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 .
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 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, both instances of the limitation “is/are” should be changed to “are”. The limitation modifies “actuators” which is plural.
In claim 19, the limitation “claims” should be changed to “claim”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 13 and 15-17 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 3 recites “the one or more labware components”, “the one or more interactors”, “the independent actuators that independently actuate the one or more interactors” and “the independent actuators that independently actuate the one or more labware components”. There is no antecedent basis for the limitations.
Based on context, it appears that the limitations refer to other limitations introduced in claim 1. For example, it appears that “interactors” refer to “processing heads”, and the two sets of “independent actuators” refer to the first and second set of actuators, respectively. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted in this manner. Otherwise, the claim cannot be examined on the merits as there is no context for the indefinite limitations.
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 suggests that the two systems are alternative embodiments. Further clarification is requested.
Claim 15 recites two different “interaction zones”, one set of zones for the surface and one set of zones for the processing heads. Consequently, it is unclear to which set the limitation “the plurality of interaction zones” at the end of the claim refers.
Likewise, claim 16 is indefinite.
Claim 17 recites “the one or more consumable components”. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-12 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 [0195] 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 [0195]) 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
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 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.
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