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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 3, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite a sampling device configured to be mounted to a vessel, and movable within a horizontal plane when mounted to a vessel, and argued that reference to Kennedy et al., do not anticipate the amended claim. In light of the claim amendments, the Examiner has removed the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) to Kennedy et al. However, after performing an updated search, the instant claims now stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Kennedy et al., (US 2007/0196238) in view of Dean et al., (US 2002/0119076) who in combination with Kennedy et al., meets the limitations of the instant claims. Because reference to Dean et al., is newly cited, the Examiner will not argue the merits of its teachings here, but will instead rely on the rejection detailed below. Therefore, in light of the teachings of the prior art, the Examiner contends that the limitations of the instant claims are taught by the references cited below, thus the claims are not in condition for allowance.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
The Examiner notes that the phrases “configured to” and “configured for” recited throughout the claims are not structural elements, but instead represent the intended use of the claimed elements. The Examiner also notes that the phrase “when mounted to the vessel” is a conditional limitation as the action only occurs when a sample taker is mounted to a vessel.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy et al., (US 2007/0196238) in view of Dean et al., (US 2002/0119076).
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 18 Kennedy et al., teach a sample transfer system comprising multiple pipettes (sample taker, paragraph 0026) mounted to a support arm (paragraph 0026) wherein the pipettes are capable of rotational, vertical, and horizontal motion (paragraph 0026). Kennedy et al., teach the pipettes mounted to the support arm when located at the dissolution vessels (paragraph 0026), but do not teach a sampling device configured to be mounted to the dissolution vessels.
Dean et al., teach a dissolution test apparatus wherein a sampling device is capable of being mounted to a sample container (paragraph 0085, Figure 3A). With respect to claims 15 and 18, Dean et al., teach evaporation covers that cover the tops of the sample containers (paragraph 0060, Figure 3A #278). Dean et al., teach that it is advantageous to mount a sampling device to a sample container as a means of preventing undue loss of gaseous media and to prevent degradation of components of a spindle head assembly due to condensation (paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kennedy et al., wherein a sampling device is capable of being mounted to a sample vessel in order to prevent undue loss of gaseous media and to prevent degradation of components of a spindle head assembly due to condensation as taught by Dean et al.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kennedy et al., teach the pipettes being rotatable in a horizontal plane, and about a central axis of the dissolution vessels (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 4, Kennedy et al., teach pipettes movable along a vertical direction (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 6, Kennedy et al., do not teach a manual actuation element.
Dean et al., teach a dissolution test apparatus comprising a manual actuation element for lowering and raising a spindle head assembly (paragraph 0062). Dean et al., teach manual movement of the spindle head assembly provides the most efficiency and facility of use of the dissolution test apparatus (paragraph 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kennedy et al., to provide a manual actuation element in order to provide the most efficiency and facility of use of the dissolution apparatus as taught by Dean et al.
Regarding claim 8, Kennedy et al., teach a drive head (motion mechanism, paragraph 0026) for moving the pipettes vertically.
Regarding claim 9, Kennedy et al., do not teach a pinion gear cooperating with a work drive gear.
Dean et al., teach a dissolution test apparatus wherein a lift drive assembly comprises a pinion gear cooperating with a worm drive gear (paragraph 0073). Dean et al., teach that it is advantageous to utilize pinion gears with a worm drive gear as a means of translating torque produced by a lift motor into transversely oriented torque to a drive shaft (paragraph 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kennedy et al., to include a pinion gear and a worm drive gear in order to translate torque produced by a lift motor into transversely oriented torque to a drive shaft as taught by Dean et al.
Regarding claim 10, Kennedy et al., teach a turret (tubular sheath, paragraph 0026) accommodating at least part of the drive head.
For claim 11, Kennedy et al., teach a sample transfer system for a dissolution device comprising a sample transfer system comprising multiple pipettes (sample taker, paragraph 0026) mounted to a support arm (paragraph 0026) wherein the pipettes are capable of rotational, vertical, and horizontal motion (paragraph 0026). Kennedy et al., also teach a dissolution vessel for holding the sample (paragraph 0026). Kennedy et al., teach the pipettes mounted to the support arm when located at the dissolution vessels (paragraph 0026), but do not teach a sampling device configured to be mounted to the dissolution vessels.
Dean et al., teach a dissolution test apparatus wherein a sampling device is capable of being mounted to a sample container (paragraph 0085, Figure 3A). Dean et al., teach that it is advantageous to mount a sampling device to a sample container as a means of preventing undue loss of gaseous media and to prevent degradation of components of a spindle head assembly due to condensation (paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kennedy et al., wherein a sampling device is capable of being mounted to a sample vessel in order to prevent undue loss of gaseous media and to prevent degradation of components of a spindle head assembly due to condensation as taught by Dean et al.
Regarding claim 12, Kennedy et al., teach rotational motion of the pipettes such that rotation of the pipettes changes a radial distance of the pipettes with respect to the central axis of the dissolution vessel (paragraph 0026, figure 1).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Kennedy et al., teach a mixing paddle (paragraphs 0016, 0019-0021).
Regarding claim 16, Kennedy et al., teach an integrated dissolution processing and sample transfer system comprising a sample transfer system comprising multiple pipettes (sample taker, paragraph 0026) mounted to a support arm (paragraph 0026) wherein the pipettes are capable of rotational, vertical, and horizontal motion (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 17, Kennedy et al., teach the pipettes being rotatable in a horizontal plane, and about a central axis of the dissolution vessels (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 19, Kennedy et al., teach a method of operating an integrated dissolution processing and sample transfer system comprising, mounting a sampling device at a vessel containing the sample (paragraph 0026), wherein a plurality if pipettes are rotatable within a horizontal plane relative to the vessel (paragraph 0026). Kennedy et al., do not teach a sampling device mounted to a sample vessel.
Dean et al., teach a dissolution test apparatus wherein a sampling device is capable of being mounted to a sample container (paragraph 0085, Figure 3A). Dean et al., teach that it is advantageous to mount a sampling device to a sample container as a means of preventing undue loss of gaseous media and to prevent degradation of components of a spindle head assembly due to condensation (paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kennedy et al., wherein a sampling device is capable of being mounted to a sample vessel in order to prevent undue loss of gaseous media and to prevent degradation of components of a spindle head assembly due to condensation as taught by Dean et al.
For claim 20, Kennedy et al., teach rotational motion of the pipettes such that rotation of the pipettes changes a radial distance of the pipettes with respect to the central axis of the dissolution vessel (paragraph 0026, figure 1).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy et al., (US 2007/0196238) in view of Dean et al., (US 2002/0119076) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bobasheva et al., (US 2012/0109567).
Regarding claim 5, Kennedy et al., in view of Dean do not teach an antenna configured for wireless communication.
Bobasheva et al., teach a dissolution testing apparatus comprising a communication having a radio frequency antenna (paragraph 0020) for wireless communication. Bobasheva et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide a radio frequency antenna as a means of allowing a computing device to communicate with the dissolution tester through a communication link suitable for carrying data (paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kennedy et al., to include a radio frequency antenna in order to allow a computing device to communication with the dissolution teste through a communication link as taught by Bobasheva et al.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy et al., (US 2007/0196238) in view of Dean et al., (US 2002/0119076) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin (US 6,170,980).
Regarding claim 7, Kennedy et al., in view of Dean et al., do not teach a sensor for sensing a position or motion of a sample taker.
Martin teaches a dissolution apparatus comprising a temperature sensor which detects placement of a cannula in the sample media (column 7 lines41-57). The Examiner notes that the temperature sensor can determine when the cannula is inserted into the sample media by detecting the temperature of the media. The Examiner is reading this combination as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Reference to Martin teaches utilizing the temperature sensor to detect the temperature of the sampling media, and moving the temperature sensor into the sampling media with the cannula. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to determine the placement of cannula based on temperature readings from the temperature sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Kennedy et al., in view of Dean et al., wherein the position of the pipettes are determined by a temperature sensor as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights