DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on August 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-16 and 19-31 remain pending. Applicant amended claims 1, 15 and 19.
Response to Arguments
Despite the amendment, the outstanding rejections are maintained. That said, Applicant’s arguments directed to the patentability of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable over the combination of Leboudec and Beoughter because the combination does not teach retrieving instructions for using a liquid handling device from the liquid handling device itself. Remarks 10. The argument is not persuasive. Beoughter discloses that the device being remotely controlled comprises a context ID device comprising a barcode (see [0260]), wherein the context ID device transmits instructions to the remote UI device (see [0273]). Consequently, the combination of Leboudec and Beoughter would arrive at a method in which a wearable electronic device retrieves status data (e.g. instructions) directly from a liquid handling device.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “work instructions” taught by Beoughter do not equate to the claimed “instructions related to performing a pipetting task”, (Remarks 12), Applicant’s argument constitutes a piecemeal analysis of a single reference even though the rejection is based on a combination of references. In this case, Leboudec discloses remote control operation of a liquid handling device in the form of a pipette. Consequently, “work instructions” retrieved by the wearable electronic device suggested by the combination of Leboudec and Beoughter would refer to instructions related to performing a pipetting task.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the motivation for combining Leboudec and Beoughter set forth in the rejection is not commensurate with retrieval of status data directly from the liquid handling device (Remarks 12-13), the argument is not persuasive. Resuming an unfinished work session would still require instructions that are native to the liquid handling device (e.g. instructions directed to initiating cleaning of the liquid handling device, powering off the liquid handling device, unlinking the remote UI and the liquid handling device, changing settings of the liquid handling device, etc.). In other words, contrary to the implication of Applicant’s argument, the combination of Leboudec and Beoughter would arrive at a method in which instructions for operating the liquid handling device is imported into/meshed with (as opposed to overriding) the user data saved in the remote UI (see also disclosure of Beoughter directed to how device data, such as alarm/malfunction status of the remote device, is integrated into user data, see [0206] and [0267]). Consequently, the examiner maintains that the amendment does not obviate the motivation set forth in the rejection.
Regarding claim 31, Applicant argues that the limitation “user-tailored set of pipetting modes” is not anticipated by a method in which unique user data is used. Remarks 14. The argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s argument is a conclusory statement that is not supported by explanation or evidence. As discussed above, “user data” taught by the combination of Leboudec and Beoughter refers to pipetting functions/instructions unique to a user based on the user’s ID. Absent the claims further specifying the nature of the limitation “a user-tailored set of pipetting modes” or Applicant further elaborating why the disclosure of the prior art does not teach the limitation, the examiner maintains that the rejection is proper.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejections are maintained, albeit they have been updated to address the amended claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15, 19, 20, 22-26 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leboudec (US 2019/0257849 A1) in view of Beoughter et al. (“Beoughter”) (US 2016/0132046 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Leboudec teaches a method comprising:
providing a wearable electronic device 14/16 (see Fig. 1) that is configured to be worn by a user of a liquid handling device 12 (pipette) (see abstract and Fig. 1), wherein the wearable electronic device comprises a user interface (UI) 36;
by means of the wearable electronic device, retrieving user data (movement data, configuration data) that is specific to said user (see abstract); and
on the basis of the retrieved user data, providing a functionality for remote control of at least one function (pipetting) of the liquid handling device in the UI 36 of the wearable electronic device (see abstract and Fig. 1 illustrating flow of data to and from the UI).
The method differs from the claimed invention in that Leboudec does not disclose that the wearable electronic device retrieves status data from the liquid handling device, wherein the status data comprises instructions related to performing a pipetting task.
Beoughter teaches an analogous method of controlling a remotely-located device using a wearable UI (see abstract). By tracking work sessions (see [0066]) and/or recognizing the identity of the user (see [0088]), the UI enables said user to resume unfinished work (see [0066] and [0088]), and the UI can further provide instructions for completing the work (see [0067] and [0104]), wherein the instructions can be retrieved from a context ID device (e.g. barcode, see [0260]) associated with the remotely-located device (see [0273]). In light of the disclosure of Beoughter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the wearable electronic device taught by Leboudec to retrieve status data (instructions) from the liquid handling device and user data (user ID). The modification would enable a user to pause work using the liquid handling device and resume at a later time. If the modification is made, then the method would further comprise a step of using the wearable electronic device to retrieve status data of the liquid handling device from the liquid handling device, specifically instructions related to performing a pipetting task (e.g. instructions for cleaning the liquid handling device, powering down the liquid handling device, changing settings on the liquid handling device, etc.), as well as user data that enables the UI to identify the user and hence allow the user to resume work.
With respect to claim 2, the wearable electronic device 14 comprises smart glasses (see Fig. 1 and abstract of Leboudec).
With respect to claim 3, the liquid handling device is an automated liquid handling or dosing device (see abstract and Fig. 1 of Leboudec).
With respect to claim 4, the claim is directed to a method of using a wearable device. While the liquid handling device is mentioned in claim 1, it is mentioned solely to specify to what the wearable device is connected and configured to control. In other words, the liquid handling device is an article worked upon by a structure (wearable device) that is claimed. "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (see MPEP 2115). That said, whether the liquid handling device is located in a sterile environment does not further limit the steps recited in claim 1. Consequently, claim 4 is rejected by the combination of Leboudec and Beoughter. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the modified method to control a liquid handling device in a clean room (e.g. a pipette used for formulating pharmaceutical compositions, which requires a sterile environment).
Likewise, claim 5 remains rejected by the combination of Leboudec and Beoughter. Claim 5 further limits the liquid handling device, which is not a part of the claimed method.
With respect to claim 6, the wearable electronic device and the liquid handling device are connected to each other by a wireless connection (see [0049] of Leboudec).
With respect to claim 7, if the method disclosed by Leboudec is modified as suggested above (see rejection of claim 1), the user data would comprise user identity data and/or usage history data specific to the user (see rejection of claim 1 regarding the use of user identification/work log to determine the point at which work resumes).
With respect to claims 8 and 9, the at least one function (pipetting) is executable manually by the user using controller 16 (see abstract). Naturally, the remote control is provided for use or execution in the wearable device (using controller 16).
With respect to claim 10, the at least one function (pipetting) is provided in the liquid handling device 12 (see Fig. 1). While Leboudec does not explicitly disclose that the at least one function further comprises automated locking and/or unlocking of the liquid handling device, Beoughter discloses that remote control can encompass locking of the device being remotely controlled (see [0067]). In light of the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have enabled remote locking/unlocking of the liquid handling device to prevent unauthorized use of the liquid handling device.
With respect to claim 11, if the method taught by Leboudec is modified pursuant to the teachings of Beoughter (see rejection of claim 1), then the remote control of the liquid handling device would be executed automatically when the user data (user ID) satisfies a pre-determined criterion (user ID is confirmed).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, as discussed above (see claim 1), the functionality (i.e. remote control of the liquid handling device) is provided via input and/or output means (display) of the UI 36 (see abstract and Fig. 1), wherein the UI 36, if modified pursuant to the teachings of Beoughter (see [0150] disclosing that the user interface synchronizes with user ID), would be user-customized based on the user data (user ID).
With respect to claim 14, the user interface is a user-motion-controlled user interface 16 of the liquid handling device (see abstract and Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 15, if the method taught by Leboudec is modified so as to require the use of user ID to utilize the wearable electronic device (see rejection of claim 1), then the subject matter of claim 15 would be satisfied.
With respect to claim 19, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 1), Leboudec discloses a wearable electronic device (see abstract), which is connectable to a liquid handling device and configured to be worn by a user of the device (see abstract and Fig. 1). Moreover, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 1), the device, when modified pursuant to the teachings of Beoughter, would be configured to:
retrieve user data and status data; and
customize, on the basis of the retrieved data, the UI so as to provide remote control of at least one function (pipetting) of the liquid handling device.
With respect to claim 20, Beoughter discloses that remote control can be achieved using a smart watch (see [0088]). Based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a smart watch as a component of the wearable electronic device for performing functions (locking/unlocking; receiving status updates) that are suitable and appropriate for a smart watch.
