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 08/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7,10-11, 13, 16-22, 27-28, and 31 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-4, 16-22, 27-28 and 31 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/05/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hunt et al. (US 20190041302 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hunt teaches a carrier (Figs. 1-17, pipette tip dispenser 26) of a nozzle (pipette tip 48; note that “of a nozzle” is interpreted as an intended use of the carrier, wherein “nozzle” is not positively recited structurally) for a sample processor (system 10), comprising:
a base (Figs. 2-5, base of pipette tip dispenser 26) provided with an accommodating portion (Figs. 2-5, slots of pipette tip dispenser 26) for accommodating the nozzle (Figs. 2-5 teaches slots accommodating pipette tips 48), the base configured to be inserted into the sample processor in a detachable manner (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; [0054] teaches pipette tip dispenser 26 is removably mounted to holder 24 of system 10) so that an end surface of the nozzle, accommodated by the base, abuts against an end surface of an injector body along a sample injection direction (Fig. 7 teaches a top end surface of nozzle 48, accommodated by the base of pipette tip dispenser 26, abuts against a bottom end surface of pipette tip engaging member 38, i.e. injector body, along a sample injection direction).
Regarding claim 13, Hunt further teaches the carrier (Figs. 1-17, pipette tip dispenser 26) according to claim 5, further comprising a protrusion provided on a lower surface of the base and adjacent to an insertion end of the base (Fig. 2-4, interpreted as pipette tip holder 24, which protrudes from a lower surface of pipette tip dispenser 26 and is adjacent to an insertion end, i.e. bottom end, of the pipette tip dispenser 26).
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Angus et al. (US 20070180935 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hunt further teaches wherein the accommodating portion comprises an elongated through hole (Figs. 2-4 teaches the pipette tip dispenser 26 comprises slots, i.e. an elongated through hole).
Hunt fails to teach: the elongated through hole comprises a first portion for loading the nozzle and a second portion for holding the nozzle, the second portion being smaller than the first portion.
Angus teaches a pipette nozzle on an automated pipette machine (abstract; Fig. 11). Angus teaches a disadvantage of automated pipette robots that can only accommodate one size of pipette tips, and it would be desirable to provide an automated pipette machine capable of pipetting a wider range of volumes ([0003]). Angus teaches a nozzle sized to hold one or more different sizes of pipette tips ([0034]). Angus teaches a pipette tip carrier (Fig. 11, element 220; [0064]) for holding multiple sizes of disposable pipette tips ([0064]), wherein the pipette tip carrier comprises a first portion for loading a nozzle and a second portion for holding a nozzle, the second portion being smaller than the first portion (Fig. 11 and [0064] teaches a portions, 222 and 223, for loading and holding pipette tips, wherein portion 223 is smaller than portion 222).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elongated through hole of Hunt to incorporate the teachings of using and holding multiple sizes of disposable pipette tips of Angus (Fig. 11; [0003],[0034], [0064]) to provide: the elongated through hole comprises a first portion for loading the nozzle and a second portion for holding the nozzle, the second portion being smaller than the first portion. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the capability of carrying different sized nozzles, and therefore improving the flexibility of a sample processor as taught by Angus ([0003], [0034],[0064]).
Regarding claim 7, Hunt further teaches the carrier according to claim 6, further comprising: a sliding member (Figs. 4-8, tool head 30) capable of sliding relative to the base (Figs. 4-8 teaches tool head 30 is capable of sliding relative to pipette dispenser 26, via lead screw 55); and a biasing member (Figs. 4-8, tool head linear actuating motor 32) biasing the sliding member toward the small-sized portion (interpreted as an intended use of the biasing member, see MPEP 2114; Figs. 4-8 and [0049] teaches tool head linear actuating motor 32 is capable of biasing or moving the tool head 30 in a vertical axis towards the pipette dip dispenser 26, therefore is capable of performing the claimed intended use).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kelly et al. (US 5642816 A).
Regarding claim 10, Hunt fails to teach: the carrier according to claim 5, further comprising notches provided on opposite side edges of the base, the notches being configured to receive projections of a positioning member when the carrier is inserted in place.
Hunt teaches a pipette tip dispenser may be removably mounted to the holder in any of a number of ways, to ensures precise and predictable positioning of the dispenser relative on the holder ([0054]).
Kelly teaches a reusable pipette tip rack for successively receiving and dispensing arrays of pipette tips and including a manually releasable latch mechanism for securing a support plate carrying an array of pipette tips flat on the top of a support tray of the pipette tip rack with the array of tips seated in an array of openings in the top of the support tray (abstract; Figs. 1-5). Kelly teaches a carrier with a base (Figs. 3-5, support plate 14) including notches provided on opposite side edges of the base (Fig. 3 teaches notches in support plate 14 where latches 26a, 26b on opposite side edges secures the support plate), the notches being configured to receive projections of a positioning member when the carrier is inserted in place (Figs. 3-5 teaches the notches in support plate 14 where latches 26a, 26b on opposite side edges secures the support plate are configured to receive projections of latch mechanism 10 when support plate 14 is inserted). Kelly teaches the invention allows for releasably securing refill plates and tip trays to reusable pipette tip racks (column 3, lines 3-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carrier of Hunt to incorporate Hunt’s teachings of removably mounted to the holder in any of a number of ways ([0054]) and Kelly’s teachings of mounting a pipette tip tray using notches and projections (Figs. 1-5) to provide: the carrier according to claim 5, further comprising notches provided on opposite side edges of the base, the notches being configured to receive projections of a positioning member when the carrier is inserted in place. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for releasably securing the carrier as taught by Kelly (column 3, lines 3-9).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the mounting structures of the carrier of Hunt with Kelly’s known alternative structures of mounting a pipette tip tray using notches and projections (Figs. 1-5) to provide: the carrier according to claim 5, further comprising notches provided on opposite side edges of the base, the notches being configured to receive projections of a positioning member when the carrier is inserted in place. Doing so have a predictable result of allowing for releasably securing the carrier as taught by Kelly (column 3, lines 3-9). I.e. It would have been obvious to have substituted one known element (Hunt’s mounting structures) for another (Kelly’s structures of mounting a pipette tip tray using notches and projections), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (allowing for releasably securing the carrier). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hunt fails to teach: the carrier according to claim 10, wherein inclined surfaces extending from the notches toward an insertion end of the base are provided on an upper surface of the base, and the inclined surfaces are adapted to guide the projections of the positioning member to slide into the notches.
Hunt teaches a pipette tip dispenser may be removably mounted to the holder in any of a number of ways, to ensures precise and predictable positioning of the dispenser relative on the holder ([0054]).
Kelly teaches a reusable pipette tip rack for successively receiving and dispensing arrays of pipette tips and including a manually releasable latch mechanism for securing a support plate carrying an array of pipette tips flat on the top of a support tray of the pipette tip rack with the array of tips seated in an array of openings in the top of the support tray (abstract; Figs. 1-5). Kelly teaches a carrier with a base (Figs. 3-5, support plate 14) including notches provided on opposite side edges of the base (Fig. 3 teaches notches in support plate 14 where latches 26a, 26b on opposite side edges secures the support plate), the notches being configured to receive projections of a positioning member when the carrier is inserted in place (Figs. 3-5 teaches the notches in support plate 14 where latches 26a, 26b on opposite side edges secures the support plate are configured to receive projections of latch mechanism 10 when support plate 14 is inserted). Kelly teaches the invention allows for releasably securing refill plates and tip trays to reusable pipette tip racks (column 3, lines 3-9). Kelly teaches inclined surfaces (Figs. 4-5, inclined cam surfaces 48) extending from the notches toward an insertion end of the base (Figs. 3-5 shows inclined cam surfaces 48 extends from the notch areas of support plate 14 towards an end of the support plate, i.e. bottom end) are provided on an upper surface of the base (Fig. 3 shows the inclined cam surface 48 are provided on an upper surface of support plate 14), and the inclined surfaces are adapted to guide the projections of the positioning member to slide into the notches (Figs. 3-8; teaches the sloping or inclined cam surfaces 48 guides projections of latch mechanism 10 to slide into and secure the support plate 14). Kelly teaches the latch mechanism allows for automatic locking of the support plate (column 6, lines 34-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carrier of Hunt to incorporate Hunt’s teachings of removably mounted to the holder in any of a number of ways ([0054]) and Kelly’s teachings of mounting a pipette tip tray using notches and projections and inclined surfaces (Figs. 1-8) to provide: the carrier according to claim 10, wherein inclined surfaces extending from the notches toward an insertion end of the base are provided on an upper surface of the base, and the inclined surfaces are adapted to guide the projections of the positioning member to slide into the notches. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for improved and automatic releasable securing of the carrier as taught by Kelly (column 3, lines 3-9; column 6, lines 34-36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 08/05/2026, with respect to the specification objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 05/05/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 08/05/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, specifically regarding claim 5, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Hunt fails to teach “the base configured to be inserted into the sample processor in a detachable manner so that an end surface of the nozzle, accommodated by the base, abuts against an end surface of an injector body along a sample injection direction” since Hunt’s pipettor engaging the pipette tip is achieved through movement of the pipettor rather than insertion of the pipette tip dispenser (Remarks, page 8), the examiner disagrees.
The limitations of “configured to be inserted into the sample processor in a detachable manner so that an end surface of the nozzle, accommodated by the base, abuts against an end surface of an injector body along a sample injection direction” is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed base. A recitation of the function or the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the function or intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Hunt teaches a base (Figs. 2-5, base of pipette tip dispenser 26) provided with an accommodating portion (Figs. 2-5, slots of pipette tip dispenser 26) for accommodating the nozzle (Figs. 2-5 teaches slots accommodating pipette tips 48), the base configured to be inserted into the sample processor in a detachable manner (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; [0054] teaches pipette tip dispenser 26 is removably mounted to holder 24 of system 10) so that an end surface of the nozzle, accommodated by the base, abuts against an end surface of an injector body along a sample injection direction (Fig. 7 teaches a top end surface of nozzle 48, accommodated by the base of pipette tip dispenser 26, abuts against a bottom end surface of pipette tip engaging member 38, i.e. injector body, along a sample injection direction).
Thus, since Hunt’s base (Figs. 2-5, base of pipette tip dispenser 26) is configured to be inserted into the sample processor in a detachable manner (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; [0054] teaches pipette tip dispenser 26 is removably mounted to holder 24 of system 10) and Fig. 7 shows that the inserted base is structurally capable of having an end surface of the nozzle, accommodated by the base, abuts against an end surface of an injector body along a sample injection direction (Fig. 7 teaches a top end surface of nozzle 48, accommodated by the base of pipette tip dispenser 26, abuts against a bottom end surface of pipette tip engaging member 38, i.e. injector body, along a sample injection direction), Hunt’s base reads on the claimed limitations. The base of Hunt is identical to the presently claimed structure. Hunt base and therefore, would have the ability to perform the function or use (i.e. “inserted into the sample processor in a detachable manner so that an end surface of the nozzle, accommodated by the base, abuts against an end surface of an injector body along a sample injection direction”) recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Additionally, “nozzle” and “injector body” are not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed carrier. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (i.e., “nozzle” and “injector body”) worked upon by a structure (base) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Regarding applicant’s arguments regarding claims 6-7 and 10-11 (Remarks, pages 8-9), the examiner disagrees for the same reasons as above regarding claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taggart (US 5882603 A) teaches a carrier (Fig. 1, element 10) of a nozzle (P) for a sample processor (interpreted as an intended use), comprising: a base (10) provided with an accommodating portion (portion including holes 11) for accommodating the nozzle (Fig. 1) and configured to be inserted into the sample processor in a detachable manner so that an end surface of the nozzle abuts against an end surface of an injector body along a sample injection direction (interpreted as an intended use; the support rack 10 is structurally capable of being inserted into a sample processor in a detachable manner at a later time such that the nozzle abuts an injector body).
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 HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights