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 because in Figure 2, coil 25b has the core labeled 21b and the winding labeled 22b. According to paragraph 0021 of the specification of the instant application, 22b should correspond to the core and 21b should correspond to the winding.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0020 of the specification of the instant application, the coil (cores) are said to be labels 21a and 21b. This is inconsistent with the cores of Figure 2 and the description of the coil cores in paragraph 0021 of the specification of the instant application.
Examiner believes the labels as used in paragraph 0021 of the specification of the instant application for the cores of the coil is the correct labeling.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A holding unit” in claim 1. Examiner interprets a holding unit to be any container configured to hold a sample or sample container (spec par. 0019; Fig. 2) or an equivalent thereof.
“A coil drive unit” in claim 1. Examiner interprets a coil drive unit to be an electrical actuator to supply a voltage/current (spec. par. 0032) or an equivalent thereof.
“A control unit” in claim 1. Examiner interprets a control unit to be a microcomputer (spec par. 0037) or an equivalent thereof.
“A liquid shaking determination unit” in claims 1 and 2. Examiner interprets a liquid shaking determination unit to be a program or process that is implemented by the control unit (spec par. 0035-0037) or an equivalent thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the coil" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as only “a plurality of coils” and “a stopping coil” have been previously recited.
Further it is unclear whether “the coil” of claim 2 is referring to just any one of the plurality of coils or if it is referring to the stopping coil specifically. Examiner believes the coil is simply referring to just any one of the plurality of coils and will be examined as such.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heise, et. al. (US 20140234065 A1) in view of Wertmann, et. al. (DE 102013212377 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Heise teaches a sample distribution system with container movement occurring through electro-magnetic actuation (Abstract). Heise teaches a system with a container carrier 1 comprising a permanent magnet 2 with a cylindrical opening to hold a sample container 3 (Fig. 4; par. 0067, 0070) (a transportation container that includes a magnet or a magnetic substance and a holding unit that holds a specimen). The system further includes a transport plane 4 comprising sub-planes 23 (Fig. 1-2) wherein each sub-plane 23 comprises electro-magnetic actuators 5 that generate a magnetic field to move the container carrier 1 across the surface (par. 0062). The electro-magnetic actuators 5 comprise a coil 5b that surround a magnetic core 5a and has a currently supplied by a driver unit over electrical contacts 5c (Fig. 3; par. 0062) (a plurality of coils that transport the transportation container; a coil drive unit that applies voltage to the plurality of coils).
While not explicitly disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the controlled actuation of the coil in a specific order and time length (Fig. 8; par. 0079-0083) the system will further comprise a controller or processor of sorts (like a computer) to control the specified actuation of the coils by the coil drive unit.
In operation, Heise teaches to move the container carrier 1 by permanent magnet 2, different flux densities of the electro-magnetic actuators 5_1, 5_2, 5_3, 5_4 drive the movement of the container (Fig. 6-7; par. 0075-0078). This results in container carrier 1 moving from starting position at 5_1 to stopping position 5_4 (see arrow in provided Fig. 8 below) creating two sections, as seen by the dividing vertical line in Figure 8 below, a first section at the starting position and a second section at the stopping position (the control unit sets, near a stopping coil that is nearest to a stopping position of the specimen, a first section on a side separated from the stopping coil and a second section on a side nearer to the stopping coil than the first section). As certain specified times are met, the series of electro-magnetic actuator are activated to move the container carrier to the specified stop position (Fig. 8-9; par. 0079-0082) (and sets a first current as current that energizes the stopping coil when the specimen is in the first section and a second current as current that energizes the stopping coil when the specimen is in the second section).
PNG
media_image1.png
403
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Heise is silent to a wherein the control unit includes a liquid shaking determination unit that determines liquid shaking of the specimen from a velocity fluctuation of the specimen, the first current is set, based on determination information of the liquid shaking determination unit, to a magnitude with which the liquid shaking of the specimen is controlled, and the second current is set to a current value larger than that of the first current.
Wertmann teaches a devices for the splash-free transfer of containers holding a liquid (par. 0001). Wertmann teaches a container 2 for receiving a liquid connected to first movement 8 and second movement 9 elements that each have permanent magnets 72 (Fig. 1; par. 0030). The container 2 and first 8 and second 9 movement elements move along guide rail 73 of linear drive unit 7 and within guide rail 73 are a plurality of coil 71 for interacting with the magnets 72 (Fig. 1; par. 0007, 0031).
Wertmann further teaches a control unit 6 that controls movement of first 8 and second 9 movement elements along linear drive unit 7 by interaction with coils 71 (Fig. 1; par. 0033) (a control unit that controls the coil drive unit). Wertmann teaches the control unit 6 is further configured to control first 8 and second 9 movements elements individually like delaying second movement element 9 in order to tilt container 2 when accelerating to account for the acceleration due to gravity and the transport to prevent sloshing of the liquid (Fig. 3, 4; par. 0034) (a control unit that controls the coil drive unit, wherein the control unit includes a liquid shaking determination unit that determines liquid shaking of the specimen from a velocity fluctuation of the specimen). Wertmann further teaches atop second movement element 9 is actuator assembly 5 that works with the acceleration and deceleration of the device and rods 10 to control movement of container 2 (Fig. 2-4; par. 0033).
In operation, first movement element 8 is actuated first by control unit 6 and then second movement element 9 is actuated; the activation in series results in a tilt in container 2 to ensure the liquid surface remains in position (Fig. 3; par. 0034-0035) (the first current is set, based on determination information of the liquid shaking determination unit, to a magnitude with which the liquid shaking of the specimen is controlled). The process of deceleration is done by second movement element 9 decelerating after the first movement element 8 has stopped receiving a voltage/current (Fig. 4; par. 0034-0035); because first movement element 8 is shut off before second movement element 9, the understood second current that is applied to second movement element 9 is greater than the understood voltage (zero voltage) applied to first movement element 8 (the second current is set to a current value larger than that of the first current).
Wertmann teaches these the goal of the modification of the electro-magnetic actuators and actuation process has the primary goal of prevent liquid from sloshing in the container during movement (par. 0003).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electro-magnetic actuation device of Heise to have a control unit that controls the actuation process in a specific manner in order to prevent movement of the liquid in the container. Because both devices use electro-magnetic coils to drive the movement of a container, modifying the device to have a control unit to have specific control of electro-magnetic actuation as provided by Wertmann, provides likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 2, modified Heise in view of Wertmann teaches first movement element 8 is actuated first by control unit 6 and then second movement element 9 is actuated; the activation in series results in a tilt in container 2 to ensure the liquid surface remains in position (Wertmann, Fig. 3; par. 0034-0035). The process of deceleration is done by second movement element 9 decelerating after the first movement element 8 has stopped receiving a voltage/current (Wertmann, Fig. 4; par. 0034-0035). All of this works in tandem with actuator 5 and rods 10 to tilt container 2 as need (Wertmann, par. 0033). The acceleration from the current provided to the coil cannot be too high so as to not allow the second element 9 catch up or too slow that second element 9 moves too quickly (wherein the liquid shaking determination unit determines liquid shaking using effective thrust characteristics of the coil).
Regarding claim 3, modified Heise teaches a current is applied to the coils, ending in the stopping coil at a predetermined time (Heise, Fig. 6-7; par. 0075-0078). Modified Heise in view of Wertmann teaches from a stop to the first acceleration from acceleration of the first element 8 with the surrounding coils 71, container 2 tilts to stabilize the liquid (Wertmann, Fig. 3; par. 0034-0035) (wherein the first current is energized to the stopping coil at a timing when liquid shaking does not occur and a transportation velocity is expected to decrease).
Regarding claim 4, modified Heise teaches a current is applied to the coils, ending in the stopping coil at a predetermined time (Heise, Fig. 6-7; par. 0075-0078). Modified Heise in view of Wertmann teaches as the final position is reached, second movement element 9 receives a final current after the first movement element 8 has stopped receiving a voltage/current, resulting in a tilt of the container in the opposite direction (Wertmann, Fig. 4; par. 0034-0035) meaning from a stop, acceleration, deceleration, and back to a stop, the container 2 tilts to hold the liquid stable through a series of controlled actuation of coils and actuator 5 through a control unit (wherein the second current is energized to the stopping coil at a timing when kinetic energy and work of the specimen are balanced).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Malinowski (US 20180217174 A1) teaches a sample carrier with a magnetically active device to drive movement (Abstract). The specification goes into more details about actuation voltage/current.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON T HERBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30a-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.
/M.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758