With respect to claim 22, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 1), user data would comprise user identity data, and the UI would be customized based on the user data and provided via input and/or output means (display 36) of the wearable electronic device (see abstract and Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 23, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 1), the wearable electronic device would retrieve user data and customize the Ui based on the user data. Naturally, the user-customized would provide remote control of at least one function of the liquid handling device (see abstract of Leboudec).
With respect to claims 24 and 25, the remote control comprises gesture control of aspirating and dispensing functions of a hand-held liquid handling robot (see abstract and [0008] of Leboudec).
With respect to claim 26, the gesture control comprises synchronized motion between a body part (arm) carrying the wearable device 16 (see abstract and [0064] of Leboudec) and a movable part of the automated liquid handling robot (see abstract of Leboudec).
With respect to claims 28 and 29, Beoughter teaches that its remotely-controlled devices operate with an awareness of the user’s location (see [0090]), including automatically launching specified functions pertaining to a user’s skill set when the user is within certain proximity of a device encompassing the specified functions (i.e. an equipment unlocks features when a pertinent user is within certain proximity of the equipment) (see [0258]). Based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the wearable electronic device to retrieve user location data, and lock and/or unlock features of the liquid handling device (e.g. enable manual override) based on the user location data, including slowing down and eventually shutting down the liquid handling device when the user is within close proximity of the device so that the device can be manually controlled. The modification would enhance user-friendliness of the liquid handling device.
With respect to claim 30, the status data further comprises pipette location relative to other components (e.g. reagent container, microplate) (see [0011]) and availability data (i.e. what type of components are available for use with the pipette) (see [0012]).
With respect to claim 31, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 1), by retrieving the user data and status data, the method would enable the user to complete work that was previously left unfinished, meaning the functionality comprises a user-tailored set of pipetting modes.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leboudec in view of Beoughter as applied to claims, 1-15, 19, 20, 22-26 and 28-31 above, and further in view of von Allmen (US 2020/0312448 A1).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Leboudec and Beoughter does not disclose a step of retrieving environmental status data of a laboratory device, and subsequently providing a functionality for remote control of said device.
Von Allmen teaches the need to remotely monitor the status of laboratory equipment (see [0002]-[0006]), including pipettes (see [0036]), and proposes the use of a wearable device to remotely monitor the equipment (see [0060]). One status that can be monitored is the operating temperature of the equipment to identify abnormal operational status of the equipment (see [0059]). In light of the disclosure of von Allmen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have used the modified Leboudec method to monitor environmental data (e.g. temperature) relevant to the operation of the liquid handling device, and based on the data (e.g. data indicating abnormal operating temperature) received by the wearable device, provide a functionality for remote control of the laboratory device (e.g. shut down the device remotely to prevent damage, improper handling of biological samples that require specific handling temperatures).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leboudec in view of Beoughter as applied to claims, 1-15, 19, 20, 22-26 and 28-31 above, and further in view of Martinez Fernandez et al. (“Martinez”) (US 2015/0346834 A1).
While Leboudec discloses the use of a hand-held controller 16 for controlling an automated pipette using gestures (see abstract and [0064]), Leboudec does not disclose the use of a smart glove.
Martinez discloses that the use of smart gloves to remotely control workplace machinery using gestures is well-known in the art (see [0009]). In light of the disclosure of Martinez, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have used a smart glove instead of the hand-held controller when carrying out the modified method of Leboudec. The use of a smart glove would enable recognition of subtle finger movements not possible with a joystick, for example.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leboudec in view of Beoughter as applied to claims, 1-15, 19, 20, 22-26 and 28-31 above, and further in view of Wan (CN 106019926 A)
With respect to claim 27, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 20), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a smart watch as a component of the wearable electronic device. Moreover, Beoughter teaches that the user identity data is retrieved from a log file (see [0162]). However, neither Leboudec nor Beoughter disclose that access to the user identity data (e.g. work log) occurs only when a user pulse or a user skin contact is detected by the wearable electronic device.
Wan teaches a smart watch comprising a skin detection module that automatically activates upon detecting contact with skin (see claim). When no skin contact is detected, the watch enters a power saving mode (see claim). In light of the disclosure of Wan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the smart watch of the wearable electronic device to detect contact with skin, and activate only when it detects that it is in contact with skin. The modification would improve the battery life of the smart watch.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
