
Other conventional mixers are known in the form of round shakers with orbital shaker drive and can at frequencies of 100 - 1200 are operated min -1. The sample is mixed in a circular or circular motion.
In the known mixers of this type, the problem is that they small or smallest amounts of samples, as they arise in particular in samples from the biological-medical field, such as blood samples, which are located in correspondingly small-sized conical sample containers, not or insufficiently mix ,
In addition, there is an increasing demand for efficient analysis systems, e.g. Such an analysis system with which samples of different types, in particular the already mentioned samples from the biological-medical field, such as blood samples, not only examined in the context of a screening, but can be prepared efficiently for this investigation.
For this purpose, the samples must first be processed method-specific, in order to then supply them to the actual measuring device.
For example, if blood plasma assays are to be performed by LC-MS, the blood plasma must be diluted, an internal standard added, and a precipitant added. The thus treated sample is then shaken and centrifuged to allow the supernatant to be delivered as a measurable sample solution to the LC-MS.
Such preparatory steps required for an analysis, as explained here using the example of the LC-MS analysis, are sometimes cumbersome and time-consuming. They therefore slow the process considerably until a result can be obtained. Methods have hitherto been known which require a number of complex and separate work steps, in particular the method-specific work-up steps already mentioned, which can also result in different time sequences for the individual samples. That is, the work-up is usually divided into several steps, the parallel, ie side by side and decoupled from the actual measuring system performed. This results in a large number of possible errors which can falsify the analytical result or make it completely useless.
Based on this, the object of the present invention was to provide a mixer with which an automatic sample preparation and analysis in a serial process sequence, in particular in the field of liquid chromatography and especially in the area of coupled LC-MS analysis, i. by further coupling with a mass spectrometer.
This object is achieved by a mixer in the form of a mixer having a shaking head, with at least one receptacle for a sample container, wherein the shaker connected to the motor axis of a stepper motor and the at least one sample container is arranged eccentrically to the motor axis. The movement of the shaking head causing the mixing in the at least one sample container corresponds to a segment of an imaginary shaking circuit, the radius of this shaking circuit being defined by the distance between the motor axis and the axis of the at least one sample container.
Depending on the type of sample, these steps may include precipitation, liquid-liquid extraction, solid-phase extraction, filtration, derivatization and / or thermal incubation, and in particular small sample quantities for the samples can be mixed with the mixer according to the invention and serially, ie one by one, fed directly to the sample container for further work-up and then to the actual analysis.
Due to the fact that the shaking motion is dependent on the shaker segment radius, only a limited number of samples can be operated with the same shaking motion. However, this is not detrimental, but in the present without meaning, because the present invention before The background of a serial sample processing has been made and this should make possible in the first place. Due to the serial procedure is always only one sample in the mixer according to the invention.
According to a preferred embodiment, the mixing-causing movement is effected by a change in the direction of rotation of the motor and the frequency of the direction of rotation of the motor and the amplitude are variably adjustable.
As a result, these two parameters, frequency and amplitude, can be set as desired and also changed during a shaking cycle. In this way, standing waves in the liquid sample to be shaken can be advantageously avoided.
According to a particularly preferred development of the mixer according to the invention, the latter interacts with a robot which has at least one arm for loading and unloading the receptacle for the at least one sample container of the mixer.
This robot is part of a robot technology and accordingly has an interface to a control unit so that it is controlled and regulated fully automatically.
The invention also relates to a method for mixing a sample, with a mixer as already described above, in which a sample container containing the sample is positioned in a receptacle of a shaking head provided for this purpose and the sample by means of motor force by a reciprocating motion is mixed on a segment of a Schicktelkreises whose radius results from the distance between the motor axis and the axis of the at least one sample container.
Thus, the sample contained in the at least one sample container is not mixed with a circular or circular movement, as is known from the prior art, but by a reciprocating movement.
The advantages of this novel mixing process have already been pointed out with regard to the mixer as such.
According to a preferred embodiment of the method according to the invention, the shaking movement effecting the mixing takes place by a rotation direction change of the motor, and the frequency of the direction of rotation of the motor and the amplitude are changed within a mixing operation in order to avoid standing waves within the sample to be mixed.
Particularly effective standing waves in the sample to be mixed can be avoided by the mixing causing shaking movement is made by a change of direction of rotation of the motor, and the frequency of the direction of rotation of the motor and the amplitude can be changed independently within a mixing process.
In the context of a preferably simple and fully automatic handling, it is provided according to a further embodiment of the method according to the invention that the sample container containing the sample is used from above in approximately perpendicular to the receptacle of the shaking head.
The invention further relates to a use of the mixer, as has already been explained above, and the method, as already set forth in its possible steps, for the mixing of small amounts of samples from the biological-medical field.
In particular, the invention relates to use for automatic sample preparation and analysis in a serial analysis procedure.
In the following the invention will be explained in more detail with reference to an embodiment.
Fig. 1:
eine schematische Darstellung einer Analysenvorbereitung mit einem integrierten erfindungsgemäßen Mixer und einer Flüssig-Flüssig-Extraktion zur Vorbereitung einer LC-MS-Analyse, und
Fig. 2:
eine schematische Darstellung einer Analysenvorbereitung mit einem integrierten erfindungsgemäßen Mixer und einer Flüssig-Flüssig-Extraktion kombiniert mit einer Festphasenextraktion zur Vorbereitung einer LC-MS-Analyse, und
Fig. 3:
eine schematische Darstellung des Mixers mit seinen einzelnen Bestandteilen.
Show it:
Fig. 1:
a schematic representation of an analysis preparation with an integrated mixer according to the invention and a liquid-liquid extraction for the preparation of LC-MS analysis, and
Fig. 2:
a schematic representation of an analysis preparation with an integrated mixer according to the invention and a liquid-liquid extraction combined with a solid phase extraction for the preparation of LC-MS analysis, and
3:
a schematic representation of the mixer with its individual components.
More particularly, the present invention is directed to providing a mixer suitable for on-line sample preparation in the sense of serial operation of a fully automated analytical system. This also includes the task of constructing the mixer in such a way that it can be used in the field of on-line sample preparation for the use of a robot technology with the stated aim.
In order to achieve the above objects, a mixer was constructed by reference to Fig. 3 is designated overall by the reference numeral 1. This mixer 1 is called a high energy mixer. It has a shaking head 3, which is firmly connected to the motor shaft 5 of a stepping motor 7. In the shaking head 3 four receptacles 9 are provided for sample container 11, which are arranged eccentrically to the axis 5 of the stepping motor 7 according to this embodiment. Thus, each positioned in the receptacles 9 sample container 11 are arranged eccentrically to the axis 5 of the stepping motor. Each sample container 11 is inserted from above into the respectively provided receptacle 9 of the shaking head 3. The shaking head 3 is basically on the respective Sample container 11 is tuned and can, if necessary, depending on the type of or the sample container (s) 11, be replaced.
For the mixing, the required parameters for the stepping motor 7 are to be determined, which are just as carefully matched to the respective sample container 11, the sample space 13 and the sample itself. The parameters mentioned include the frequency and amplitude for the direction of rotation change of the stepping motor 7, connected to the choice of the angular steps of the stepping motor 7, since the mixing or shaking is done by a change of direction of the stepping motor 7. Direction of rotation switching frequency and amplitude can be set arbitrarily. In principle, this also applies to the number of angular steps and the diameter of the shaking circuit 15.
According to this embodiment, the rotational direction switching frequency and amplitude are also changed during one and the same shaking cycle, thereby avoiding standing waves in the sample to be mixed or shaken. In practice, the stepping motor 7 changes its direction of rotation several times per second.
The radius of the shaking circuit 15 is basically the distance between the motor shaft 5 and the sample container axis 17. The sample to be mixed is not mixed by means of a circular motion or a circular motion, but by the reciprocating on a segment of the shaker 15th By rapidly changing the direction of rotation and by choosing the angular steps of the stepping motor 7, the desired shaking on the corresponding segment of the shaker 15 results.
In the Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 the illustrated mixer 1 is shown as it is embedded within a complete analysis system for the analysis of samples 19 from the biological-medical field, which are to be examined as part of a screening with integrated fully automatic sample preparation by LC-MS. The samples 19 must first be processed method specific, in order to then be able to perform the actual meter. In the embodiment blood plasma tests have been performed by LC-MS. For this purpose, the blood plasma must be diluted, added to an internal standard and a precipitant added. Each of the samples 19 thus treated is then shaken first by means of the mixer 1 according to the invention and then centrifuged, so that the supernatant can be supplied to the LC-MS as a measurable sample solution.
While in Fig. 1 Such a sample preparation for a liquid-liquid extraction is shown schematically, relates to the representation in Fig. 2 a sample preparation in which a liquid-liquid extraction and a solid phase extraction (SPE) are possible. The blender 1 according to the invention can be used equally in both systems. Accordingly, he is in Fig. 1 with the reference numeral 1 and in Fig. 2 denoted by the reference numeral 1 '. In this case, the mixer 1 is used, as has already been described in detail above, without between the representations of Fig. 1 and 2 to distinguish or to differentiate.
In a fully automated sample preparation and analysis, as in the Fig. 1 and 2 carried out, the sample to be mixed 19 is positioned in each case via a robot arm in the mixer and then transferred together with the sample container 11 in a downstream centrifuge, which also has a computer-implemented control.
If it has already been explained above that the direction of rotation switching frequency and amplitude are also changed during one and the same shaking cycle, thereby preventing standing waves in the sample to be mixed or shaken, and in that the stepping motor 7 several times in the Second changes its direction of rotation, this means in terms of fully automatic sample preparation, a computer-implemented control. This means that the software programs a defined shaking pattern required for the respective sample preparation and analysis and then runs it fully automatically.
For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned at this point that the inscription of the respective sample container 11 to be analyzed and accordingly prepared for the analysis is registered by an image acquisition in order to assign the respective sample 19 to the associated measurement data without any confusion. This is done by the sample container 11 is rotated in a defined angular position and photographed. From the images thus obtained, a two-dimensional image is produced, which represents the outside of the sample container 11 and can be related to the measurement result for each step within the analysis system.
Claims (9)
Hide Dependent
translated from German
Mixer, which has a shaking head (3), with at least one receptacle for a sample container (11), wherein the shaking head (3) connected to the motor axis (5) of a stepping motor (7) and the at least one sample container (11) eccentric to the Motor axis (5) is arranged, and wherein the mixing in the at least one sample container (11) causing movement of the shaking head (3) corresponds to a segment of a Schüttelkreises (15) whose radius is determined by the distance between the motor axis (5) and the axis (17) of the at least one sample container (11) is defined. Mixer according to claim 1, characterized in that the mixing causing movement by a change of direction of the motor (7) causes and the frequency of the rotational direction of the motor (7) and the amplitude are variably adjustable. Mixer according to claim 1 or 2, which cooperates with a robot having at least one arm for loading and unloading the receptacle for the at least one sample container (11) of the mixer (1, 1 '). Method for mixing a sample, in particular a small sample quantity from the biological-medical area, with a mixer (1, 1 ') according to one of Claims 1 to 3, in which a sample container (11) containing the sample is placed in a receptacle ( 9) of a shaking head (3) and the sample is mixed by motor force by a reciprocating motion on a segment of a Schüttelkreises (15), the radius of the distance between the motor axis (5) and the axis (17) of at least results in a sample container. A method according to claim 4, characterized in that the mixing effecting shaking movement is effected by a change in the direction of rotation of the motor (7), and the frequency of the direction of rotation of the motor (7) and the amplitude are changed within a mixing process. A method according to claim 4 or 5, characterized in that the mixing effecting shaking movement by a change of rotation of the motor (7), and the frequency of the direction of rotation of the motor (7) and the amplitude are changed independently within a mixing process. Method according to one of Claims 4 to 6, characterized in that the sample container (11) containing the sample is inserted from above into the receptacle (9) of the shaking head (3) from above. Use of the mixer according to one of claims 1 to 3 and the method according to one of claims 4 to 7 for the mixing of small amounts of samples from the biological-medical field. Use according to claim 8 for automatic sample preparation and analysis in a serial analysis procedure.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (RECEPTACLES 9)]
PNG
media_image4.png
674
565
media_image4.png
Greyscale
***********************************************************************************************************
With regard to the above rejections, the manner in which the sample container is inserted into a receptacle (claim 2) recites no further structure of the mixer and as held in In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), "the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself." See MPEP 2115.
APPARATUS CLAIMS MUST BE STRUCTURALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRIOR ART
PNG
media_image5.png
18
19
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
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 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 instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id.
From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42.
The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre-KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.
When considering the prior art in its entirety, note Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Although modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006) (citation omitted))). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art applied above to BODIE et al. (US 7438462 B1), GB 2081118, DE 2941421 or EP 2921221 A1 in view of BAXTER (US 5499872).
The prior art mixers to BODIE et al. (US 7438462 B1), GB 2081118, DE 2941421 or EP 2921221 A1 do not disclose the receptacle(s) is/are loosely arranged on the plate. BAXTER discloses an analogous mixer including a base 12; motor 38; shaft 28; rotatable head unit with plate 18 for supporting receptacles 22 that are loosely arranged at any desired positions on the plate 18 as seen in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified said prior are mixers such that the receptacle(s) is/are loosely arranged on the plate as disclosed by BAXTER for the purposes of permitting an operator to place the receptacles at any desired location on the plate, e.g. closer to or located further radially outward from the axis of motion of said plate and/or to enable the placement of as many receptacles on the plate that will fit within the spaced allotted by said plate as opposed to a predetermined number of predefined locations for the receptacles.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
In view of the claim amendments and emphatic arguments in support thereof, it is noted that in the instant application, the claims recite a mixing apparatus and establishes that the subcombination of this mixing apparatus is being claimed and the sample container(s) is/are only functionally recited. The scope of the claims is clear as long as no further mention of the sample container appears in the claims, or the bodies of the claims refer to the sample container in a functional manner. A question arises as to whether the claims recite a combination or subcombination when the sample container is positively recited within the bodies of the claims wherein an inconsistency develops in the claims. The preamble indicates a subcombination of the mixing apparatus, while in the bodies of one or more claims, there is at least one occurrence of a positive recital of structure indicating that the combination of the mixing apparatus and sample container is being claimed. It is not clear if Applicant’s intent is to claim merely the mixing apparatus or the mixing apparatus in combination with the sample container.
Claims 1-9 are therefore inconsistent and indefinite under 112(b) because the claims are supporting arguments recite the subcombination (the mixing apparatus) for use with the combination (the mixing apparatus in combination with the sample container) yet the elements of the mixing apparatus and sample container are certainly positively claimed in structural combination in the bodies of the claims. If the elements of the invention are claimed in combination in the bodies of the claims, the preambles must also claim them in combination or the subject matter of the preambles would not be considered consistent with limitations recited in the bodies of the claim rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
In the instant case, it is not clear as to whether the claims are intended to be combination claims of the mixing apparatus and sample container or intended to be subcombination claims of the mixing apparatus only. The question has arisen based on the present claiming of the " wherein the at least one receptacle provides a receptacle axis and the at least one receptacle is sized to allow for a radial translation and an axial translation of the at least one sample container relative to the receptacle axis during a mixing operation, wherein the motor is configured to mix contents of the at least one sample container by effecting a displacement of the at least one sample container during the mixing operation via the radial translation and the axial translation in the at least one receptacle” (claim 1, as amended). Since the translations of the sample container within the mixing apparatus are clearly a function of the cooperation between the subcombination of the mixing apparatus and the required presence of the sample container(s), it appears that there are several occurrences of a positive recital of structure indicating that the combination of the mixing apparatus and sample container is being claimed which renders the scope of the claims indefinite, especially in view of the remarks strenuously arguing the particular translations of the sample container which are not considered a positively recited element of the claimed “mixing apparatus”.
Claim 1: A claim may be rendered indefinite by reference to an object that is variable. For example, the Board has held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited “said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for” was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
Claim 1, as amended, is of indeterminate scope since it is unclear what sizes of the sample containers are included or excluded by the claim language. Thus, the metes and bounds of this claim is so unclear as to obscure the specific subject matter the claim encompasses. Since the size of any given sample container is likely a variable at any given time, the recited sizez can be deemed a reference to an object that is variable (i.e., the sizes of sample container(s) that which forms no part of the recited mixing apparatus), thus claims 1-9 are indefinite as relating the sizes to an undetermined/unspecified variable (see MPEP 2173.05(b)). A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc. 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Since claim 1 relies upon subjective judgment or opinion to determine what sizes are either sufficient or insufficient to meet the requirements of this claim, claims 1-9 are of wholly indeterminate scope.
Allowable Subject Matter
No elected claims stand allowed.
Conclusion
The arguments filed 9 JULY 2026 are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art mixers above cannot enable or allow for the radial and axial translations, however, any given sample container(s) able to be inserted within the receptacles of the prior art above that undergo such motion would impart such motion to the sample container(s). And again, the sample containers are not considered part of the mixing apparatus subcombination as currently claimed. The rejection over GB 2081118 is withdrawn. DE 2941421 clearly depicts a receptacle 21 seen in Figure 2 and in the machine translation as highlighted/annotated above. Accordingly, the prior art applied above discloses the recited structure of the mixing apparatus (the slight amount of structure that is actually positively claimed) and the capability to receive one or more sample containers that would undergo the motion imparted to the respective receptacles (axial and radial translation). The rejections are therefore maintained.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See M.P.E.P. § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Per Rule 1.116(b)(3): “An amendment touching the merits of the application or patent under reexamination may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the amendment is necessary and was not earlier presented.” Thus, an amendment after final lacking such showing will be denied entry.
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO THIS FINAL ACTION IS SET TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE EVENT A FIRST RESPONSE 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 EXTENSION FEE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE ADVISORY ACTION. IN NO EVENT WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION. ANY RESPONSE FILED AFTER THE MAILING DATE OF THIS FINAL REJECTION WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MPEP 714.12 AND 714.13.
NOTE: The examiner of record follows the interview after-final policy set forth in MPEP 713.09:
Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview [agenda] should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. (emphasis added)
The agenda will be made of record per PTO policy.
New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1774
DATED: 27 JULY 2026
Prosecution Insights