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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-143866, filed on 09/09/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 03/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tesluk et al. (US20210311082A1) and Yamashita et al. (US20210063423A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesluk et al. (US20210311082A1) and Yamashita et al. (US20210063423A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tesluk et al. teaches an automatic dispensing device (See the Abstract, Claim(s) 1-13, and the system 10 in [0490]-[0504] in Fig. 1-36) comprising:
nozzle facing downward (See the dispense head 172 in [0131]-[0132] in Fig. 8A-C; Also, see how the pipetting robot 480 includes a pipette arm 481 and a pipette head 500, and the pipette assembly 502 in [0263]-[0274] in Fig. 16A and 17A-D);
a tip rack arrangement portion configured to arrange a tip rack in which a pipette tip to be attached to the discharge nozzle is accommodated (See how the pipette tip rack 182 includes a plurality of receptacles 184 and is depleted of disposable pipette tips 489 in [0114], [0121]-[0127], [0314], [0352]-[0362] in Fig. 7); and
a moving unit configured to move the gripper relative to the tip rack arrangement portion (See the robot assembly robot in Fig. 1-3 and see how the pick-and-place robot 410, i.e. a moving unit, generally includes a housing 412, control box 414, gripper assembly 430, and transport mechanism 420 in [0235]-[0243]; Also, see the decapper robots 450a-b in [0257], [0471] in Fig. 31A-31N).
Tesluk et al. fails to explicitly teach an automatic dispensing device comprising: a biasing member configured to bias the tip rack arrangement portion from below.
However, in the analogous art of automated analyzing devices, Yamashita et al. teaches an automatic dispensing device (See the Abstract, Claim(s) 1-6, and the automated analyzing device 1 in [0074]-[0126], [0283]-[0287] in Fig. 1-30B) comprising: a biasing member configured to bias the tip rack arrangement portion from below (See how the biasing member 122, represented by a compression spring, biases the pressing member 121 from below to above in relation to tip rack 7 in [0285]-[0287] in Fig. 24-25B).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the device of Tesluk et al. by incorporating a biasing member configured to bias the tip rack arrangement portion from below (as taught by Yamashita et al.) for the benefit of suppressing the variation in the fitting depth of the pipette tip with respect to the discharge nozzle.
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Tesluk et al. and Yamashita et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Tesluk et al. further teaches an automatic dispensing device (See the Abstract, Claim(s) 1-13, and the system 10 in [0490]-[0504] in Fig. 1-36) comprising: a support portion configured to support the tip rack arrangement portion so as to be vertically movable in a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the tip rack arrangement portion (See the pipette tip rack space 180 with pipette tip rack 182, and a third sample rack space 112/114/116, i.e. a support portion, in [0121] in Fig. 7-8C and in Claim(s) 1- 4; Also, see how the transport mechanism includes a pinion and rail mount that mounts to rack 406 and rail 408 of support beam 402 at a front-side thereof for traversing support beam 402 in a left-right direction. In addition, pipette arm 481 includes horizontal rails 486 and a sliding plate 484 slidingly attached to horizontal rails 486 similar to that of pick-and-place robot 410. Pipette head 500 is connected to a vertical rail (not shown) of sliding plate 484 and to a motor 488 via a drive shaft 487. Motor 488 is attached to sliding plate 484 so as to move with pipette head 500 as sliding plate 484 is driven along horizontal rails 486 in a front-back direction via a belt and pulley mechanism . Thus, as shown, pipette head 500 is coupled to pipette arm 481 via a z-axis drive mechanism that includes a vertical rail motor 488, and drive shaft 487 in [0263]-[0286] in Fig. 16A; See the horizontal portion 558 and how the vertical portion 558 is configured to attach to a floating shaft 560 in [0274] in Fig. 17A).
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Tesluk et al. and Yamashita et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Tesluk et al. further teaches an automatic dispensing device (See the Abstract, Claim(s) 1-13, and the system 10 in [0490]-[0504] in Fig. 1-36) comprising: a lowering detection unit configured to detect that the tip rack arrangement portion is lowered by a predetermined amount or more (See how the container contact sensor assembly 2060 includes a sensor 2064a-b, a plunger 2061 and a keyed plunger cap 2065, and how the sensor 2064 may be a Hall effect sensor, optical sensor, or the like. In the particular embodiment depicted, sensor 2064 is an optical sensor and includes first and second sensor elements 2064a-b that are so positioned as to form a gap therebetween. First sensor 2064a may be an emitter and second sensor 2064b may be a detector. in [0476], [0503] in Fig. 31M-N; Also, see the rotational home sensor in [0473], the ultrasonic sensor 178 in [0131]-[0133] in Fig. 8A-B; See how the shuttle transport assembly 300 has the base frame 302 also includes presence sensors 305 in [0166]-[0169] in Fig. 13; Additionally, see in Claim(s) 4, 6, 17, 19 and 26).
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Tesluk et al. and Yamashita et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Tesluk et al. fails to explicitly teach an automatic dispensing device, wherein the bias provided by the biasing member supports the tip rack arrangement portion in an upward direction.
However, in the analogous art of automated analyzing devices, Yamashita et al. teaches an automatic dispensing device (See the Abstract, Claim(s) 1-6, and the automated analyzing device 1 in [0074]-[0126], [0283]-[0287] in Fig. 1-30B) wherein the bias provided by the biasing member supports the tip rack arrangement portion in an upward direction (See how the biasing member 122, represented by a compression spring, biases the pressing member 121 from below to above in relation to tip rack 7 in [0285]-[0287] in Fig. 24-25B).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the device of Tesluk et al. by incorporating a wherein the bias provided by the biasing member supports the tip rack arrangement portion in an upward direction (as taught by Yamashita et al.) for the benefit of the pipette tip always being attached to the discharge nozzle at a constant fitting depth, such that a small amount of liquid can be accurately sampled or discharged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3 and 5 are allowed.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim(s) 3 and 5, The combination of Tesluk et al. and Yamashita et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Tesluk et al. fails to explicitly teach an automatic dispensing device, wherein the moving unit is configured to press the discharge nozzle of the dispenser gripped by the gripper into a pipette tip accommodated in the tip rack arranged on the tip rack arrangement portion by a constant force corresponding to a biasing force of the biasing member; and wherein the constant force falls within a range of 30.0 N to 42.0 N.
Yamashita et al. discloses an automatic dispensing device (See the Abstract, Claim(s) 1-6, and the automated analyzing device 1 in [0074]-[0126], [0283]-[0287] in Fig. 1-30B), wherein the moving unit is configured to press the discharge nozzle of the dispenser gripped by the gripper into a pipette tip accommodated in the tip rack arranged on the tip rack arrangement portion by a constant force corresponding to a biasing force of the biasing member; and wherein the constant force falls within a range of 30.0 N to 42.0 N (See how the biasing member 122, represented by a compression spring, biases the pressing member 121 from below to above in relation to tip rack 7 in [0285]-[0287] in Fig. 24-25B; Also, see how the tip rack mounting table 24 further rises by, for example, about 1 mm so that the biasing member 122 is compressed and the pin 123 is separated from the upper end of the groove 124. In other words, the flange portion 25 of the tip rack 7 maintains the state of being in contact with the positioning member 43 upward through the pressing member 121 and the pressing ball 127 by the biasing force of the biasing member 122 in [0290] in Fig. 24-25B).
Yet, the combination Yamashita et al. and Tesluk et al. fails to explicitly teach or fairly suggest an automatic dispensing device, wherein the moving unit is configured to press the discharge nozzle of the dispenser gripped by the gripper into a pipette tip accommodated in the tip rack arranged on the tip rack arrangement portion by a constant force corresponding to a biasing force of the biasing member; and wherein the constant force falls within a range of 30.0 N to 42.0 N. Thus, claim(s) 3 and 5 would be allowable in view of the prior art if they were not dependent on a rejected independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art teaches similar devices and methods: Onoki et al. (US20210181224A1), Yoshida et al. (US20190302135A1), Kowari et al. (US20090081081A1), Iwasaki et al. (US20190195901A1), Kroog (US20220065885A1), and Ezure et al. (US20220178961A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITNEY N WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:30pm CT.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights