DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
As to the claim amendments filed on 4/1/26, the previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, based on the amendments new rejections have been entered.
Based on the claim amendments and remarks filed on 4/1/26, the previous prior art rejection is modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 6-16, 18-21 are pending. Claims 2-5, 17, 22 are canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first drive, by means of which the sampling needle is movable along the first guide rail” and “a second drive, by means of which the consumable is movable to a plurality of different positions along the second guide rail” of claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Although the claims use the term “means” the examiner notes that there is enough structure in the claims to avoid an interpretation under 112(f). For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the “means” as a drive/guide rail that enables movement of the consumable.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 11, 18, 19 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 11, it is unclear if “a washing fluid” is the same as the “washing liquid” that was already discussed in claim 1. If these are different, then further clarification is required. If they are the same, then the examiner requests that applicants use similar terminology when referring to the same limitations.
As to claims 18 and 19, they are dependent on a canceled claim 17. Therefore, it is unclear what the claim dependency is for claims 18 and 19. Are applicants intending for these claims to be dependent on claim 1?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 6-11, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giebeler et al (US 20020176801; hereinafter “Giebeler”; already of record) in view of Steinert, C (US 20170097370; hereinafter “Steinert”; already of record) in view of Harris, R (US 20170241886; hereinafter “Harris”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Giebeler teaches a detection system (Giebeler; Fig. 2, 4, 5-14, abstract) for detecting a biological fluid sample, comprising:
a single sampling needle (Giebeler teaches a dispensing needle/pipette; Fig. 2A, 5, 7, [28, 32, 48, 264]. The examiner notes that the claimed “comprising” a sampling needle is not exclusive and does not preclude multiple needles from being present, where one needle of the prior art satisfies the claim limitation),
a consumable (Giebeler teaches material holders/consumables; [32.72, 74]),
an optical detection device (Giebeler teaches an optical detection device; Fig. 10, [89, 91, 97-99]),
a guide rail system, wherein the guide rail system comprises a first guide rail for guiding the sampling needle and a second guide rail for guiding the consumable, wherein the second guide rail is a linear guide rail, wherein the second guide rail defines a linear movement of the consumable in a horizontal direction, a first drive, by means of which the sampling needle is movable along the first guide rail between a rest position where the sampling needle is far away from the biological fluid sample to be extracted, a sampling position where the sampling needle protrudes into the biological fluid sample, and a sample discharge position; and a second drive, by means of which the consumable is movable to a plurality of different positions along the second guide rail, wherein in a first position of the consumable the sampling needle can discharge the extracted biological fluid sample into a sample receptacle of the consumable in the sample discharge position, and in a second position of the consumable the biological fluid sample received in the consumable can be detected by the optical detection device (The examiner notes that the positions and functions at the corresponding positions are related to function and intended use of the device. Nonetheless, Giebeler teaches a dispenser that moves along a vertical axis, where the dispenser includes a motor drive and support rails; Fig. 2A, 4, 5, [42, 45, 46, 62-64]. Giebeler teaches the dispenser can move between various positions vertically, and where the dispenser can access sample holder, and various other consumables within the material exchange system that includes carriages; [28, 32, 72]. Giebeler teaches that the consumable is driven by a second drive that includes carriages that have motors and rails that support the material holder/consumable and move the consumables to various positions including a discharge position and a detection position; [33, 69,72, 81-83, 75], Fig. 2A, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12.),
wherein the first guide rail is a linear guide rail defining a linear movement of the sampling needle in a vertical direction, wherein the sampling needle is exclusively movable in the vertical direction (Giebeler teaches that the first guide a linear vertical guide, and that the sample dispenser only moves in the vertical direction; Fig. 2A, Fig. 2A, 4, 5, [32, 42, 64]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “for…”, “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Giebler teaches where samples can be aspirated for sample (Giebeler; [28, 32, 48, 264]), and where various consumables are moved to sampling positions of the sampling needle (Giebeler; [33, 69,72, 81-83, 75]), and where one of the carriages that moves consumables to the sampling positions can be a rotating device instead of a translating device (Giebeler; [84]). Although Giebeler does teach that one of the carriages that moves consumables to the sampling positions can be a rotating device instead of a translating device (Giebeler; [84]), Giebeler does not specifically teach that the rotating device includes a turntable having a plurality of receptacles, wherein the turntable is rotatable, so that each of the receptacles can be brought to a position corresponding to the sampling position of the sampling needle, wherein each of the receptacles is configured to receive a sample test tube for receiving a biological fluid sample to be detected. However, Steinert teaches the analogous art of a system for processing a sample with a turntable having a plurality of receptacles, wherein the turntable is rotatable, so that each of the receptacles can be brought to a position corresponding to the sampling position of the sampling needle, wherein each of the receptacles is configured to receive a sample test tube for receiving a biological fluid sample to be detected (Steinert teaches a sampling needle 138 that moves vertically to aspirate from sample vessel 114 on the rotating table; [73, 89-92], Fig. 7, 14-16). It would have been obvious to have modified one of the carriages of Giebeler to be a rotating turntable to enable sample aspiration as in Steinert because Giebeler suggests a rotating table and because Steinert teaches that a rotating table is a known technique for enabling samples to be aspirated (Steinert; [73, 89-92]).
Modified Giebeler teaches where the sampling needle is movable along the first guide rail by means of the first drive. Modified Giebeler does not specifically teach a needle washing module which has a needle washing channel for the sampling needle to pass through, wherein the sampling needle is movable along the first guide rail by means of the first drive to a needle washing position where an outer surface of a section of the sampling needle to be cleaned can be washed by a washing liquid in the needle washing channel. However, Harris teaches the analogous art of a vertically moving sampling needle, wherein the detection system comprises a needle washing module which has a needle washing channel for the sampling needle to pass through, wherein the sampling needle is movable along the first guide rail by means of the first drive to a needle washing position where an outer surface of a section of the sampling needle to be cleaned can be washed by a washing liquid in the needle washing channel (Harris teaches probe 102 which moves vertically to pass through a washing channel of a washing module 104 ; [55, 56, 60, 70-71], Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7). It would have been obvious to have modified the sampling needle of modified Giebeler to be a reusable sampling needle with a washing station as in Harris because Harris teaches that the washing station helps to prevent contamination (Harris; [60]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would decrease the use of consumables.
As to claim 6, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 1, wherein the sample test tube is an EP tube embedded with a dye for the biological fluid sample to be detected (The examiner notes that the tube is not positively recited and therefore the functions of the tube or the specifics of what the tube contains are related to function and intended use of the device and do not further limit the device structure. Giebeler teaches various consumables; [28, 32, 48, 264]).
As to claim 7, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 1, wherein the turntable is provided with a controllable turntable drive (Steinert teaches turntable which has a rotor; [71, 73, 89-92], Fig. 7, 14-16).
As to claim 8, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 1, wherein the turntable is arranged beside the second guide rail (The modification of the carriage of Giebeler to be a turntable as in Steinert would result in the carriage being beside the other carriage; see claim 5 above).
As to claim 9, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim1, wherein the turntable is provided with a sensor for detecting the sample test tube brought to the position corresponding to the sampling position of the sampling needle, wherein a sensor signal of the sensor is configured for a partially or fully automatic operation of the detection system (The modification of the device with samples of Giebeler for including a turntable with samples as in Steinert has already been discussed above; see claim 5. Giebeler teaches that the aspirating and dispensing positions are known; [32, 124]. Giebeler teaches the positions are known based on the motor, which would be some type of position encoder sensor; [65]. Giebeler teaches that the device knows all of the positions; [96]. Giebeler teaches a sensor to determine sample positions; [112]. Giebeler teaches a sensor determines the position of the consumable; [105]).
As to claim 10, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 9, wherein at least one of the first and the second drive can be activated, deactivated and controlled according to the signal of the sensor (How the drives are activated and deactivated is a matter of intended use. The modification of the device with samples of Giebeler for including a turntable with samples as in Steinert has already been discussed above; see claim 5. Giebeler teaches that the aspirating and dispensing positions are known; [32, 124]. Giebeler teaches the positions are known based on the motor, which would be some type of position encoder sensor; [65]. Giebeler teaches that the device knows all of the positions; [96]. Giebeler teaches a sensor to determine sample positions; [112]. Giebeler teaches a sensor determines the position of the consumable; [105]).
As to claim 11, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 1, wherein the detection system comprises a controllable syringe pump in fluid connection with the sampling needle, wherein the syringe pump is configured for at least one of the following actions:- dilute a biological fluid sample received in a sample test tube before sampling; - mix the biological fluid sample received in the sample test tube with a dye embedded in the sample test tube before sampling; - extract the biological fluid sample from the sample test tube; - discharge the extracted biological fluid sample into a sample receptacle of the consumable; - flush an inner surface of the sampling needle with a washing fluid; - flush an outer surface of the sampling needle with a washing fluid (Giebeler teaches a pump; [50, 53]. The examiner notes that the functions at the sampling needle/pump are related to function and intended use of the device. Giebeler teaches adding/removing a sample and various other components; [28, 32, 48, 264]).
As to claim 18, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 1, wherein in a movement direction of the sampling needle from the rest position to the sampling position along the first guide rail, the sampling needle has such a position sequence: the rest position, the sample discharge position and the sampling position, wherein in the needle washing position the sampling needle is inserted into or passes through the needle washing channel, and in the sample discharge position and in the sampling position, the sampling needle protrudes through the needle washing channel, wherein the needle washing position is the same as the rest position, or the needle washing position lies between the rest position and the sample discharge position (The examiner notes that how the sampling needle moves is a matter of function and intended use. The modification of the sampling needle which moves to the various positions of Giebeler to include the wash module/channel of Harris has already been discussed above in claim 1. Giebeler teaches the dispenser can move between various positions vertically, and where the dispenser can access sample holder, and various other consumables within the material exchange system that includes carriages; [28, 32, 72]).
