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 Group 1, claims 1-24 in the reply filed on is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner would not be subjected to serious burden and by examining both inventions. In addition, claim 1 and 25 contain significant overlap in common device elements. Upon further consideration, Applicant’s argument is found persuasive. The restriction requirement between inventions Group I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 12/11/25, is hereby withdrawn and claims 25-26 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-26 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 claims 1, 8, 10-14, 17-19 and 25-26 – Claims 1, 8, 10-14 and 17-19 recite a fixing mechanism and/or features of the fixing mechanism. The Examiner submits the limitations of “a fixing mechanism” as recited in claim 1 and “the fixing mechanism” in the cited dependent claims are unclear.
Claim 1 recites “a fixing mechanism for fixing the object carrier on the main component between the first positioning fixture and the second positioning fixture by moving at least the first positioning fixture”. The Examiner submits the limitation of the fixing mechanism is unclear. The claim recites a functional limitation – “a fixing mechanism” – without any of the structural features or elements required to perform the fixing function. It is unclear to the Examiner as to what element or combination of elements are required to perform the function of fixing the object carrier and meet the functional limitation of “a fixing mechanism”.
The Examiner notes Figure 13 of the Specification shows multiple different components labeled as the fixing mechanism (114). Also, the fixing mechanism is discussed in detail in Paragraphs 0159-0169, especially Paragraphs 0160-0163, and appears to require the guide disks (122) with a guide recess (118), a guide body (120), the guide pulleys (124), and the force transmitting mechanism (belt 120) to provide the fixing function. However, the Examiner further notes that none of those features are recited in claim 1 and only some of the features are recited in the rejected dependent claims 8, 10-14 and 17-19. The Examiner submits the dependent claims are also rejected for the same reason(s) stated earlier for claim 1. In each claim, it is unclear how the device can perform the function of “a fixing mechanism” without the required structures needed to perform the function. In addition, it is unclear as to what specific combination of elements are required to perform the function and meet the limitation of the fixing mechanism.
Regarding claims 5 and 6 – Claim 5 recites the limitation "the guide structure" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 also recites the limitation "the guide structure" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8 – Claim 8 recites the limitation "a respective guide body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9 – Claim 9 recites the limitation "a respective guide disk" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12 – Claim 12 recites the limitation "the periphery" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 12 and 15 – Claim 15 recites the limitation “the free central region” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner submits the free central region limitation (see also claim 12) is also unclear as it is unclear what limitation is meant by the term “free”. Free of what? What must the region exclude to be by a “free region” In addition, the Examiner submits it is unclear how at least one interactive device can be partially disposed in the “free central region” as recited in claim 15.
Regarding claim 23 – Claim 23 recites a pin that “includes a retaining profile which is configured to impede a release of the object carrier from the main component in the vertical direction, in particular to make it impossible”. The Examiner submits it is unclear what structural elements or features are required for the pin to be configured to make it impossible to release the object carrier.
Regarding claim 24 – Claim 24 recites “including the object carrier received on the main component, the main component being a microtiter plate”. The Examiner submits the highlighted limitation is unclear as the disclosure teaches the object carrier being the microtiter plate. See Figures and Paragraphs 0113-0141 if the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoyer et al. (US 2013/0011224). Hoyer teaches a positioning unit.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 – A laboratory instrument for fixing an object carrier, comprising: a main component (carrier element 104) for receiving the object carrier; a movable first positioning fixture (guide device 112) for application to a first edge region of the object carrier; a second positioning fixture (guide device 110) for application to a second edge region of the object carrier; a fixing mechanism (coupling disk 118) for fixing the object carrier on the main component between the first positioning fixture and the second positioning fixture by moving at least the first positioning fixture; and an actuating device (actuating device 114) for actuating the fixing mechanism (coupling disk 118) for transposing at least the first positioning fixture (guide device 112) between an operational state which fixes the object carrier and an operational state which releases the object carrier; wherein the fixing mechanism (coupling disk 118) includes at least one guide body (coupling rod 144) which can be guided in at least one guide recess (recess of coupling disk 118 containing connection elements 150, 134, 136) in a manner such that an actuating force for actuating the actuating device (114) for transposing the fixing mechanism (coupling disk 118) into the operational state which releases the object carrier is smaller than a releasing force to be exerted by the object carrier to release the fixed object carrier; and wherein the guide recess (recess of disk 118 containing connection elements 150, 134, 136) is in the form of a curved track. See Figures 1, 2, 7, 9, 21 and 13 of Hoyer.
Regarding claim 7 – Hoyer shows the guide body (144) rigidly attached to the first positioning fixture (guide device 112) through the fixing mechanism (coupling disk 118).
Regarding claims 10 and 11 – Hoyer teaches a fixing mechanism configured such that on actuation of the actuating device for transposing the fixing mechanism into the operational state which releases the object carrier, a displacing force acts on the guide body along the guide recess in Paragraphs 0031-0032,
Regarding claim 13 – Figures 1, 2, 9, 12 and 13 of Hoyer show the fixing mechanism (coupling disk 118) on the underside of the main component facing away from the object carrier.
Regarding claim 21 – Hoyer teaches a linear guide (coupling rod 126) for linear displacing the first positioning fixture (112). See Figures 1, 2, 9, 12 and 13 of Hoyer.
Regarding claims 22 and 23 – Hoyer teaches at least one first positioning pin (106) and at least one second positioning pin (108) in the Figures and in Paragraphs 0105-0118.
Regarding claim 24 – Hoyer discloses a microplate in Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0068 and 0088.
Regarding claims 25 and 26 – Hoyer teaches providing a microplate on the instrument disclosed to reject claim 1 above and then actuating the fixing mechanism to fix the microplate on the instrument in Paragraphs 0028, 0057, and claim 36.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 9, 12 and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The Examiner submits the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the features of the guide body and fixing mechanism located in a corner and/or at least a portion of a periphery of the main component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAYNE K HANDY whose telephone number is (571)272-1259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/DWAYNE K HANDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
July 10, 2026
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights