DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP21208700 on 11/17/21. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
As to the amended claims filed on 2/27/26, the previous 112 and 101 rejections are removed. However, based on the claim amendments, new 112 rejections are entered.
Based on the claim amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4-10, 13-16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “bypassing a downstream resistance force” is reciting in the last two lines of the claim. However, support for the newly added limitation of the instant claims was not found by the examiner in the original disclosure, as no mention of “bypassing a downstream resistance force” is recited. Specifically, the examiner notes that there is no discussion in the specification at all of “bypassing” any force, and although there is discussion of a resistance force there is no discussion of a separate “downstream resistance force” that is distinct or separate from the predefined resistance force. Thus, the limitation “bypassing a downstream resistance force” is considered new matter. Claims 4-10, 13-16 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
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 1, 4-10, 13-16 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 1, it is unclear what “bypassing a downstream resistance force” is reciting in the last two lines of the claim. What is a downstream resistance force. Is this downstream resistance force somehow related to the predefined resistance force that is discussed previously? It is unclear how the downstream resistance force is defined. Aside from resistance to the well bottom (well bottom is defined at position of predefined resistance force which is a different force), it is unclear what other resistance would be encountered without clarification. Also, it is unclear how the bottom of the well would be bypassed because a pipette tip cannot move further downwards past a well bottom. The examiner requests clarification on the intent of the limitations in the last two lines of the claim.
Claims 4-10, 13-16 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
Claim 14 reictes “the metallic tool” where this has not been previously recited. Therefore, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis and it is unclear what is attempting to be referred to.
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, 4-7, 10, 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Early et al (US 5455008; hereinafter “Early”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Early teaches a method for detection of a bottom of at least one well of a multiwell plate for a pipetting device (Early; Fig. 8, 10), wherein the pipetting device comprises at least one pipetting head configured for being coupled to a plurality of pipetting tips, wherein the method comprises using at least one force sensor configured for measuring a resistance force depending on a force on a pipetting tip exerted by the bottom, wherein the method comprises the following steps: a) measuring the resistance force during movement of one of the pipetting tips from a start position downstream towards the bottom of the well and stopping the movement at a bottom position, wherein the bottom position is a position where a predefined resistance force is reached; and b) storing the bottom position together with a corresponding logical position of the well in the multiwell plate in at least one database; c) automatically retrieving, via a control unit, the stored bottom position from the database; and d) adjusting, via the control unit, a motor control signal of the pipetting head to move the pipetting tip directly to a target position derived from the stored bottom position during a subsequent pipetting procedure, thereby bypassing a downstream resistance force measurement for said subsequent pipetting procedure (Early teaches a force sensor that detects contact with the bottom of the well based on comparing measured force to a threshold and then storing and raising the position of the pipette upwards to predetermined height to aspirate the sample; col. 6 line 55-col. 7 line 65, col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 50, col. 10 line 5-13, Fig. 8, 10. Early teaches continuing the process for all samples; col. 9 line 50-60, col. 13 line 30-40. Early teaches that once the bottom plate contact point is determined that it is stored and then reused, where the reusing of the value is automatically retrieving the position and then using that location instead of sensing the locations again, thereby bypassing the measurement for subsequent pipetting procedures; col. 8 line 37-49).
As to claim 4, Early teaches the method of claim 1, wherein steps a) and b) are repeated in case of new consumables and/or new pipetting tips (Early; col. 6 line 55-col. 7 line 65, col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 50, col. 10 line 5-13, Fig. 8, 10. Early teaches continuing the process for all samples; col. 9 line 50-60, col. 13 line 30-40. Additionally, because Early is automated and replaces consumables then the process would be performed again in a later pipetting procedure).
As to claim 5, Early teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the force sensor comprises a load cell configured for generating a sensor signal proportional to the resistance force exerted on the pipetting tip (Early teaches a force sensor that detects contact with the bottom of the well based on comparing measured force to a threshold and then storing and raising the position of the pipette upwards to predetermined height to aspirate the sample; col. 6 line 55-col. 7 line 65, col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 50, col. 10 line 5-13, Fig. 8, 10. Early teaches various force sensors; col. 6 line 55-col. 7 line 30).
As to claim 6, Early teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed during at least one of aspiration, sip and spit, and dispensing (Early teaches aspirating the sample; col. 6 line 55-col. 7 line 65, col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 50, col. 10 line 5-13, Fig. 8, 10).
As to claim 7, Early teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed during aspiration and/or sip and spit, wherein the method further comprises, subsequent to step a), moving the pipetting tip upwards until the resistance force has decreased to a predefined residual force, and moving the pipetting tip upwards with a predefined distance to its final position for aspiration and/or sip and spit (Early teaches a force sensor that detects contact with the bottom of the well based on comparing measured force to a threshold and then storing and raising the position of the pipette upwards to predetermined height to aspirate the sample; col. 6 line 55-col. 7 line 65, col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 50, col. 10 line 5-13, Fig. 8, 10).
As to claim 10, Early teaches a pipetting device comprising a pipetting head configured to be coupled to a plurality of pipetting tips (Early; Fig. 8, 10), wherein the pipetting device is configured for performing [[the]]a method for detection of a bottom of at least one well of a multiwell plate, wherein the pipetting device comprises at least one force sensor configured for measuring a resistance force depending on a force on the pipetting tip exerted by the bottom, wherein the pipetting device comprises at least one control unit configured for executing the following steps: i. measuring the resistance force during movement of one of the pipetting tips from a start position downstream towards the bottom of the well and stopping the movement at a bottom position, wherein the bottom position is a position where a predefined resistance force is reached; ii. storing the bottom position together with a corresponding logical position of the well in the multiwell plate in at least one database; iii. automatically retrieving the stored bottom position from the database; and iv. adjusting, via the control unit, a motor control signal of the pipetting head to move the pipetting tip directly to a target position derived from the stored bottom position during a subsequent pipetting procedure, thereby bypassing a downstream resistance force measurement for said subsequent pipetting procedure (Early teaches a force sensor that detects contact with the bottom of the well based on comparing measured force to a threshold and then storing and raising the position of the pipette upwards to predetermined height to aspirate the sample; col. 6 line 55-col. 7 line 65, col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 50, col. 10 line 5-13, Fig. 8, 10. Early teaches continuing the process for all samples; col. 9 line 50-60, col. 13 line 30-40. Early teaches that once the bottom plate contact point is determined that it is stored and then reused, where the reusing of the value is automatically retrieving the position and then using that location instead of sensing the locations again, thereby bypassing the measurement for subsequent pipetting procedures; col. 8 line 37-49).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 13, Early teaches a laboratory instrument for processing and/or analyzing a sample, wherein the laboratory instrument comprises at least one pipetting device according to claim 10 (Early teaches a pipettor which processes a sample as in claim 10; see claim 10 above. Early also teaches sample analysis; col 13 line 40-46), wherein the laboratory instrument is one or more of a pre-analytical, an analytical or a post-analytical instrument (Early teaches a force sensor that detects contact with the bottom of the well based on comparing measured force to a threshold and then storing and raising the position of the pipette upwards to predetermined height to aspirate the sample; col. 6 line 55-col. 7 line 65, col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 50, col. 10 line 5-13, Fig. 8, 10).
As to claim 16, Early teaches the pipetting device according to claim 10, wherein the control unit is further configured, subsequent to reaching the bottom position where the predefined resistance force is reached, to move the pipetting tip upwards until the resistance force has decreased to a predefined residual force, and moving the pipetting tip upwards with a predefined distance to carry out aspiration and/or sip and spit (Early teaches a force sensor that detects contact with the bottom of the well based on comparing measured force to a threshold and then storing and raising the position of the pipette upwards to predetermined height to aspirate the sample; col. 6 line 55-col. 7 line 65, col. 8 line 62-col. 9 line 50, col. 10 line 5-13, Fig. 8, 10).
Claims 1-13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Barnes et al (US 20160011083; hereinafter “Barnes”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Barnes teaches a method for detection of a bottom of at least one well of a multiwell plate for a pipetting device (Barnes; Fig. 3-5), wherein the pipetting device comprises at least one pipetting head configured for being coupled to a plurality of pipetting tips, wherein the method comprises using at least one force sensor configured for measuring a resistance force depending on a force on a pipetting tip exerted by the bottom, wherein the method comprises the following steps: a) measuring the resistance force during movement of one of the pipetting tips from a start position downstream towards the bottom of the well and stopping the movement at a bottom position, wherein the bottom position is a position where a predefined resistance force is reached; and b) storing the bottom position together with a corresponding logical position of the well in the multiwell plate in at least one database; c) automatically retrieving, via a control unit, the stored bottom position from the database; and d) adjusting, via the control unit, a motor control signal of the pipetting head to move the pipetting tip directly to a target position derived from the stored bottom position during a subsequent pipetting procedure, thereby bypassing a downstream resistance force measurement for said subsequent pipetting procedure (Barnes teaches a pipette device that uses a force sensor to determine and measure the bottom of the well and record the position of the well in order to map the depth and position of each well; [16, 24, 25, 27, 32-33, 35, 37-38, 40, 42], Fig. 3-5. Barnes teaches that the method can be used for calibration [17], and also that each well can be measured before sampling [37] and that all of the wells or subsets of the wells can be mapped for depth and location [38-40], and where the bottom is measured and then the pipette moves up a desired standoff distance to perform aspiration [35]. Barnes teaches the pipetting head able to hold a probe 114/116, where this is able to be replaced to be a plurality [22], and also where there could be multiple probes present [26]. Barnes, in [37] teaches where all of the wells are measured prior to running the experiment, where these values are stored in a depth map database and then the sampling takes place in the subsequent operations such that the measurement during the subsequent sampling is bypassed. Barnes teaches that mapping before subsequent sampling improves the speed [36], and also that only a subset of wells can be mapped where those mapped wells are then stored and used for the entire plate in the subsequent pipetting operations [38]. Barnes even teaches that if the well location is known and recorded that the contact sensor is not used [44]).
As to claim 4, Barnes teaches the method of claim 1, wherein steps a) and b) are repeated in case of new consumables and/or new pipetting tips (Barnes; [16, 24, 25, 27, 32-33, 35, 37-38, 40, 42], Fig. 3-5. Barnes teaches that the method can be used for calibration [17], and also that each well can be measured before sampling [37] and that all of the wells or subsets of the wells can be mapped for depth and location [38-40], and where the bottom is measured and then the pipette moves up a desired standoff distance to perform aspiration [35]. Barnes also teaches that there is consumable variation, where measuring based on consumable and pipette variation is important; [19]).
As to claim 5, Barnes teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the force sensor comprises a load cell configured for generating a sensor signal proportional to the resistance force exerted on the pipetting tip (Barnes; [24, 25]).
As to claim 6, Barnes teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed during at least one of aspiration, sip and spit, and dispensing (Barnes; [16, 17, 35]).
As to claim 7, Barnes teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed during aspiration and/or sip and spit, wherein the method further comprises, subsequent to step a), moving the pipetting tip upwards until the resistance force has decreased to a predefined residual force, and moving the pipetting tip upwards with a predefined distance to its final position for aspiration and/or sip and spit (Barnes; [16, 17, 35]).
As to claim 8, Barnes teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises performing an automated surveillance of the force sensor by moving the pipetting head to a force control check station, exerting a predefined resistance force on the force sensor using a mechanical spring of the check station, and verifying that a force value measured by the force sensor is within a predefined tolerance of the predefined resistance force (Barnes teaches the force sensor providing feedback; [24, 25]. Barnes teaches springs 108/112 which provide resistance compressive force; [21, 44], Figs. 3-4. The springs of Barnes compress under force and also provide a resistance pulling force under a condition in which the probe is not in contact).
As to claim 9, Barnes teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein two different forces are applied to the force sensor during the automated surveillance (Barnes teaches the force sensor providing feedback; [24, 25]. Because Barnes teaches that the force sensor detects impact with the bottom of the well, then the forces upon detecting contact with the bottom of the well will be different than when no contact is made).
As to claim 10, Barnes teaches a pipetting device comprising a pipetting head configured to be coupled to a plurality of pipetting tips (Barnes; Fig. 3-5), wherein the pipetting device is configured for performing [[the]]a method for detection of a bottom of at least one well of a multiwell plate, wherein the pipetting device comprises at least one force sensor configured for measuring a resistance force depending on a force on the pipetting tip exerted by the bottom, wherein the pipetting device comprises at least one control unit configured for executing the following steps: i. measuring the resistance force during movement of one of the pipetting tips from a start position downstream towards the bottom of the well and stopping the movement at a bottom position, wherein the bottom position is a position where a predefined resistance force is reached; ii. storing the bottom position together with a corresponding logical position of the well in the multiwell plate in at least one database; iii. automatically retrieving the stored bottom position from the database; and iv. adjusting, via the control unit, a motor control signal of the pipetting head to move the pipetting tip directly to a target position derived from the stored bottom position during a subsequent pipetting procedure, thereby bypassing a downstream resistance force measurement for said subsequent pipetting procedure (Barnes teaches a pipette device that uses a force sensor to determine and measure the bottom of the well and record the position of the well in order to map the depth and position of each well; [16, 24, 25, 27, 32-33, 35, 37-38, 40, 42], Fig. 3-5. Barnes teaches that the method can be used for calibration [17], and also that each well can be measured before sampling [37] and that all of the wells or subsets of the wells can be mapped for depth and location [38-40], and where the bottom is measured and then the pipette moves up a desired standoff distance to perform aspiration [35]. Barnes teaches the pipetting head able to hold a probe 114/116, where this is able to be replaced to be a plurality [22], and also where there could be multiple probes present [26]. Barnes, in [37] teaches where all of the wells are measured prior to running the experiment, where these values are stored in a depth map database and then the sampling takes place in the subsequent operations such that the measurement during the subsequent sampling is bypassed. Barnes teaches that mapping before subsequent sampling improves the speed [36], and also that only a subset of wells can be mapped where those mapped wells are then stored and used for the entire plate in the subsequent pipetting operations [38]. Barnes even teaches that if the well location is known and recorded that the contact sensor is not used [44])..
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 13, Barnes teaches a laboratory instrument for processing and/or analyzing a sample (Barnes; Fig. 3-5. Barnes teaches the pipettor, and also analysis; [16, 17]), wherein the laboratory instrument comprises at least one pipetting device according to claim 10 (Barnes; Fig. 3-5), wherein the laboratory instrument is one or more of a pre-analytical, an analytical or a post-analytical instrument (Barnes teaches a pipette device that uses a force sensor to determine and measure the bottom of the well and record the position of the well in order to map the depth and position of each well; [16, 24, 25, 27, 32-33, 35, 37-38, 40, 42], Fig. 3-5. Barnes teaches that the method can be used for calibration [17], and also that each well can be measured before sampling [37] and that all of the wells or subsets of the wells can be mapped for depth and location [38-40], and where the bottom is measured and then the pipette moves up a desired standoff distance to perform aspiration [35]. Barnes teaches the pipetting head able to hold a probe 114/116, where this is able to be replaced to be a plurality [22], and also where there could be multiple probes present [26]).
As to claim 16, Barnes teaches the pipetting device according to claim 10, wherein the control unit is further configured, subsequent to reaching the bottom position where the predefined resistance force is reached, to move the pipetting tip upwards until the resistance force has decreased to a predefined residual force, and moving the pipetting tip upwards with a predefined distance to carry out aspiration and/or sip and spit (Barnes teaches here the bottom is measured and then the pipette moves up a desired standoff distance to perform aspiration [35]).
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Early et al (US 5455008; hereinafter “Early”; already of record) in view of Tyberg et al (US 20010028864; hereinafter “Tyberg”; already of record).
As to claims 8-9, Early teaches the method of claim 1 (see above), and surveillance of the force sensor, and where at least two different forces are applied to the force sensor (Early teaches determining when forces change, thereby providing multiple different forces on the force sensor; see claims 1 and 13 above).
Early does not specifically teach the force sensor is moved to a defined force control check station where the force sensor experiences at least one resistance force generated from at least one mechanical spring of the check station, and verifying that a force measured by the force sensor is within a predefined tolerance. However, Tyberg teaches the analogous art of bottom detecting where the device includes a spring and where the sensing device experiences at least one resistance force generated from the spring (Tyberg teaches a spring which triggers the sensor; [25, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the force sensor for detecting various forces of Early to include a spring as in Tyberg because Tyberg teaches that using a spring enables the pipetting arm movement to be independent of the probe itself (Tyberg; [25, 32, 33, 37]), and the spring would help to ensure that the pipette itself was not damaged upon contacting the bottom.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Early et al (US 5455008; hereinafter “Early”; already of record) in view of Tyberg et al (US 20010028864; hereinafter “Tyberg”; already of record) and in view of Yasui et al (US 20140199779; hereinafter “Yasui”).
As to claim 14, Early teaches the laboratory instrument of claim 13 (see above), and surveillance of the force sensor, and where at least two different forces are applied to the force sensor, and the instrument configured to issue a hardware alert if a force measured by the force sensor deviates from a reference value more than a predefined tolerance (Early teaches determining when forces change, thereby providing multiple different forces on the force sensor; see claims 1 and 13 above. Early teaches an halt operation that is a hardware alert to allow the problem to be investigated when the force deviates; Fig. 10).
Early does not specifically teach the force sensor is moved to a defined force control check station where the force sensor experiences at least one resistance force generated from at least one mechanical spring of the check station, and verifying that a force measured by the force sensor is within a predefined tolerance. However, Tyberg teaches the analogous art of bottom detecting where the device includes a spring and where the sensing device experiences at least one resistance force generated from the spring (Tyberg teaches a spring which triggers the sensor; [25, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the force sensor for detecting various forces of Early to include a spring as in Tyberg because Tyberg teaches that using a spring enables the pipetting arm movement to be independent of the probe itself (Tyberg; [25, 32, 33, 37]), and the spring would help to ensure that the pipette itself was not damaged upon contacting the bottom.
Modified Early does not specifically teach a teaching tool that is metallic as a check station. However, Yasui teaches the analogous art of a laboratory instrument with a pipetting device, and where there is a metallic teaching tool used to calibrate the bottom detection sensor (Yasui teaches a that the pipette contacts metallic teaching tool 47 and the force to compress the spring to the sensor is determined and stored in order to calibrate the device; Fig. 4-7, [49-54]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the spring-based force sensor of modified Early to have used a metallic teaching tool as in Yasui because Yasui teaches that it is known to use the metallic teaching tool to calibrate the compressed spring force distance and store that in memory for calibration (Yasui; [49-54]).
As to claim 15, Early teaches the laboratory instrument according to claim 14, wherein two different forces are applied to the force sensor (Early teaches determining when forces change, thereby providing multiple different forces on the force sensor; see claims 1 and 13 above. Because Early teaches that the force sensor detects impact with the bottom of the well, then the forces upon detecting contact with the bottom of the well will be different than when no contact is made. Additionally, the modification in claim 14 above results in the force sensor of Yasui sensing multiple different forces).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al (US 20160011083; hereinafter “Barnes”; already of record) in view of Yasui et al (US 20140199779; hereinafter “Yasui”).
As to claim 14, Barnes teaches the laboratory instrument of claim 13, wherein the laboratory instrument comprises a force control check station, wherein the force control check station is configured for automated surveillance of the force sensor, wherein the force control check station is configured for exerting at least one resistance force on the force sensor generated from at least one mechanical spring when the pipetting head contacts the check station, and wherein the laboratory instrument is configured to issue a hardware alert if a force measured by the force sensor deviates from a reference value of the mechanical spring by more than a predefined tolerance (Barnes teaches the force sensor providing feedback; [24, 25]. Barnes teaches springs 108/112 which provide resistance compressive force; [21, 44], Figs. 3-4. The springs of Barnes compress under force and also provide a resistance pulling force under a condition in which the probe is not in contact. The check station is the region at which the force is detected. Further, the device of Barnes teaches a warning alert system; [40, 46]).
Barnes does not specifically teach a teaching tool that is metallic as a check station. However, Yasui teaches the analogous art of a laboratory instrument with a pipetting device, and where there is a metallic teaching tool used to calibrate the bottom detection sensor (Yasui teaches a that the pipette contacts metallic teaching tool 47 and the force to compress the spring to the sensor is determined and stored in order to calibrate the device; Fig. 4-7, [49-54]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the spring-based force sensor of Barnes to have used a metallic teaching tool as in Yasui because Yasui teaches that it is known to use the metallic teaching tool to calibrate the compressed spring force distance and store that in memory for calibration (Yasui; [49-54]).
As to claim 15, Barnes teaches the laboratory instrument according to claim 14, wherein two different forces are applied to the force sensor (Barnes teaches the force sensor providing feedback; [24, 25]. Because Barnes teaches that the force sensor detects impact with the bottom of the well, then the forces upon detecting contact with the bottom of the well will be different than when no contact is made. Additionally, the modification in claim 14 above results in the force sensor of Yasui sensing multiple different forces).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/27/26 have been considered, but are moot because the arguments are towards the amended claims and not the current grounds of rejection. However, because the examiner is relying on the same prior art references then the examiner has considered applicants arguments in order to advance prosecution. Thus, applicants arguments have also been considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicants argue on page 2 of their remarks that prior art Early does not disclose a system and suppresses the sensing routine entirely, thereby stating that Early does not teach the amended limitations. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Early teaches that once the bottom plate contact point is determined that it is stored and then reused, where the reusing of the value is automatically retrieving the position and then using that location instead of sensing the locations again, thereby bypassing the measurement for subsequent pipetting procedures; col. 8 line 37-49.
Applicants argue on page 3 of their remarks that prior art Barnes does not disclose the amended limitations and that Barnes requires the sensor to be active such that every subsequent procedure is re-sensed. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Barnes in [35] does teach that the sample probe can measure the sample in real time for each well, [35] was cited by the examiner solely to show how the bottom and standoff position are determined. Barnes, in [37] teaches an alternative where all of the wells are measured prior to running the experiment, where these values are stored in a depth map database and then the sampling takes place in the subsequent operations such that the measurement during the subsequent sampling is bypassed. Barnes teaches that mapping before subsequent sampling improves the speed [36], and also that only a subset of wells can be mapped where those mapped wells are then stored and used for the entire plate in the subsequent pipetting operations [38]. Barnes even teaches that if the well location is known and recorded that the contact sensor is not used [44].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798