As to claim 19, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 1, wherein the needle washing module has a needle washing liquid circuit configured to introduce the needle washing liquid into an annular gap between the needle washing channel and the sampling needle transversely to an extension direction of the needle washing channel (The modification of the sampling needle which moves to the various positions of Giebeler to include the wash module/channel of Harris has already been discussed above in claim 1. Giebeler teaches a circuit with inlet 133 that introduces fluid into the channel 142/144 and then flows to outlet, where the inlet and outlet are transverse to the washing channel; [55, 70, 71], Fig. 6-7).
As to claim 20, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 19, wherein the needle washing liquid circuit comprises an inlet line and an outlet line, wherein the inlet line leads to the needle washing channel and has at least one line section extending transversely to the extension direction of the needle washing channel, wherein the outlet line leaves away from the needle washing channel and has at least one line section extending transversely to the extension direction of the needle washing channel, wherein an input opening of the outlet line leaving away from the needle washing channel is lower than an output opening of the inlet line entering the needle washing channel and is higher than a bottom opening of the needle washing channel (The modification of the sampling needle which moves to the various positions of Giebeler to include the wash module/channel of Harris has already been discussed above in claim 1. Giebeler teaches a circuit with inlet 133 that introduces fluid into the channel 142/144 and then flows to outlet, where the inlet and outlet are transverse to the washing channel, and where the outlet 130 is lower than the inlet 133; [55, 70, 71], Fig. 6-7).
As to claim 21, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 1, wherein the detection system comprises a control system configured to control at least one of all the drives and actuators of the detection system, so that the detection system can partially or fully automatically implement a detection process of the biological fluid sample (Giebeler teaches a processor that would control all of the electronic elements; [41, 109]).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giebeler et al (US 20020176801; hereinafter “Giebeler”; already of record) in view of Steinert, C (US 20170097370; hereinafter “Steinert”; already of record) in view of Harris, R (US 20170241886; hereinafter “Harris”; already of record) in view of Heinonen et al (US 20100203573; hereinafter “Heinonen”; already of record).
As to claim 12, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 1, where the device is able to retrieve the consumables (Giebeler teaches obtaining the material holder/consumable in the carriage; [79]).
Modified Giebeler does not specifically teach a consumable magazine configured to store a plurality of consumables. However, Heinonen teaches the analogous art of a pipettor which pipettes into consumables and with a consumable drive unit and with a consumable magazine configured to store a plurality of consumables (Heinonen teaches that that the conveyor 12 gets a plate from the stacker/magazine 30; [11, 140, 212]). It would have been obvious to have modified automated conveyor for conveying consumables of Giebeler to retrieve the consumables from a magazine as in Heinonen because Heinonen teaches that the magazine stacker helps to store consumables (Heinonen; [11, 212]).
As to claim 13, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 12, wherein the consumable magazine is vertically arranged, wherein the plurality of consumables are received in the consumable magazine in a stack one above the other, wherein the consumable magazine has a consumable extraction output in a lower end region (The modification of the consumable retrieval of Giebeler to be from a stacker/magazine as in Heinonen has already been discussed above in claim 12. Heinonen teaches a stack/magazine 30 of consumables; [11, 140, 212]).
As to claim 14, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 12, wherein the detection system comprises a consumable holder, which is drivable by the second drive, and which is configured to extract a consumable to be used from the consumable magazine, wherein the consumable to be used can be kept in the consumable holder after its extraction (The modification of the consumable retrieval via the carriage of Giebeler to be from a stacker/magazine as in Heinonen has already been discussed above in claim 12. Giebeler teaches the carriage includes a consumable holder 800; Fig. 8, 9, [75, 78-79]. Heinonen also teaches consumable holder 12; [11]).
As to claim 15, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 14, wherein a consumable is receivable in the consumable holder in a releasable manner, wherein one of the consumable holder and the consumable has a spring-loaded locking element, and the other of the consumable holder and the consumable has a locking recess, wherein the locking element can engage into the locking recess and can disengage from the locking recess against a spring-loaded force (The examiner notes that the consumable is not positively recited and therefore limitations towards the consumable are directed to intended use and function. Further, the modification of the consumable retrieval via the carriage of Giebeler to be from a stacker/magazine as in Heinonen has already been discussed above in claim 12. Giebeler teaches the carriage includes a consumable holder 800 which has a spring-loaded lock; Fig. 8, 9, [75, 78-79]).
As to claim 16, modified Giebeler teaches the detection system as recited in claim 15, wherein the consumable holder is configured, such that a used consumable in the consumable holder is pushed out of the consumable holder by a consumable to be used and drops into a consumable recovery station of the detection system when the consumable to be used is extracted from the consumable magazine (The examiner notes that how the consumable is interacted with is a matter of function and intended use, and further that the recovery station is not positively recited as part of the detection system. The modification of the consumable retrieval via the carriage of Giebeler to be from a stacker/magazine as in Heinonen has already been discussed above in claim 12. Heinonen teaches that the plate is moved to an unloading position, which is interpreted as the consumable being pushed out of the consumable holder; [12]).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Mettier et al (US 20140047931; hereinafter “Mettier”; already of record) teaches a pipette in a first holder [50, 54], and a second holder that holds the target container [51, 55], where the movement is controlled by actuators/motors [56]. Mettier teaches that the first holder is movable vertically and that the second holder is movable horizontally [57, 79], and that the first holder aspirates sample source 61 and then second holder 26/63 moves under pipettor 41 where the pipettor dispenses the sample source into 63 [79]. Mettier also teaches that the consumables can be various items including a rack or Eppendorf tubes; [79].
Steinert, C (US 20170097370; hereinafter “Steinert”; already of record) and Harris, R (US 20170241886; hereinafter “Harris”; already of record) each teach an exclusive singular needle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/26 have been fully considered but they are moot as they are towards the amended claims and not the current rejection. However, because the examiner is relying on the same prior art then the arguments have been considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on pages 7-8 of their remarks that the prior art does not teach the entirety of the claim. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Second, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In this case, applicants did not discuss or provide any arguments with respect to the prior art citations or modifications presented. Third, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Lastly, Giebeler does teach a single sampling needle; Fig. 2A, 5, 7, [28, 32, 48, 264]. The examiner notes that the claimed “comprising” a sampling needle is not exclusive and does not preclude multiple needles from being present, where one needle of the prior art satisfies the claim limitation. Giebeler also teaches a second linear drive that includes carriages that have motors and rails that support the material holder/consumable and move the consumables to various positions including a discharge position and a detection position; [33, 69,72, 81-83, 75], Fig. 2A, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12. Giebler teaches where samples can be aspirated for sample (Giebeler; [28, 32, 48, 264]), and where various consumables are moved to sampling positions of the sampling needle (Giebeler; [33, 69,72, 81-83, 75]), and where one of the carriages that moves consumables to the sampling positions can be a rotating device instead of a translating device (Giebeler; [84]). Although Giebeler does teach that one of the carriages that moves consumables to the sampling positions can be a rotating device instead of a translating device (Giebeler; [84]), Giebeler does not specifically teach that the rotating device includes a turntable having a plurality of receptacles, wherein the turntable is rotatable, so that each of the receptacles can be brought to a position corresponding to the sampling position of the sampling needle, wherein each of the receptacles is configured to receive a sample test tube for receiving a biological fluid sample to be detected. However, Steinert teaches the analogous art of a system for processing a sample with a turntable having a plurality of receptacles, wherein the turntable is rotatable, so that each of the receptacles can be brought to a position corresponding to the sampling position of the sampling needle, wherein each of the receptacles is configured to receive a sample test tube for receiving a biological fluid sample to be detected (Steinert teaches a sampling needle 138 that moves vertically to aspirate from sample vessel 114 on the rotating table; [73, 89-92], Fig. 7, 14-16). It would have been obvious to have modified one of the carriages of Giebeler to be a rotating turntable to enable sample aspiration as in Steinert because Giebeler suggests a rotating table and because Steinert teaches that a rotating table is a known technique for enabling samples to be aspirated (Steinert; [73, 89-92]). Modified Giebeler teaches where the sampling needle is movable along the first guide rail by means of the first drive. Modified Giebeler does not specifically teach a needle washing module which has a needle washing channel for the sampling needle to pass through, wherein the sampling needle is movable along the first guide rail by means of the first drive to a needle washing position where an outer surface of a section of the sampling needle to be cleaned can be washed by a washing liquid in the needle washing channel. However, Harris teaches the analogous art of a vertically moving sampling needle, wherein the detection system comprises a needle washing module which has a needle washing channel for the sampling needle to pass through, wherein the sampling needle is movable along the first guide rail by means of the first drive to a needle washing position where an outer surface of a section of the sampling needle to be cleaned can be washed by a washing liquid in the needle washing channel (Harris teaches probe 102 which moves vertically to pass through a washing channel of a washing module 104 ; [55, 56, 60, 70-71], Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7). It would have been obvious to have modified the sampling needle of modified Giebeler to be a reusable sampling needle with a washing station as in Harris because Harris teaches that the washing station helps to prevent contamination (Harris; [60]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would decrease the use of consumables.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights