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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on August 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that magnetic device M taught by Tajima is completely independent of a pipetting tool, whereas the common technical feature of the restricted inventions requires the pipetting tool. This argument is not persuasive because the preamble of claim 1 refers to the invention as a “a magnetic locking device for a pipetting tool”. The limitation “for” conveys that the magnetic locking device is not necessarily a part of the pipetting tool, but rather a separate device that can work in conjunction with the pipetting tool. This interpretation is supported by the language of claim 12, which unequivocally distinguishes the pipetting tool from the locking device. Consequently, Applicant’s argument that the common technical feature shared by the restricted inventions requires a pipetting tool is not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 12-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 25, 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are replete with instances in which limitations are not referred to consistently. For example, claim 1 initially recites “at least one lock”, and the claims subsequently refer to “the lock”. Given that claim 1 recites a “magnetic locking device” and separately “at least one locking device”, inconsistency in recitation of nomenclature may render the claims indefinite (see 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections below).
In claims 1 and 8, the limitation “inservice” is spelled inconsistently.
In claim 1, the limitation “such as” should be changed to “such that”.
Appropriate corrections throughout the claims are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the preamble of claim 1 is not commensurate with the body of the claim. The preamble of the claim refers to the claimed invention as a magnetic locking device for a pipetting tool, which conveys that the magnetic locking device and the pipetting tool are distinct. Yet, the body of the claim refers only to the elements of the pipetting tool. It is unclear whether the claimed invention intends the invention to be:
-a pipetting tool;
-a combination of the magnetic locking device and the pipetting tool; or
-whether the body of claim 1 intends to refer to the magnetic locking device instead of the pipetting tool.
For examination purposes, only the limitations that are attributable to the magnetic locking device will be considered to be part of the claimed invention, as claim 12 unequivocally conveys that claim 1 intends to exclude the pipetting tool from its scope.
Claim 1 recites “the particles”. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation.
The claims are replete with recitation of the limitation, “the/said locking device”. Given that claim 1 recites a “magnetic locking device” and “at least one locking device”, it is unclear to which “device” the limitation refers in the claims.
Likewise, the limitation “the device” in claim 7 is indefinite.
In addition, the limitation “the tab is…mounted in the device” is indefinite. According to claim 4, the tab IS a part of the device. Consequently, the claim must recite a specific part of the device to which the tab is mounted. The tab cannot be mounted in itself.
Claim 10 recites “the associated end piece”. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation. The claim does not previously establish a correspondence between a tab and an end piece.
Claims not explicitly rejected are rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tajima (US 2002/0123156 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Tajima discloses a magnetic locking device for a pipetting tool, the magnetic locking device comprising (see Figs. 9-10, 23 and 24):
at least one lock L/M arranged at a channel (channel of pipette tip T4, see Fig. 10) and configured to switch from an active state to a passive state, and vice versa, such that in the active state, the at least one lock is able to block, in service, particles that are present in the channel and such that, in the passive state of the at least one lock, the particles are free to move in the channel (see [0039]).
With respect to claim 2, the subject matter is directed to a plate, which is not a part of the claimed invention. As indicated above, the claimed invention is directed to the magnetic locking device and the magnetic locking device only. That said, limitations directed to the plate do not further limit the claimed invention. In the case of Tajima, because the magnetic locking device is supported by a plate S (see Fig. 10), all of the limitations attributed to the magnetic locking device is taught by Tajima.
With respect to claim 3, the subject matter of the claim is directed to the positioning of the at least one lock with respect to the end piece, which is not a part of the claimed invention. Consequently, Tajima need not disclose the claimed positioning to anticipate the claim. Nevertheless, the at least one lock is arranged outside of an end piece (PA) of the pipetting tool (see Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 4, the at least one lock comprises at least one tab (arm connecting elements O and M) supporting a magnetic attraction element M (see Fig. 24).
With respect to claim 5, a lower end of the tab supports the magnetic attraction element M (see Fig. 24).
With respect to claim 6, the tab is movably mounted relative to the end piece between an engaged position in which at least one zone of the tab supporting the magnetic attraction element M is at the end piece and a disengaged position in which at least said zone is far from the end piece (see Fig. 24).
With respect to claim 7, the tab is movably mounted according to a rotational movement (see Fig. 24).
With respect to claim 8, due to its magnetic properties, the at least one lock is able to immobilize, in service, at least two particle clouds relative to the end piece.
With respect to claim 9, the at least one lock comprises two tabs each supporting a magnetic attraction element (see Fig. 23).
With respect to claim 10, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 3), the subject matter of the claim is directed to the positioning of the claimed invention relative to the end piece, which is not a part of the claimed invention. Consequently, Tajima need not disclose the claimed positioning to anticipate the claim. Nevertheless, the two tabs are arranged on either side (right side) of an associated end piece (see Figs. 23 and 24).
With respect to claim 11, the at least one lock comprises at least one permanent magnet or one electromagnet (see [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights