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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/21/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested to recite “the pully 201” in line 2 as “the first pully 201” for improved antecedent basis and consistency of terminology . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested to recite “the top portion…the bottom portion” in lines 3-4 as “a top portion…a bottom portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested to recite “the labware” in line 1 as “the labware consumables” for improved antecedent basis and consistency of terminology . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “a distal end of at least one beam is mated with a groove comprised in the at least one frame side”. It is unclear if the “at least one beam” is a component of the plurality of supports, the conveyor, or the side frame; or if the beam is a separate component. Claims 3-5 and 7-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation "the free movement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to recite “the free movement” as “free movement”. Claims 4-5 and 7-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 3.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation "the plurality of beams" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 2 establishes “at least one beam”, but does not establish a plurality of beams. It is unclear if the plurality of beams of claim 3 is the same or different from the at least one beam of claim 2. Claims 4-5 and 7-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 3.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation "the top portion of the timing belt to the bottom portion of the timing belt" in line 3. It is unclear if “the timing belt” is referring to the first timing belt or the second timing belt of claim 1. For examination purposes, the timing belt is interpreted as referring to one of the first timing belt or the second timing belt. Claims 4-5 and 7-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “the timing belt” in line 2. It is unclear if “the timing belt” is referring to the first timing belt or the second timing belt of claim 1. For examination purposes, the timing belt is interpreted as referring to one of the first timing belt or the second timing belt.
Regarding claim 8, the term “generally flat surface” in line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 9-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation "the first and second timing belts or chains" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (i.e. “or chains”) in the claim. It is suggested to recite “the first and second timing belts or chains" as “the first and second timing belts”. Claims 12-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “the timing belt” in lines 1-3. It is unclear if “the timing belt” is referring to the first timing belt or the second timing belt of claim 1. For examination purposes, the timing belt is interpreted as referring to one of the first timing belt or the second timing belt. Claims 13-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites “a guide rail 401 is situated on the internal side of at least one frame bar 411”. It is unclear if the “guide rail” and the “at least one frame bar 411” is the same or different from the “groove comprised in the at least one frame side 411” established in claim 2. Claims 16-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites “at least one axle 314” in line 1. It is unclear if the “at least one axle 314” of claim 16 is referring to “first axle 314”, “second axle”, and/or both first and second axle established in claim 1. For examination purposes, at least one axle 314 is interpreted as referring to first axle 314. It is suggested to recite “at least one axle 314” as “first axle 314”. Claims 17-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 16.
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.
(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 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gabrian et al. (US 20040042339 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gabrian teaches a laboratory apparatus (Figs. 1-4; abstract) for the storage and delivery of samples or labware (Figs. 3A-3B and [0024],[0031] teaches the apparatus includes sample tube racks for storing and linearly moving tubes) comprising:
a plurality of supports (Figs. 3A-3B, sample tube racks 42) for holding one or more containers of samples or labware consumables in a first set position (Figs. 3A-3B and [0031] teaches sample tube racks 42 are capable of holding sample tubes 40 in a set position, since the sample tube rack with the tubes can be transported in a direction to a position);
a conveyor (Figs. 3A-3B, magnetic drive system including pulleys 53,58, belts 51,57, motors 54,59) for motional translation of the plurality of supports from a first set position to a second set position (Figs. 3A-3B and [0023]-[0024] teaches the magnetic drive system provides bi-directional linear movement of the sample tube racks, therefore is capable of translating the sample tube racks 42 to different positions), wherein the conveyor comprises a first pulley in a first set of pulleys (Fig. 3A, one of pulleys 53) translationally connected by a first timing belt (Fig. 3A, belt 51) to a second pulley in the first set of pulleys (Fig. 3A, the other one of pulleys 53), and a first pulley in a second set of pulleys (Fig. 3A, one of pulleys 58) translationally connected by a second timing belt (Fig. 3A, belt 57) to a second pulley in the second set of pulleys (Fig. 3A, the other one of pulleys 53);
wherein the first pulley of the first set (Fig. 3A, one of pulleys 53; i.e. the left pulley 53 in Fig. 3A) and the first pulley of the second set (Fig. 3A, one of pulleys 58; i.e. the left pulley 58 in Fig. 3A) are connected by a first axle (Fig. 3A shows the left pulleys 53,58 connected by an axle), and the second pulley in the first set (Fig. 3A, the other one of pulleys 53; i.e. the right pulley 53 in Fig. 3A) and the second pulley in the second set (Fig. 3A, the other one of pulleys 58; i.e. the right pulley 58 in Fig. 3A that is implied since [0024] teaches a pair of second pulleys 58) are connected by a second axle (Fig. 3A shows the right pulleys 53,58 connected by an axle);
wherein the plurality of supports (Figs. 3A-3B, sample tube racks 42) is affixed to the first and/or second timing belts (Figs. 3A-3B and [0024] teaches sample tube racks 42 are affixed or coupled to drive belt 51,57) and move translationally with the first and/or second timing belts (Figs. 3A-3B; [0024]);
a power source (Fig. 3A, motors 54,59) for translationally advancing the conveyor from a first set position to a second set position or work access position ([0024] teaches motors 54,59 are controlled to provide linear movement of the sample tube racks 42, therefore is capable of translationally advancing the conveyor to multiple positions).
Regarding claim 2, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 1 (see below annotated Fig. 3A) further comprising at least one frame side (Fig. 3A, side frames of the drive transport mechanism 52) for guiding the plurality of supports from a first set position to a second set position or work access position (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 3A, side frames of the drive transport mechanism 52 are structurally capable of guiding sample tube racks 42 to different positions along the belts 51,57), wherein a distal end of at least one beam (Fig. 3A, interpreted as an end of a beam structure of one of the motors 54,59 that is coupled to a groove of the frame side) is mated with a groove comprised in the at least one frame side (Fig. 3A teaches a groove in the frame side where the end of a beam structure of one of the motors 54,59 mates with to attach to).
PNG
media_image1.png
565
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3A of Gabrian.
Regarding claim 6, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 1 (Figs. 3A-3B) wherein the plurality of supports (42) is reversibly affixed to the timing belt ([0024] teaches sample tube racks 42 are magnetically coupled to the drive belts via posts 60; therefore, magnetically coupled is interpreted as reversibly affixed, since the racks 42 are capable of being detached if force is applied that is greater than the magnetic coupling).
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 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabrian as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Jones (US 3799744 A).
Regarding claim 3, Gabrian fails to teach the laboratory apparatus of claim 2 (Figs. 3A-3B) further comprising a lead out groove permitting the free movement of the plurality of supports around the exterior diameter of the pulley and permitting the plurality of beams to pass from the top portion of the timing belt to the bottom portion of the timing belt.
Gabrian teaches free movement of the plurality of supports around the exterior diameter of the pulley (Fig. 3A shows free movement of sample rube racks 42 around the exterior diameter of pulleys 53,58). Gabrian teaches an embodiment (Fig. 6,6A) comprising a lead out groove ([0032] teaches sampling tracks 84 having flared open ends) suitable for discharging and receiving an aliquot vessel array ([0032]). Gabrian teaches tracks including grooves within sidewalls (Figs. 6,6A, tracks 84) for positioning and defining a directional movement of beams of supports (Figs. 6,6A; [0033]-[0034]). Gabrian teaches it is known for labware to be transported to a waste disposal area after use ([0025]).
Jones teaches an automatic chemical analysis apparatus including sample cups in a sample cup holder (abstract). Jones teaches the apparatus (Figs. 1-5) includes a conveyor including pulleys and belts (Fig. 5) to convey supports (94) for reaction tubes (62). Jones teaches after tests are performed, beams with the tubes are transported by the belts underneath the apparatus to be emptied, washed, rinsed, and dried (abstract). Jones teaches the conveyor (Figs. 2-5) permitting the free movement of the plurality of supports (94) around the exterior diameter of the pulleys (106) and permitting the plurality of supports to pass from the top portion of the timing belt to the bottom portion of the belt (Figs. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laboratory apparatus of Gabrian to incorporate Gabrian’s teachings of free movement of supports around a pulley, lead out grooves, and tracks for supports (Figs. 3A, 6,6A; [0032]-[0034]) and Jones’ teachings of a conveyor system with supports that allow for movement around pulleys to allow the supports to pass from the top to the bottom of the belt (Figs. 1-5; abstract) to provide: the laboratory apparatus of claim 2 further comprising a lead out groove permitting the free movement of the plurality of supports around the exterior diameter of the pulley and permitting the plurality of beams to pass from the top portion of the timing belt to the bottom portion of the timing belt. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving discharging and receiving of the supports, improving positioning and defining a directional movement of the beams of supports, and allowing for movement of the supports to a position for emptying or waste, therefore improving efficiency and automation of handling samples or labware in the laboratory apparatus.
Regarding claim 4, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 3 (Figs. 3A-3B) wherein the plurality of supports (42) is configured to hold a labware container or sample container in between two rows of beams (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 3A-3B teaches supports 42 having beam shapes, which are structurally capable of holding a labware container or sample container between them).
Regarding claim 5, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 4 (Fig. 3A) wherein the first and second axles (Fig. 3A, the axles that connect both sets of pulleys 53,38) are positioned substantially perpendicular to the first and second set of at least two pulleys (Fig. 3A teaches the axles that connect both sets of pulleys 53,38 are perpendicular to the pulleys).
Regarding claim 7, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 5 (Figs. 1-5) further comprising a work deck (Fig. 1, work deck of transport system 36).
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabrian in view of Jones as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al. (US 20210063423 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 7 wherein the work deck is a generally flat surface (Fig. 1, work deck of transport system 36 is interpreted as generally flat). Modified Gabrian fails to teach the apparatus is provided in a drawer underneath the work deck.
Yamashita teaches an automated analyzing device (Figs. 1-12) including a drawer (21) underneath a work deck (Fig. 1 shows a flat work desk of automated analyzing device 1). Yamashita teaches automated analyzing devices frequently consumes dispensing tips and reaction containers, therefore it is necessary to load a tip rack frequently ([0006]). Yamashita teaches it is not desirable to stop the automated analyzing device and open the safety cover every time the tip rack is loaded, as this will cause a reduction in processing capacity ([0006]). Yamashita teaches it is known for automated analyzers to have drawers to accommodate a disposable tip box and waste container ([0007]). Yamashita teaches it is known for automated analyzers to have racks mounted on a transfer conveyor to supply racks ([0008]). Yamashita teaches the drawer in the automated analyzing device allows for a tip rack to be opened and closed, such that the tip rack can be easily and reliably replaced ([0015]). Yamashita teaches the drawer includes a plurality of supports (Figs. 3-8, tip rack guide 73) for labware (tip rack 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of modified Gabrian to incorporate Yamashita’s teachings of automated analyzing devices with a drawer underneath a work deck for loading and replacing consumable labware (Figs. 1-12; [0006]-[0008],[0015]) to provide: the apparatus is provided in a drawer underneath the work deck. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving ease and reliability of replacing samples or labware to the laboratory apparatus without reducing the processing capacity or efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, modified Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 8 wherein the drawer is configured to be opened thereby providing access to the apparatus (see above claim 8; modified Gabrian and Yamashita provides the claimed drawer for opening/closing to load and replace labware, therefore is configured to be opened to access the apparatus; Yamashita, [0015] teaches the drawer is opened to load and replace a tip rack, therefore is capable of accessing the apparatus).
Regarding claim 10, modified Gabrian fails to teach the laboratory apparatus of claim 9 wherein the work access position presents at least one support for labware at an opening in the work deck, thereby permitting access of a gantry or robotic arm to at least one support in a second set position or work access position.
Gabrian teaches an embodiment (Fig. 6A) that provides an opening in a work deck that allows access to vessels (Fig. 6, 6A shows transport system 62 having an opening including tracks 84 that allows access to vessels 62). Gabrian teaches permitting access of a gantry or robotic arm to at least one support in a second set position or work access position (Fig. 1 shows sampling arm 44 capable of accessing supports 42 at a position).
Yamashita teaches an automated analyzing device (Figs. 1-12) including a drawer (21) underneath a work deck (Fig. 1 shows a flat work desk of automated analyzing device 1), and an opening in the work deck (26) that allows for picking up a plurality of sample dispensing tips and reaction containers by a gantry or robotic arm (Fig. 2; [0119]). Yamashita teaches automated analyzing devices frequently consumes dispensing tips and reaction containers, therefore it is necessary to load a tip rack frequently ([0006]). Yamashita teaches it is not desirable to stop the automated analyzing device and open the safety cover every time the tip rack is loaded, as this will cause a reduction in processing capacity ([0006]). Yamashita teaches it is known for automated analyzers to have drawers to accommodate a disposable tip box and waste container ([0007]). Yamashita teaches it is known for automated analyzers to have racks mounted on a transfer conveyor to supply racks ([0008]). Yamashita teaches the drawer in the automated analyzing device allows for a tip rack to be opened and closed, such that the tip rack can be easily and reliably replaced ([0015]). Yamashita teaches the drawer includes a plurality of supports (Figs. 3-8, tip rack guide 73) for labware (tip rack 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of modified Gabrian to incorporate Gabrian’s teachings of accessing the supports with a gantry or robotic arm (Fig. 1) and Yamashita’s teachings of automated analyzing devices with an opening in a work deck to allow for robotic accessibility of sample dispensing tips and reaction containers from a drawer underneath (Figs. 1-12; [0006]-[0008],[0015], [0119]) to provide: the laboratory apparatus of claim 9 wherein the work access position presents at least one support for labware at an opening in the work deck, thereby permitting access of a gantry or robotic arm to at least one support in a second set position or work access position. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving accessibility, ease, and reliability of replacing samples or labware to the laboratory apparatus without reducing the processing capacity or efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 11, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 10 (Figs. 3A-3B) further comprising that the plurality of supports (42) is affixed to and spaced along the first and second timing belts or chains (Figs. 3A-3B; [0024]). Modified Gabrian fails to teach: the plurality of supports is affixed to and spaced along the first and second timing belts or chains so that one or more of the containers fit in a holding space between two supports and are held securely thereby.
Jones teaches a plurality of supports (Figs. 2-5, pins 112) is affixed to and spaced along the first and second timing belts or chains (Figs. 2-5 and column 11, lines 4-6) so that one or more of the containers fit in a holding space between two supports and are held securely thereby (Figs. 2-5 teaches the pins 112 provides a holding space between the pins 112, such that a beam 94 of containers 62 are held securely in the holding space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of supports of modified Gabrian to incorporate the teachings of containers fitting and held securely by supports affixed to and spaced along two belts of Jones (Figs. 2-5) to provide: the plurality of supports is affixed to and spaced along the first and second timing belts or chains so that one or more of the containers fit in a holding space between two supports and are held securely thereby. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for improved support for various containers.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. plurality of supports is affixed to and spaced along the first and second timing belts or chains so that one or more of the containers fit in a holding space between two supports and are held securely thereby) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. supporting containers on belts), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing plurality of supports is affixed to and spaced along the first and second timing belts or chains so that one or more of the containers fit in a holding space between two supports and are held securely thereby would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling secured support of desired container shapes). See MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 12, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 11 wherein the supports are affixed to the timing belts via cleats (Figs. 3A-3B and [0024] teaches sample tube racks 42 are affixed to drive belts 51,57 via posts 60, i.e. cleats), and the cleats comprise a slot or protrusion that engages with the timing belts (Figs. 3A-3B and [0024] teaches posts 60 comprise a protrusion that are secured, i.e. engaged, to the belts).
Regarding claim 13, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 12 wherein the labware comprises pipette tips and the one or more labware containers each comprise 96 or 384 pipette tips (interpreted as an intended use of the plurality of supports, see MPEP 2114; Gabrian, Figs. 3A-3B and [0031] teaches a plurality of supports, i.e. sample tube racks 42, capable of holding one or more containers of samples or labware consumables, since the sample tube racks 42 are capable of holding tubes 40; therefore, the plurality of supports are capable of holding labware consumables, i.e. pipette tips, or one or more containers, i.e. the one or more labware containers each comprise 96 or 384 pipette tips; e.g. the pipette tips can be held in the tubes 40 or opening for the tubes ).
Note that “one or more containers of samples or labware consumables” of claim 1 and therefore “the labware comprises pipette tips” and “the one or more labware containers each comprise 96 or 384 pipette tips” of claim 13 are not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (“one or more containers of samples or labware consumables”; “the labware comprises pipette tips”; “the one or more labware containers each comprise 96 or 384 pipette tips”) worked upon by a structure (plurality of supports) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Note that a functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. The apparatus of modified Gabrian is identical to the presently claimed structure. Modified Gabrian discloses the claimed a plurality of supports (Figs. 3A-3B, sample tube racks 42) for holding one or more containers of samples or labware consumables in a first set position (Figs. 3A-3B and [0031] teaches sample tube racks 42 are capable of holding sample tubes 40 in a set position, since the sample tube rack with the tubes may be transported in a direction to a position) as claimed and therefore, would have the ability to perform the use (holding the labware comprises pipette tips or the one or more labware containers each comprise 96 or 384 pipette tips) recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 14, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 13 wherein the apparatus has a capacity of at least 960 pipette tips or ten labware containers (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 144; Figs. 1-5 teaches various space and area for at least 10 labware containers, such as elements 42, 52, 64, 22, 24, 40, or for supporting at least 960 pipette tips; Fig. 3A shows at least 8 sample tube racks 42 and Fig. 3B shows each rack holding at least 4 labware containers 40, therefore the apparatus at least as the capacity of at least ten labware containers, such as at least 32 tubes).
Regarding claim 15, modified Gabrian fails to teach the laboratory apparatus of claim 14 wherein a guide rail is situated on the internal side of at least one frame bar.
Gabrian teaches free movement of the plurality of supports around the exterior diameter of the pulley (Fig. 3A shows free movement of sample rube racks 42 around the exterior diameter of pulleys 53,58). Gabrian teaches an embodiment (Fig. 6,6A) comprising a lead out groove ([0032] teaches sampling tracks 84 having flared open ends) suitable for discharging and receiving an aliquot vessel array ([0032]). Gabrian teaches a guide rail is situated on the internal side of at least one frame bar (Figs. 6,6A teaches tracks 84 including grooves within sidewalls) for positioning and defining a directional movement of beams of supports (Figs. 6,6A; [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laboratory apparatus of modified Gabrian to incorporate Gabrian’s teachings of guide rails for supports (Figs. 3A, 6,6A; [0032]-[0034]) to provide: the laboratory apparatus of claim 14 wherein a guide rail is situated on the internal side of at least one frame bar. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving positioning and defining a directional movement of the beams of supports.
Regarding claim 16, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 15 (Fig. 3A) wherein at least one axle is translationally connected to the power source (Fig. 3A teaches the axle that couples the pulleys 53,58 are translationally connected to motors 54,59).
Regarding claim 17, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 16 wherein the labware consumables comprise pipette tips and/or samples (interpreted as an intended use of the plurality of supports, see MPEP 2114; Gabrian, Figs. 3A-3B and [0023],[0031] teaches a plurality of supports, i.e. sample tube racks 42, holding sample tubes containing samples; the plurality of supports 42 are structurally capable of holding samples and/or pipette tips in the tubes 40 or opening for the tubes).
Note that “one or more containers of samples or labware consumables” of claim 1 and therefore “the labware consumables comprise pipette tips and/or samples” of claim 17 are not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (“one or more containers of samples or labware consumables”; “the labware consumables comprise pipette tips and/or samples”) worked upon by a structure (plurality of supports) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Note that a functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. The apparatus of modified Gabrian is identical to the presently claimed structure. Modified Gabrian discloses the claimed a plurality of supports (Figs. 3A-3B, sample tube racks 42) for holding one or more containers of samples or labware consumables in a first set position (Figs. 3A-3B and [0031] teaches sample tube racks 42 are capable of holding sample tubes 40 in a set position, since the sample tube rack with the tubes may be transported in a direction to a position) as claimed and therefore, would have the ability to perform the use (holding the labware consumables comprising pipette tips and/or samples) recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 18, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 17 (Fig. 3A) wherein the plurality of beams (Fig. 3A-3B teaches supports 42 having beam shapes) provide at least two holding spaces (Figs. 3A-3B teaches the supports 42 provides at least two holding spaces; e.g. on top of the supports, between the supports, inside the supports; Fig. 3B shows the supports 42 holding at least two sample tubes 40, therefore has a least two holding spaces).
Regarding claim 19, Gabrian further teaches the laboratory apparatus of claim 16 wherein the power source is a motor (Fig. 3A and [0023]-[0024] teach motors 54,59).
Regarding claim 20, modified Gabrian fails to teach the laboratory apparatus of claim 10 wherein the opening in the work deck comprises an interface with an associated laboratory instrument.
Gabrian teaches an embodiment (Fig. 6A) that provides an opening in a work deck that allows access to vessels (Fig. 6, 6A shows transport system 62 having an opening including tracks 84 that allows access to vessels 62). Gabrian teaches permitting access of a gantry or robotic arm to at least one support in a second set position or work access position (Fig. 1 shows sampling arm 44 capable of accessing supports 42 at a position).
Yamashita teaches an automated analyzing device (Figs. 1-12) including a drawer (21) underneath a work deck (Fig. 1 shows a flat work desk of automated analyzing device 1), and an opening in the work deck (26) including an interface (sample dispensing tip/reaction container conveyance means 8) that allows for picking up a plurality of sample dispensing tips and reaction containers by a gantry or robotic arm (Fig. 2; [0119]). Yamashita teaches automated analyzing devices frequently consumes dispensing tips and reaction containers, therefore it is necessary to load a tip rack frequently ([0006]). Yamashita teaches it is not desirable to stop the automated analyzing device and open the safety cover every time the tip rack is loaded, as this will cause a reduction in processing capacity ([0006]). Yamashita teaches it is known for automated analyzers to have drawers to accommodate a disposable tip box and waste container ([0007]). Yamashita teaches it is known for automated analyzers to have racks mounted on a transfer conveyor to supply racks ([0008]). Yamashita teaches the drawer in the automated analyzing device allows for a tip rack to be opened and closed, such that the tip rack can be easily and reliably replaced ([0015]). Yamashita teaches the drawer includes a plurality of supports (Figs. 3-8, tip rack guide 73) for labware (tip rack 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of modified Gabrian to incorporate Gabrian’s teachings of accessing the supports with a gantry or robotic arm (Fig. 1) and Yamashita’s teachings of automated analyzing devices with an opening in a work deck with an interface to allow for robotic accessibility of sample dispensing tips and reaction containers from a drawer underneath (Figs. 1-12; [0006]-[0008],[0015], [0119]) to provide: the laboratory apparatus of claim 10 wherein the opening in the work deck comprises an interface with an associated laboratory instrument. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving accessibility, ease, and reliability of replacing samples or labware to the laboratory apparatus with associated laboratory instruments (e.g. robotic elements) without reducing the processing capacity or efficiency of the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Quame (US 3843323 A; cited in the IDS filed 10/13/2023) teaches an apparatus for evaluating samples (abstract; Figs. 1-2) comprising: supports (98) a conveyor including a belt (92) and pulleys (88). Quame teaches the conveyor (Fig. 2) permitting the free movement of the plurality of supports (98) around the exterior diameter of the pulley (88) and permitting the plurality of supports to pass from the top portion of the timing belt to the bottom portion of the timing belt (Fig. 2).
Ariff et al. (US 20120295358 A1; cited in the IDS filed 10/13/2023) teaches a conveyor system for sample racks (abstract). Ariff teaches the conveyor (Fig. 6) permitting the free movement of plurality of supports (210) around the exterior diameter of a pulley (520) and permitting the plurality of supports (210) to pass from the top portion of the timing belt to the bottom portion of the timing belt (Fig. 6).
Zhu et al. (US 20230213541 A1; effectively filed 12/31/2021) teaches a circulating device and sample analyzer (abstract). Zhu teaches a support (Fig. 8) including beams (340) configured to hold a container (20) between the beams (Fig. 8). Zhu teaches conveying the container along a conveyor including two pairs of pulleys and two belts (Figs. 4-7).
Pohler et al. (US 20200271681 A1) teaches a system for loading pipette tips (abstract). Pohler teaches beams (Fig. 4, ridges 22) that hold and secure a labware container (1) therebetween. Pohler teaches transporting trays of pipette tips along two belts and pulleys (Figs. 12-15).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights