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 .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 25 June 2026. Claims 1-3 are pending in the application. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 1-3 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objections to the drawings are maintained. See below for more detail.
The objections to the specifications are withdrawn in view of amendments.
The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are maintained.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of amendment.
The rejections of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
The rejection of claim 4 under U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of record, Heise, et. al. (US 20140234065 A1) in view of Wertmann, et. al. (DE 102013212377 A1), do not teach or fairly disclose “the second current is energized to the stopping coil at a timing when kinetic energy and work of the specimen are balanced.” Specifically, Applicant states neither Heise nor Wertmann disclose any determination of kinetic energy or work on the specimen.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, this limitation is drawn to a functional limitation of the device; however, this limitation does not add any additional structural feature to the apparatus aside from capability. See MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g). Applicant does not disclose any structure or feature of the apparatus that monitors/measures the kinetic energy of and/or work on the specimen outside of the coil drive unit generally being controlled by the coil drive unit. In other words, there is no additional program or unit, within the claims, that discloses determining/measuring the kinetic energy and/or work on the specimen.
Wertmann 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 (Wertmann, Fig. 1; par. 0033). Wertmann teaches 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 (Wertmann, Fig. 3, 4; par. 0034). 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.
To summarize, Wertman teaches a first voltage/current event with first movement element 8 and a delayed voltage/current with the second movement element 9. This first acceleration event applies a force and kinetic energy to the container/specimen causing a first tilt (Wertmann, Fig. 3). This tilt of the container/specimen indicates a balanced is temporarily reached. As understood, this movement of first movement element 8 is not continuous as it moves away from the magnetic actuation source. Therefore, a period of time passes (at a timing) when the second voltage/current is applied to the second movement element 9, resulting in second tilt and second balancing event.
Because the device of Heise in view of Wertmann discloses magnetic actuation to move specimen containers and a control unit that selects the actuation events based on timing and therefore movement of the specimen container (Wertmann, par. 0034-0035), one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude the control unit can determine when to actuate certain magnets to prevent spilling of the specimen (the primary goal of the device of Wertmann), and spilling will be prevented when “kinetic energy and work of the specimen are balanced.”
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. Below is a captured image comparing the original provided Figure 2 on the left and the replacement sheet Figure 2 on the right.
PNG
media_image1.png
752
1850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 actuators 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_image2.png
403
444
media_image2.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 device 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 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 (the second current is energized to the stopping coil at a timing when kinetic energy and work of the specimen are balanced).
Wertmann teaches these the goal of the modification of the electro-magnetic actuators and actuation process has the primary goal of preventing 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 as taught by Wertmann because it prevents movement of liquid in the container and thus preventing spills (Wertmann, par. 0003) 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 needed (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 to 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).
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 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
Prosecution Insights