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 July 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Applicant amended claims 3, 4, 6, 13, 17 and 19.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 16, 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments directed to the outstanding objection to the drawings and the rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the outstanding objection to the drawings, the objection is maintained because Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 13. Notwithstanding Applicant’s remarks directed to the disclosure of the specification (Remarks 8-9), claim 13 (via claim 1) recites a second set of actuators comprising “one or more magnetic levitation systems” (see claim 1), AND a mechanism comprising “rollers and/or wheels”. Because the “one or more magnetic levitation systems” is positively recited in claim 1, it cannot be un-recited/replaced by an alternative element in a dependent claim. It should also be noted that claims 1 and 13 recite “comprises” (an open ended limitation) rather than “is” or “consists of” (a closed limitation). That said, claim 13, linguistically, conveys that the second set of actuators includes the “one or more magnetic levitation systems” recited in claim 1 AND the “rollers and/or wheels” recited in claim 13. Consequently, absent the drawings illustrating this combination of elements, the objection to the drawings will be maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is also not persuasive for the same reason. Notwithstanding Applicant’s remarks that the specification discloses the magnetic levitation system and the wheel/roller system as alternative implementations (Remarks 13), claim 13 explicitly conveys that the second set of actuators comprises both systems, rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding the outstanding rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejection is maintained. According to MPEP 2173.05(d), “description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims”, and while the recitation of “such as” does not inherently render a claim indefinite, the claim must be analyzed to see “whether the metes and bounds of the claim are clearly set forth”. In this case, based on the examples recited in the claim, the metes and bounds of the limitation “one or more fluid vessels” are unclear. For example, the commonality between a slide holder and a beaker is unclear such that the examples DO NOT clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the limitation “one or more fluid vessels” (i.e. based on the examples, what other unnamed structures are included and excluded? If a slide holder is an example of a “fluid vessel”, are test tube racks considered “fluid vessels”?). Consequently, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the outstanding rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejection is maintained. Contrary to the implication of Applicant’s remarks (Remarks 11), disclosure of the specification is not read into the claims. That said, the examiner maintains that the recitation, “the plurality of additional processing heads comprises…one or more additional processing heads” is indefinite. The recitation suggests that the “additional processing heads” are patentably distinct from the “plurality of processing heads” of claim 1 (otherwise, there is no need to separately recite the additional processing heads since “the plurality of processing heads” is numerically open-ended), yet the distinct elements share common nomenclature (processing heads). Absent explicit definition of “additional processing heads”, use of a common nomenclature (i.e. “processing heads”) to refer to patentably distinct elements renders a claim indefinite. In this case, it is unclear how the “additional processing heads” differ from the “plurality of processing heads”.
Regarding the outstanding rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejection is maintained. First, the recitation of “such” as renders the claim indefinite, for the same reason as claim 4. Applicant did not traverse this issue. Second, Applicant’s argument that the recitation of “linear actuators” is merely redundant (Remarks 12) is not persuasive. Based on Applicant’s acknowledgement that the limitation “such as” is intended to introduce examples of linear actuators (Remarks 12), the limitation “linear actuators” is not meant to be self-evident (i.e. instead, it is intended to convey a broad genus of actuators in which a ball screw actuator falls under the scope of “linear actuators”). That said, a “linear actuator” cannot be a specific example of a broader genus of “linear actuators”. Logically, such recitation renders the claim indefinite. Consequently, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, Applicant argues that Use does not disclose the limitation “plurality of parallel lab operations”. Remarks 14. The argument is not persuasive for multiple reasons:
the limitation is directed to intended use. Intended use limitations are anticipated if the prior art is merely capable of achieving the intended use. In the case of the system taught by Use, it comprises a plurality of processing heads 3, which are capable of, via programming, facilitating a plurality of parallel lab operations (e.g. aspirate/dispense a plurality of samples simultaneously).
Use’s system does perform a plurality of parallel lab operations (see Figs. 1 and 2 illustrating a plurality of racks 6 being processed simultaneously).
Regarding Applicant’s remarks directed to the rejection of claims 19 and 20, specifically the Office action’s acknowledgement that Use “does not explicitly disclose that the fist processing head and the second processing head operate in parallel” (Remarks 14-15), the remarks are not applicable to the anticipatory rejection of claim 1. First, unlike claim 1, claims 19 and 20 recite programming (processor, storage device with instructions), and hence the limitations directed to parallel operations in claims 19 and 20 do not merely convey intended use (hence the reason claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, and not 102). Second, the limitation “to facilitate a plurality of parallel lab operations” recited in claim 1 is broader in scope than claim 19 explicitly reciting that two processing heads actuate in parallel. This is evidenced by claim 1 reciting that the plurality of processing heads can actuate singly, yet still facilitate a plurality of lab operations. Hence, the fact that a prior art does not disclose two processing heads actuating in parallel is not a concession that the prior art does not disclose “parallel lab operations” in general.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks directed to claim 12 (Remarks 15-16), Applicant appears to argue that the rejection’s treatment of the limitation, “caused by the plurality of processing heads”, voids/renders irrelevant the citations to Use that teaches the rest of the limitations. The argument is not persuasive. Contrary to the implication of Applicant’s remarks, the claimed sensors do not track the movement of the processing heads. Instead, according to the claimed language, the sensors track the movement of the labware components, and the rejection provides citations to Use that teaches how its system (via Hall sensors) detect movement of labware components along the first directional axis, and subsequently uses the sensor readings to control the positioning of the labware components along said axis. Whether the movement of the labware components are “caused by the processing heads” does not speak to the configuration of the claimed sensors. Consequently, contrary to Applicant’s remarks, the prior art need not teach “a specific relationship among the processing heads…the sensors and the second set of actuators” to reject claim 12.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Applicant argues that the rejection merely cites to Use’s disclosure directed to movement of different components, which is insufficient to anticipate claim 2. Remarks 16. The argument is not persuasive. Regarding the citation to [0195], the citation was a typographical error. The rejection should have cited to [0209] and the error has been corrected. That said, [0209] and [0207] disclose two different sets of actuators for actuating different components along different axes. Specifically, the actuators disclosed [0207] actuate components 5 along the horizontal plane while the actuators disclosed in [0209] actuate interactors 3 along the vertical axes. Given that the actuators actuate different elements along different axes, it is evident they actuate independently of one another.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant argues that a skilled artisan would not have modified the disclosure of Use to provide the claimed parallel operation. Remarks 17. According to Applicant, the rejection fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the claimed parallel operation to improve efficiency. Id. The argument is not persuasive. Performing parallel operation for the purpose of improving efficiency is considered conventional within the art. Specifically, microplates, arrays, and multi-head pipetting systems are well-known in the art and their purpose is to improve efficiency via parallel processing. Given that Use already discloses an array of test tubes (see Fig. 2) and multiple pipettors 3 (see [0209]), the examiner maintains that 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 first set of actuators to actuate multiple pipettors 3 in parallel for the purpose of improving efficiency (rather than operating them one by one).
Regarding Applicant’s remarks on page 19 regarding the rejection of claim 1, the remarks are addressed above. Specifically, the Office action’s acknowledgement that Use “does not explicitly disclose that the first processing head and the second processing head operate in parallel” in the rejection of claims 19 and 20 is not applicable to the anticipatory rejection of claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, the objection and rejections addressed above are maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a second set of actuators comprising a magnetic levitation system AND a roller system as recited in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, the limitation “are” in lines 2, 5 and 7 should be changed to “is”. The limitation modifies “the plurality of” which is singular (see claim 4, which recites “the plurality…comprises”).
In addition, the last clause of claim 3 should be deleted. It is redundant.
Claims 4 and 5 recite Markush groups. A Markush group must be a closed list of species. Currently, the claims recite “comprises”, which is open-ended.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4, 6, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “such as”, which is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the “such as” further limit the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Likewise, claim 8 is indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “the plurality of processing heads comprises…one or more additional processing heads”. Given that the limitation “plurality” is numerally open ended, the recitation of “one or more processing heads” in addition to “plurality of processing heads” renders the claim indefinite. The claim should simply recite “…the processing heads comprises…a device, wherein the device is selected from a group…”
In addition, the claim recites an improper Markush group. First, the Markush group should terminate with “and” not “or”. Second, members of Markush group must share a “single structural similarity” or “common use”. See MPEP § 2173.05(h). The members recited in the claim do not meet the requirements of a Markush group.
Claim 8 recites linear actuators as an example of linear actuators, rendering the scope of “linear actuator” inherently indefinite. This is akin to defining a word using the word itself.
Claim 13 is indefinite because the claim specifies that the second set of actuators comprises a plurality of rollers or wheels configured to cause movement of the labware components. The relationship between the magnetic levitation system and the roller/wheel system is unclear. For instance, it is unclear what the levitation system levitates and how the rollers/wheels move in a levitated mode. The specification does not provide clarity on this issue. The specification and Applicant’s remarks convey that the two systems are alternative embodiments. Further clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Use et al. (“Use”) (US 2023/0146784 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Use discloses a system for facilitating lab operations, comprising (see Fig. 1):
a plurality of labware components 7;
a plurality of processing heads 3 (see [0209] disclosing one or more pipettors 3) configured to interact with the plurality of labware components 7 to facilitate a plurality of lab operations;
a first set of actuators coupled to the plurality of processing heads (see [0209] disclosing linear vertical motion), the first set of actuators being configured to actuate the plurality of processing heads along a first directional axis (Z-axis, see Fig. 1), singly or in parallel, to facilitate the plurality of lab operations; and
a second set of actuators configured to translate the plurality of labware components 7 along at least a second directional axis and a third directional axis (see abstract disclosing “motion in a horizontal plane”; see also [0196] and Fig. 2 illustrating movement of labware components 7 on a grid-like surface), the second directional axis (x-axis) and the third directional axis (y-axis) being angularly offset from the first directional axis (z-axis) and from one another, the second set of actuators being configurable to selectively translate at least some of the plurality of labware components into alignment with the plurality of processing heads preparatory to actuation of the plurality of processing heads along the first directional axis via the first set of actuators (see [0207]-[0209]),
wherein the second set of actuators comprises one or more magnetic levitation systems configured to cause movement of the plurality of labware components along the second directional axis and the third directional axis (see [0207]).
With respect to claim 2, the first set of actuators and the second set of actuators are configured as independent actuators to independently actuate (i) one or more interactors (processing heads 3) (see [0209]) and (ii) one or more labware components 7 (see [0207]).
With respect to claim 3, the labware components 7 are positioned on one or more actuatable carriers 5 that are actuatable independent of the processing heads 3 (see [0209]), wherein the first set of actuators are positionally fixed in an x-direction and a y-direction (see [0209]), and wherein the second set of actuators are movable in the x-direction and the y-direction (see abstract and Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 4, the plurality of labware components comprises test tubes 7 (see Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, the plurality of parallel lab operations comprises single aspiration (see [0209]).
With respect to claim 6, the plurality of processing heads comprises pipettors (see [0209]), which is a type of a dispenser, and a gripper in the form of a robotic handler 9 (see [0210] and Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 7, the processing heads comprise pipette tips (see [0209]), and hence they are selectively interchangeable (see [0209]).
With respect to claim 8, the first set of actuators comprises one or more linear actuators (see [0209]).
With respect to claim 9, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 3), the first set of actuators move up and down only along the z-axis. Consequently, the first set of actuators is not configured to cause translation of the plurality of processing heads along the second directional axis and the third directional axis, meaning the plurality of processing heads are arranged at fixed coordinates on the second directional axis and the third directional axis.
With respect to claim 10, the second set of actuators is configured to rotate the labware components about the first directional axis (see [0216]).
With respect to claim 11, by having the ability to adjust levitating height (see [0056]), the second set of actuators is configured to move the plurality of labware components along the first directional axis (up and down).
With respect to claim 12. the system further comprises one or more sensors (Hall sensors, see [0066]) associated with the second set of actuators, the one or more sensors being configured to detect changes in position of the plurality of labware components along the first directional axis (vertical axis) (see [0056]), wherein the second set of actuators is configured to selectively modify positioning of the labware components along the first directional axis (vertical axis) based upon sensor data obtained by the one or more sensors (see [0056]).
Regarding the recitation, “caused by the plurality of processing heads”, the recitation merely provides context for why the labware components change position along the first axis. Given that the claimed invention is a system claim (as opposed to a method claim), prior art need not teach processing heads altering the position of the labware components along the first axis to anticipate the claim.
With respect to claim 14, the magnetic levitation system comprises a magnetic coil matrix (see [0064]) and a plurality of magnetic trays 5 (see Fig. 1), the plurality of magnetic trays 5 supporting the plurality of labware components 7 (see Fig. 1), the magnetic coil matrix being controllable to facilitate levitation of the plurality of magnetic trays 5 along the first directional axis (see [0056] disclosing that levitation height can be adjusted) and movement of the plurality of magnetic trays 5 along the second directional axis and the third directional axis (see abstract).
With respect to claim 15, the system further comprises a surface 4 over which the second set of actuators are configured to translate the plurality of labware components 7 along at least the second directional axis and the third directional axis (see Fig. 1 and abstract). The surface comprises a plurality of interaction zones (see Fig. 2 illustrating square zones), the plurality of interaction zones comprising a respective interaction zone for each of the plurality of processing heads (space over which each processing head 3 moves in the z-axis, see Fig. 1), wherein selectively translating at least some of the plurality of labware components 7 into alignment with the plurality of processing heads 3 comprises selectively translating the at least some of the plurality of labware components into the plurality of interaction zones (see abstract disclosing that carriers 5 move samples along a horizontal plane such that an analyzer is arranged above the samples).
With respect to claim 16, the surface further comprises one or more user interaction zones (see Figs. 1 and 2 illustrating zones away from analyzer 2 where other processes are carried out) that are separate from the plurality of interaction zones (zones in which the processing heads 3 of analyzer 2 aspirate samples), the second set of actuators being configured to translate labware components 7 to the one or more user interaction zones to enable one or more users to interact with the labware components (see abstract and Figs. 1 and 2).
With respect to claim 17, the second set of actuators is configured to translate at least one receptacle 8 along the second directional axis and the third directional axis to an integration zone (zone under element 10), the at least one receptacle 8 being configured for receiving or delivering one or more consumable components (reagent) (see [0211] and Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 18, the system further comprises one or more image sensors 21/22 configured to capture image data depicting one or more aspects of the plurality of labware components 7 (see [0215]), wherein the system is configured to utilize the image data to facilitate the plurality of lab operations (see [0217]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Use.
With respect to claim 19, the system further comprises:
one or more processors (see [0025]); and
one or more hardware storage devices (see [0023]) storing instructions (see [0024]) that are executable by the one or more processors to configure the system to facilitate the lab operations by configuring the system to:
translate, via the second set of actuators, a first labware component 7 into alignment with a first processing head 3 of the plurality of processing heads (see abstract and Figs. 1-2);
translate, via the second set of actuators, a second labware component (another tube 7 carried by rack 6, see Figs. 1-2) into alignment with a second processing head 3 of the plurality of processing heads (see [0209] disclosing one or more pipettors 3); and
actuate, via the first set of actuators, the first processing head and the second processing head to cause the first processing head to interact with the first labware component and to cause the second processing head to interact with the second labware component (see [0209]),
wherein the second set of actuators comprises a magnetic levitation system configured to cause movement of the first labware component and the second labware component (see [0207]).
The system taught by Use differs from the claimed invention in that Use does not explicitly disclose that the first processing head and the second processing head operate in parallel. However, to improve efficiency, 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 processing heads 3 to actuate in parallel (e.g. aspirate samples in different tubes 7 of the same rack 6 at the same time using an array of pipettors 3). Systems that utilize an array of pipettors that aspirate/dispense fluids in parallel are well-known in the art.
With respect to claim 20, Use teaches a method for facilitating lab operations, the method comprising:
translating, via a second set of actuators (magnetic levitation system) (see rejections above), a first labware component 7 into alignment with a first processing head 3 of a plurality of processing heads (see [0209] disclosing one or more pipettors 3), the second set of actuators being configured to translate labware components 7 along at least a second directional axis and a third directional axis (horizontal plane, see abstract);
translating, via the second set of actuators, a second labware component (another tube 7 of rack 6) into alignment with a second processing head of the plurality of processing heads (see [0209]); and
actuating, via a first set of actuators (linear vertical actuator) (see rejections above), the first processing head and the second processing head to cause the first processing head to interact with the first labware component and to cause the second processing head to interact with the second labware component (see [0209] disclosing aspirating “sample fluids…from sample containers 7”),
the first set of actuators being coupled to the plurality of processing heads and being configured to actuate the plurality of processing heads along a first directional axis (vertical axis) that is angularly offset from the second directional axis and the third directional axis (see [0209]),
wherein the second set of actuators comprises one or more magnetic levitation systems configured to cause movement of the plurality of labware components along the second directional axis and the third directional axis (see abstract and [0207]).
The method taught by Use differs from the claimed invention in that Use does not explicitly disclose that the first processing head and the second processing head operate in parallel. However, to improve efficiency, 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 processing heads to actuate in parallel (e.g. aspirate samples in different tubes 7 of the same rack 6 at the same time using an array of pipettors). Systems that utilize an array of pipettors that aspirate/dispense fluids in parallel are well-known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
While claim 13 is not rejected based on based on prior art, it is not deemed to include allowable subject matter due to the indefinite nature of the claim. Without further clarification (see 35 U.S.C. 112b rejection above), the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Use does not disclose a second set of actuators comprising both a magnetic levitation system and a plurality of rollers or wheels.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record because it is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Yao (WO 2020/263951 A1) discloses a system for transporting a sample using magnetic levitation.
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
Prosecution Insights