DETAILED ACTION
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.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the two groups are not distinct. This is found persuasive because the two different groups encompass the same invention except, they belong to different statutory category (method and CRM). Accordingly, claims 1-25 will be examined together.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2024 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 8, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GEZA et al. hereinafter GEZA (JP 2013072687 A).
With respect to claim 1, GEZA discloses a method for withdrawing a solution comprising a plurality of particles from a vial (provide a suspension container for bound particles for the isolation of biological materials., para. [0009]), the method comprising:
agitating the vial at a first predetermined mixing speed to suspend the plurality of particles in the solution (shaker for stirring the container and suspending the bound particles, para. [0011]; the container is agitated to achieve or maintain a uniform distribution of bound particles, para. [0028]); and
withdrawing, during the agitating, a first volume of the solution from the vial with a pipette (drawing up at least a portion of the suspension using a linear arrangement of multiple pipettes or pipette tips, [0067]), such that an end of a pipette tip is positioned at a first predetermined depth within the vial (introducing the linear arrangement of the plurality of pipettes or pipette tips into the suspension through the opening and/or the perforable cover, para. [0067]).
With respect to claim 2, GEZA discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of particles comprises a plurality of paramagnetic beads (the bound particles comprise magnetic glass particles, para. [0011]).
With respect to claim 8, GEZA discloses the method of claim 1, the method further comprising: prior to withdrawing, during the agitating, the first volume of the solution from the vial, aligning a pipette with the vial along an axis using a vial rack (see Figs. 6a-6b; see also para. [0093] for withdrawing using pipette), wherein the vial rack is configured to receive and stabilize the vial (see Fig. 6c; see para. [0041] and [0079] for centrifuging/agitating).
With respect to claim 19, GEZA discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a controller, cause a controller to perform a set of operations (provide a suspension container for bound particles for the isolation of biological materials., para. [0009]) comprising:
agitating a vial at a first predetermined mixing speed to suspend a plurality of particles in a solution (shaker for stirring the container and suspending the bound particles, para. [0011]; the container is agitated to achieve or maintain a uniform distribution of bound particles, para. [0028]); and
withdrawing, during the agitating, a first volume of the solution from the vial with a pipette (drawing up at least a portion of the suspension using a linear arrangement of multiple pipettes or pipette tips, [0067]), such that an end of a pipette tip is positioned at a first predetermined depth within the vial (introducing the linear arrangement of the plurality of pipettes or pipette tips into the suspension through the opening and/or the perforable cover, para. [0067]).
With respect to claim 22, GEZA discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, the set of operations further comprising: prior to withdrawing, during the agitating, the first volume of the solution from the vial, aligning the pipette with the vial along an axis using a vial rack (see Figs. 6a-6b; see also para. [0093] for withdrawing using pipette), wherein the vial rack also stabilizes the vial (see Fig. 6c; see para. [0041] and [0079] for centrifuging/agitating).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GEZA in view of STADLER et al. hereinafter STADLER (CA 3163761 A1).
With respect to claim 4, GEZA discloses the method of claim 1 above. GEZA is silent about agitating the vial at the first predetermined mixing speed comprises agitating the vial in an orbital pattern.
STADLER invention related to the field of cell separation or isolation agitating the vial at the first predetermined mixing speed comprises agitating the vial in an orbital pattern (orbital or
reciprocating shakers, page 16 lines 25-30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of STADLER to agitate the vial in an orbital pattern in order to improve mixing efficiency and maintain suspension uniformity within the vial, as doing so is a known technique using orbital or reciprocating shakers for enhancing sample agitation and particle distribution.
With respect to claim 5, GEZA and STADLER disclose the method of claim 4 above. GEZA further discloses prior to the agitating, inserting the end of the pipette tip at or near the center of a horizontal cross section of the vial (stirring vessel, para. [0030]). GEZA is silent about during the agitating, the orbital pattern comprises a pattern of up to 3 millimeters from horizontal center. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of STADLER such that the orbital agitation pattern extends up to 3mm from the horizontal center in order to optimize mixing performance and maintain suspension uniformity within the vial, as the selection of a particular orbital displacement constitutes an obvious matter of design choice and a known result effective variable depending on desired agitation characteristics.
With respect to claim 7, GEZA discloses the method of claim 1 above. GEZA is silent about agitating the vial at the first predetermined mixing speed comprises agitating the vial in a linear pattern. STADLER discloses orbital or reciprocating shakers, page 16 lines 25-30. STADLER does not explicitly discloses agitating the vial in linear pattern. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a linear agitation pattern as an obvious matter of design choice because the particular agitation path (e.g., orbital, reciprocating, or linear) merely represents a predictable variation of known mixing motions used to suspend particles and mix solutions. The claimed linear pattern performs the same known function of agitating and mixing the vial contents, would have yielded predictable results, and no criticality has been shown for selecting a linear pattern over other known agitation pattern.
Claims 6, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GEZA and STADLER as applied to claims 4 and 19 above, and further in view of OHRI et al. hereinafter OHRI (CA 2882412 C).
With respect to claim 6, GEZA and STADLER disclose the method of claim 4 above. GEZA and STADLER is silent about the first predetermined mixing speed is between 900 revolutions per minute and 1100 revolutions per minute.
OHRI invention related to processes for dissolving modified Cellulose discloses the first predetermined mixing speed is between 900 revolutions per minute and 1100 revolutions per minute (mixer speed of 900 rpm, para. [005111]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of OHRI to utilize a first predetermined mixing speed between 900 rpm and 1100 rpm in order to achieve effective mixing and suspension uniformity within the vital, as selection of an appropriate mixing speed is a known result effective variable and an obvious matter of design choice depending on the desired mixing performance.
With respect to claim 21, GEZA discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 above. GEZA is silent about agitating the vial at the first predetermined mixing speed comprises agitating the vial in an orbital pattern, and wherein the first predetermined mixing speed is between 900 revolutions per minute and 1100 revolutions per minute.
STADLER invention related to the field of cell separation or isolation agitating the vial at the first predetermined mixing speed comprises agitating the vial in an orbital pattern (orbital or
reciprocating shakers, page 16 lines 25-30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of STADLER to agitate the vial in an orbital pattern in order to improve mixing efficiency and maintain suspension uniformity within the vial, as doing so is a known technique using orbital or reciprocating shakers for enhancing sample agitation and particle distribution.
GEZA and STADLER is silent about the first predetermined mixing speed is between 900 revolutions per minute and 1100 revolutions per minute.
OHRI invention related to processes for dissolving modified Cellulose discloses the first predetermined mixing speed is between 900 revolutions per minute and 1100 revolutions per minute (mixer speed of 900 rpm, para. [005111]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of OHRI to utilize a first predetermined mixing speed between 900 rpm and 1100 rpm in order to achieve effective mixing and suspension uniformity within the vital, as selection of an appropriate mixing speed is a known result effective variable and an obvious matter of design choice depending on the desired mixing performance.
With respect to claim 25, GEZA, STADLER and OHRI disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21 above. GEZA is further disclosing the set of operations further comprising: based on determining that the vial is agitated outside of a predetermined range of the first predetermined mixing speed or second predetermined mixing speed, stopping agitation of the vial (shaker for stirring the container and suspending the bound particles, para. [0011]; the container is agitated to achieve or maintain a uniform distribution of bound particles, para. [0028]).
Claims 9-14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GEZA as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of RENICK et al. hereinafter RENICK (US 20200164322 A1).
With respect to claim 9, GEZA discloses the method of claim 1 above. GEZA is silent about agitating the vial at a second predetermined mixing speed to suspend the plurality of particles in the solution; and withdrawing, during the agitating, a second volume of the solution from the vial with the pipette, wherein the pipette tip is positioned at a second predetermined depth within the vial, and wherein the second predetermined depth is different than the first predetermined depth as result of a volume of the solution remaining in the vial.
RENICK invention related to mixing liquids and suspensions that include vessels with structures that improve mixing while not contacting liquid delivery components agitating the vial at a second predetermined mixing speed to suspend the plurality of particles in the solution; and withdrawing, during the agitating, a second volume of the solution from the vial with the pipette, wherein the pipette tip is positioned at a second predetermined depth within the vial, and wherein the second predetermined depth is different than the first predetermined depth as result of a volume of the solution remaining in the vial ( sampling a liquid or suspension by mixing a liquid in the vessels disclosed by rotating the vessel in a clockwise direction for a first period of time, pausing the rotation for a second period of time, rotating the vessel in a counterclockwise direction for a third period of time, and pausing the rotation for a second period of time; and optionally repeating step (a) a plurality of times; and, removing a volume of the liquid or suspension, para. [0014]; see Para. [0080] for pipet tips projection).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of RENICK to employ the disclosed mixing technique during sampling in order to maintain particles in suspension, improve sample homogeneity, and enhance sampling consistency and accuracy while withdrawing liquid from vial, as doing so is a known technique for ensuring uniform distribution of suspended particles during liquid sampling operations.
With respect to claim 10, GEZA and RENICK disclose the method of claim 9 above. RENICK further discloses prior to withdrawing the second volume, the second predetermined depth, wherein the second predetermined depth is determined based on measuring a distance from the pipette tip to a bottom portion of the vial (micron silica bead suspensions collected at different horizontal distances across a FIG. 3D spin vessel at a distance of 35 mm from the vessel bottom, para. [00066]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of RENICK to determine the second predetermined depth based on a measured distance from the pipette tip to the bottom portion of the vial in order to achieve more consistent and repeatable sampling of suspended particles, as doing so is a known technique for improving sampling accuracy and maintaining uniform sample collection within a vessel.
With respect to claim 11, GEZA and RENICK disclose the method of claim 9 above. GEZA further discloses the first predetermined mixing speed and the second predetermined mixing speed are the same (using shaker to stir the content of the container before and after transfer, para. [0062], [0064]).
With respect to claim 12, GEZA and RENICK disclose the method of claim 9 above. GEZA further discloses mixing using a shaker before and after sample transfer (see para. [0062]). GEZA is silent about the first predetermined mixing speed and the second predetermined mixing speed are different. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA to utilize different first and second predetermined mixing speeds in order to optimize suspension and sample transfer conditions before and after liquid withdrawal, as varying mixing speed is a known result effective variable and constitutes an obvious matter of design choice depending on the desired mixing performance and particle distribution.
With respect to claim 13, GEZA and RENICK disclose the method of claim 9 above. GEZA further discloses the first volume and the second volume are the same (the container is adapted to hold a volume of at least 100 ml, para. [0058]).
With respect to claim 14, GEZA and RENICK disclose the method of claim 9 above. GEZA further discloses the first volume and the second volume are different (the container is adapted to hold a volume of at least 100 ml, preferably 100 to 500 ml, and more preferably 150 to 300 ml, para. [0058]).
With respect to claim 23, GEZA discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 above. GEZA is silent about the set of operations further comprising: agitating the vial at a second predetermined mixing speed to suspend the plurality of particles in the solution; and withdrawing, during the agitating, a second volume of the solution from the vial with the pipette, wherein the pipette tip is positioned at a second predetermined depth within the vial, and wherein the second predetermined depth is different than the first predetermined depth as result of a volume of the solution remaining in the vial, and wherein the second predetermined depth is determined based on measuring a distance from the pipette tip to a bottom portion of the vial.
RENICK invention related to mixing liquids and suspensions that include vessels with structures that improve mixing while not contacting liquid delivery components agitating the vial at a second predetermined mixing speed to suspend the plurality of particles in the solution; and withdrawing, during the agitating, a second volume of the solution from the vial with the pipette, wherein the pipette tip is positioned at a second predetermined depth within the vial, and wherein the second predetermined depth is different than the first predetermined depth as result of a volume of the solution remaining in the vial ( sampling a liquid or suspension by mixing a liquid in the vessels disclosed by rotating the vessel in a clockwise direction for a first period of time, pausing the rotation for a second period of time, rotating the vessel in a counterclockwise direction for a third period of time, and pausing the rotation for a second period of time; and optionally repeating step (a) a plurality of times; and, removing a volume of the liquid or suspension, para. [0014]; see Para. [0080] for pipet tips projection).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of RENICK to employ the disclosed mixing technique during sampling in order to maintain particles in suspension, improve sample homogeneity, and enhance sampling consistency and accuracy while withdrawing liquid from vial, as doing so is a known technique for ensuring uniform distribution of suspended particles during liquid sampling operations.
Claims 3, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GEZA as applied to claims 1-2, and 19 above, and further in view of Ho (US 20110152127 A1).
With respect to claim 3, GEZA discloses the method of claim 2 above. GEZA is silent about the plurality of paramagnetic beads comprises one or more unique bar codes.
Ho invention related to multiplexed bioassays using micro-volume samples, such as protein and nucleic acid analysis discloses the plurality of paramagnetic beads comprises one or more unique bar codes (the coded bead comprises a body having a series of alternating light transmissive and opaque sections, with relative widths bar code image, para. [0016]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of Ho to utilize paramagnetic beads comprising one or more unique bar codes in order to enable identification and differentiation of multiple samples within a multiplexed assay system, as doing so is a known technique for encoding and tracking particles in bioassay and sample analysis applications.
With respect to claim 15, GEZA discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: transferring a sample of the solution onto a surface; generating a composite image of the transferred sample of solution (the optical detection unit include CCD camera, para. [0083]).
GEZA is silent about wherein the composite image comprises a plurality of images of the transferred sample of solution; and based on the generated composite image, determining a parameter of the transferred sample of solution.
Ho invention related to multiplexed bioassays using micro-volume samples, such as protein and nucleic acid analysis discloses the composite image comprises a plurality of images of the transferred sample of solution (determine the code represented by the image (CCD sensor), para. [0015]); and based on the generated composite image, determining a parameter of the transferred sample of solution (The platform is amenable to scale and could allow patient DNA to be screened for hundreds of different ambiguous alleles with high sensitivity and specificity at once without the necessity of tedious rounds of allele screening to increase resolution, para. [0075]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of Ho to generate a composite image comprising a plurality of images of the transferred sample and determine a parameter of the transferred sample solution based on the generated composite image in order to improve detection accuracy, as doing so is a known technique in image-based bioassay analysis using CCD imaging system.
With respect to claim 16, GEZA and Ho discloses the method of claim 15 above. Ho further discloses generating the composite image of the transferred sample of solution further comprises stitching the plurality of images of the transferred sample of solution into the composite image of the transferred sample of solution (see imaging simultaneously, para. [0015], [0042], [0059]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of Ho to stitch a plurality of images into a composite image of the transferred sample solution in order to improve imaging coverage, increase analytical resolution, and enhance characterization of the transferred sample, as doing so is a known image-processing technique for generating comprehensive composite images from multiple captured images.
With respect to claim 17, GEZA and Ho discloses the method of claim 15 above. Ho further discloses determining a parameter of the transferred sample of solution comprises counting the plurality of particles in the transferred sample of solution (para. [0015], [0072]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of Ho to determine a parameter of the transferred sample solution by counting the plurality of particles in the transferred sample solution in order to improve quantitative analysis and characterization of the sample, as doing so is a known image analysis technique for evaluating particle concentration and distribution within a sample.
With respect to claim 20, GEZA discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 above. GEZA further discloses the plurality of particles comprises a plurality of paramagnetic beads (the bound particles comprise magnetic glass particles, para. [0011]). GEZA is silent about the plurality of paramagnetic beads comprises one or more unique bar codes.
Ho invention related to multiplexed bioassays using micro-volume samples, such as protein and nucleic acid analysis discloses the plurality of paramagnetic beads comprises one or more unique bar codes (the coded bead comprises a body having a series of alternating light transmissive and opaque sections, with relative widths bar code image, para. [0016]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of Ho to utilize paramagnetic beads comprising one or more unique bar codes in order to enable identification and differentiation of multiple samples within a multiplexed assay system, as doing so is a known technique for encoding and tracking particles in bioassay and sample analysis applications.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GEZA and Ho as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of HADDAD et al. hereinafter HADDAD (US 20210012088 A1).
With respect to claim 18, GEZA and Ho discloses the method of claim 17 above. GEZA modified by Ho is silent about counting a plurality of particles in the transferred sample of solution comprises: detecting an edge of a particle in the composite image; and based at least in part on detecting an edge of the particle m the composite image, determining a presence of at least one particle in the composite image.
HADDAD invention related to a method for detection of cells in a cytological sample having at least one anomaly, based on one digitized image or several digitized images of the same sample discloses counting a plurality of particles in the transferred sample of solution comprises: detecting an edge of a particle in the composite image; and based at least in part on detecting an edge of the particle m the composite image, determining a presence of at least one particle in the composite image (edge detection using Harris detector by analysing several images of the solution, para. [0119]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA as modified by Ho in view of HADDAD to detect an edge of a particle in the composite image and determine the presence of at least one particle based on the detected edge in order to improve particle identification and counting accuracy, as doing so is a known image processing technique for detecting and analyzing particles within digital images.
Claims 21 and 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GEZA as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of STADLER and OHRI et al. hereinafter OHRI (CA 2882412 C).
With respect to claim 21, GEZA discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 above. GEZA is silent about agitating the vial at the first predetermined mixing speed comprises agitating the vial in an orbital pattern, and wherein the first predetermined mixing speed is between 900 revolutions per minute and 1100 revolutions per minute.
STADLER invention related to the field of cell separation or isolation agitating the vial at the first predetermined mixing speed comprises agitating the vial in an orbital pattern (orbital or
reciprocating shakers, page 16 lines 25-30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of STADLER to agitate the vial in an orbital pattern in order to improve mixing efficiency and maintain suspension uniformity within the vial, as doing so is a known technique using orbital or reciprocating shakers for enhancing sample agitation and particle distribution.
GEZA and STADLER is silent about the first predetermined mixing speed is between 900 revolutions per minute and 1100 revolutions per minute.
OHRI invention related to processes for dissolving modified Cellulose discloses the first predetermined mixing speed is between 900 revolutions per minute and 1100 revolutions per minute (mixer speed of 900 rpm, para. [005111]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of OHRI to utilize a first predetermined mixing speed between 900 rpm and 1100 rpm in order to achieve effective mixing and suspension uniformity within the vital, as selection of an appropriate mixing speed is a known result effective variable and an obvious matter of design choice depending on the desired mixing performance.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GEZA as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of RENICK and BOSISIO et al. hereinafter BOSISIO (US 20150360987 A1).
With respect to claim 24, GEZA discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23 above. GEZA further discloses the set of operations further comprising: determining that the vial is agitated outside of a predetermined range of the first predetermined mixing speed or second predetermined mixing speed (shaker for stirring the container and suspending the bound particles, para. [0011]; the container is agitated to achieve or maintain a uniform distribution of bound particles, para. [0028]).
GEZA is silent about generating an alert signal to provide an indication that the vial is agitated outside of the predetermined range of the first predetermined mixing speed or second predetermined mixing speed.
RENICK further discloses provide an indication that the vial is agitated outside of the predetermined range of the first predetermined mixing speed or second predetermined mixing speed (sampling a liquid or suspension by mixing a liquid in the vessels disclosed by rotating the vessel in a clockwise direction for a first period of time, pausing the rotation for a second period of time, rotating the vessel in a counterclockwise direction for a third period of time, and pausing the rotation for a second period of time; and optionally repeating step (a) a plurality of times; and, removing a volume of the liquid or suspension, para. [0014]; see Para. [0080] for pipet tips projection).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA in view of RENICK to employ the disclosed mixing technique during sampling in order to maintain particles in suspension, improve sample homogeneity, and enhance sampling consistency and accuracy while withdrawing liquid from vial, as doing so is a known technique for ensuring uniform distribution of suspended particles during liquid sampling operations.
GEZA as modified by RENICK is silent about generating an alert signal based on predetermined values.
BOSISIO invention related to reactors for liquid disinfection discloses generating an alert signal based on predetermined values (The level of expansion can be detected by various sensors such as a turbidimeter, spectrometer, etc. In some embodiments, an expansion that is outside the predetermined range will trigger an alarm to alert an operator and/or to initiate an automatic corrective response by the controller (e.g. adjusting a valve to control flow rate, adjusting agitator speed), para. [0054]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GEZA as modified by RENICK to generate an alert signal based on predetermined value in order to alert the users about exceedance of the predetermined value to reduce damage to equipment and excess agitation of the solution, as doing so is a known technique for improving sampling accuracy and maintaining uniform sample collection within a vessel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200164322 A1 discloses an apparatuses and systems for mixing liquids and suspensions that include vessels with structures that improve mixing while not contacting liquid delivery components. The apparatuses and systems can include a motor drive that allows speed and directional control of rotation of the vessel. The apparatuses and systems can include one or more magnets for separating magnetic beads in a suspension. Also provided are methods using said apparatuses and systems for mixing and separation processes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEDEON M KIDANU whose telephone number is (571)270-0591. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/GEDEON M KIDANU/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 5/20/26
Prosecution Insights