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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 22179855, filed on 06/20/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: "a control device for controlling the pressure device ”. There is a typo in the claim, and the examiner cannot determine if “und” means “and”, or “under”. The examiner is interpreting “und” as “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Abe et al. (US PG-Pub 20180238923 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abe et al. teaches a method for aspirating a first liquid medium from a sample container with a laboratory automation device (see Abstract, [0039], Fig. 1, Fig. 2A-2B, disclosing a dispensing system 1 comprising a robot 10 configured to move a dispenser 30 for suctioning a liquid C1 to be dispensed.) wherein the first liquid medium is above a second liquid medium, which has a higher density and/or viscosity as the first liquid medium (see [0040], Fig. 2A-2B, disclosing a container 90 containing a liquid C1 to be dispensed and an object C2 not to be dispensed by centrifugal separation and the like. Liquid C1 forms a liquid surface SF1 and the object C2 not to be dispensed is located below the liquid surface SF1. Examples of the object C2 not to be dispensed include a solid precipitate or a liquid separated from the liquid C1.), the method comprising: detecting a surface position of a surface of the first liquid medium (see [0117], Fig. 1, Fig. 2A-2B, Fig. 13, disclosing at Step S303, the image processing module 120 acquires the location information for the liquid surface SF1); calculating an estimated interface position of an interface between the first liquid medium and the second liquid medium from the surface position (see [0117], [0345] Fig. 1, Fig. 2A-2B, disclosing that the image processing module 120 may further acquire the location information for the boundary BD1, where it can be roughly estimated based on the information indicating an amount of the object C2 not to be dispensed.) and calculating a safety position (zs) between the surface position and the estimated interface position by adding a safety offset to the estimated interface position (see [0133]-[0135], Fig. 6, Fig. 14, Fig. 16B disclosing the target position setting module 136 sets a final target position GL1 based on the location information for the boundary BD1 acquired at Step S403. The target position setting module 136 sets the final target position GL1 to be above the position of the boundary BD1. The target position setting module 136 also sets the final target position GL1 so that a distance between the final target position GL1 and the boundary BD1 in a vertical direction becomes a predetermined vertical offset value VO1. The vertical offset value VO1 is set in advance to satisfy the following conditions: (2-1) The vertical offset value VO1 is very small as compared with a depth from the liquid surface SF1 to the boundary BD1.; (2-2) The tip 30a does not reach the boundary BD1 even when a position control deviation occurs within a tolerance.); lowering a pipette of the laboratory automation device into the sample container (see [0063], [0109], Fig. 1, Fig. 10 disclosing the controller 100 is configured to execute: controlling the robot 10 to lower the dispenser 30 based on the location information for the tip 30a and cause the tip 30a thereof to be inserted into the liquid C1.) and aspirating the first liquid medium from the sample container with the pipette by generating an under pressure in the pipette until a pipette tip of the pipette reaches the safety position (see [0129], [0152]-[0153] , Fig. 1, Fig. 14, Fig. 16E, disclosing the dispenser control module 140 controls the dispenser 30 to start to suction the liquid C1 in the container 90. The lowering control module 133 controls the robot 10 to lower the tip 30a following the lowering of the liquid surface SF1, and lower the tip 30a to the final target position GL1. Once reached, the dispenser control module 140 controls the dispenser 30 to stop suctioning the liquid C1.).
Regarding claim 2, Abe et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the estimated interface position is calculated by applying a mathematical formula to the surface position; wherein the estimated interface position is linearly dependent on the surface position (see [0177]-[0179], Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Fig. 12B, disclosing the dispensing system 1 may further include the target position setting module 136 configured to set the final target position GL1 based on the location information for the boundary BD1, and the lowering control module 133 may control the robot 10 to lower the tip 30a of the dispenser 30 following lowering of the liquid surface SF1. The target position setting module 136 performs a calculation with the boundary BD1 to update the final target position GL1 whenever the boundary monitoring module 135 detects a change in the boundary DB1 based on the image.).
Regarding claim 3, Abe et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the safety offset comprises a statistical offset depending on the surface position; wherein the safety offset comprises a constant offset (see [0133]-[0135], Fig. 6, Fig. 14, Fig. 16B disclosing the target position setting module 136 sets a final target position GL1 based on the location information for the boundary BD1 acquired at Step S403. The target position setting module 136 sets the final target position GL1 to be above the position of the boundary BD1. The target position setting module 136 also sets the final target position GL1 so that a distance between the final target position GL1 and the boundary BD1 in a vertical direction becomes a predetermined vertical offset value VO1. The vertical offset value VO1 is set in advance to satisfy the following conditions: (2-1) The vertical offset value VO1 is very small as compared with a depth from the liquid surface SF1 to the boundary BD1.; (2-2) The tip 30a does not reach the boundary BD1 even when a position control deviation occurs within a tolerance.).
Regarding claim 8, Abe et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: before the safety position is reached, aspirating the first liquid medium from the sample container in several passes (see [0096]-[0098], [0100], Fig. 8., disclosing an interruption module 112 that stops the robot 10 from moving dispenser 30 that is suctioning the liquid C1 to be dispensed after detecting that the tip 30a has reached a position for registering reference data. Stopping conveyance allows the reference data registration module 113 to register the reference data, before the interruption module 112 outputs a command to resume conveyance for the dispenser 30. This process is repeated by the interruption module 112 whenever reference data is not registered when the tip 30a enters the visual field of the camera 43.), wherein during each pass, an aspiration volume is aspirated from the sample container and dispensed into a further sample container (see [0089], Fig. 1, Fig. 9, disclosing that following separation, the liquid C1 to be dispensed is extracted from the first container 90 to be transferred to a second container 90.).
Regarding claim 12, Abe et al. teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the aspiration volume and/or a lowering distance of the pipette tip for each pass are chosen in dependence of the safety position (see [0078], [0079], Fig.1 , Fig. 16A-16E, disclosing the lowering control module 133 controls the robot 10 holding the dispenser 30 that’s suctioning the liquid C1, of which is lowered into the container 90 based on the location information of the tip 30a, the location information SF1, and the location information for the boundary BD1. The final target position GL1 is set based in advance based on the location information of BD1, as the final stopping point for lowering of the tip 30a before the boundary BD1.).
Regarding claim 13, Abe et al. teaches a computer program for aspirating a first liquid medium of two liquid media of different density and/or viscosity from a sample container, which computer program, when being executed by a processor, is adapted to carry out the steps of the method of claim 1 (see [0063], [0082], Fig. 1, Fig. 7, disclosing the dispensing system 1 includes a controller 100, configured to execute at least: acquiring location information for the liquid surface SF1, location information for the boundary BD1, and location information for the tip 30a of the dispenser 30 based on the image captured by the camera 43; and controlling the robot 10 to lower the dispenser 30 based on the location information for the tip 30a, the location information for the liquid surface SF1, and the location information for the boundary BD1 when suctioning the liquid C1 into the dispenser 30. The processor 101 executes a program in cooperation with at least one of the memory 102 and the storage 103 to configure each function of the controller 100 described above.).
Regarding claim 14, Abe et al. teaches a computer-readable medium, in which a computer program according to claim 13 is store (see [0082], Fig. 7, disclosing the processor 101 executing a program in cooperation with at least one of the memory 102 and the storage 103 to configure each function of the controller 100.).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ariyoshi et al. (US PG-Pub 20190204349 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Abe et al. teaches the image processing module 120 acquires the location information for the liquid surface SF1, where the lowering control module 133 lowers the dispenser 30 based on the location information for the tip 30a, the location information for the surface SF1, and the location information for the boundary BD1 (see [0079], [0117], Fig. 1, Fig. 2A-2B, Fig. 13).
Abe et al fails to teach wherein the surface position of the surface of the first liquid medium is detected capacitively and/or by measuring change of pressure via the pipette tip, which is lowered towards the surface.
However, in the analogous art of sample measurement method and device, Ariyoshi et al. teaches the sensor 35 is a sensor that senses the tip 31a of the nozzle 31 coming into contact with the liquid surface from being lowered. The sensor 35 includes a capacitance sensor, for example (see Ariyoshi et al., Fig. 6, [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for obtaining the liquid surface of Abe et al. to incorporate a capacitance sensor on the tip of the nozzle (as taught by Ariyoshi et al.), for the benefit of configuring the amount of lowering performed on the pipette/nozzle and preventing idle aspirations from occurring when the sensor and tip is not in contact with the liquid (see Ariyoshi et al., [0100]).
Claims 5, 9, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawanabe et al. (US PAT 5488874 A).
Regarding claim 5, Abe et al. teaches determining a offset value VO1 based on the distance between the final target position GL1 and the boundary BD1, to ensure that the tip 30a does not reach the boundary BD1 when a position control deviation occurs within tolerance when lowering (see Abe et al., [0133]-[0135]).
Abe et al fails to teach during lowering, when the safety position has been reached, measuring a pressure in the pipette and detecting a measured interface position of the interface, when a slope of the pressure changes.
However, in the analogous art of liquid aspirating method, Kawanabe et al. teaches detecting a sudden change in internal pressure via a pressure sensor 54 in the hose 44, when the end of the nozzle tip 36 has reached the liquid surface when being lowered (see Kawanabe et al., Fig. 1, Fig. 4, col. 5, lines 31-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify lowering the tip of a dispenser to a final target position using a offset from Abe et al. to incorporate measuring a sudden change in pressure when contacting with the liquid surface (as taught by Kawanabe et al.), for the benefit of suppressing excessive input when performing aspiration or dispensation of a sample (see Kawanabe et al., col. 5, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 9, Abe et al. teaches that prior to reaching the final target position GL1, the reference distance setting module 134 sets a reference distance RF1, configured to be proportional to the tip's 30a lowering speed based on the difference between location information. A switching module 133c determines the distance of the tip 30a from the final target position GL1 as the first remaining distance LD1, and further determines whether the reference distance RF1 is smaller than the first remaining distance LD1. If it is, it switches control to second mode control module 133b and continues to move the robot 10 lowering the dispenser 30. The value of LD1 is then used to determine if the distance from the final target position is less than or equal to zero in, where if it’s true, the second mode control module 133b commands the robot 10 to stop lowering the dispenser 30 and cease suction (see Abe et al., [0141], [0144]-[0145], [0151]-[0152], Fig. 14-15, Fig. 16A-16E).
Abe et al. fails to teach that before the safety position is reached, measuring a pressure in the pipette during the lowering of the pipette and detecting a measured interface position of the interface, when a slope of the pressure changes.
However, Kawanabe et al. teaches detecting a sudden change in internal pressure via a pressure sensor 54 in the hose 44, when the end of the nozzle tip 36 has reached the liquid surface when being lowered (see Kawanabe et al., Fig. 1, Fig. 4, col. 5, lines 31-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify lowering the tip of a dispenser prior to reaching the final target position using a reference distance and a first remaining distance from Abe et al. to incorporate measuring a sudden change in pressure when contacting with the liquid surface (as taught by Kawanabe et al.), for the benefit of suppressing excessive input when performing aspiration or dispensation of a sample (see Kawanabe et al., col. 5, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 11, Abe et al. teaches an interruption module 112 that stops the robot 10 from moving dispenser 30 that is suctioning the liquid C1 to be dispensed, after detecting that the tip 30a has reached a position for registering reference data (i.e. a lowering distance). Stopping conveyance allows the reference data registration module 113 to register the reference data using the camera 43, before the interruption module 112 outputs a command to resume conveyance for the dispenser 30, and is repeated every time the tip 30a reaches the visual field of camera 43 (see Abe et al., [0096]-[0098], [0100], Fig. 8.).
Abe et al. fails to teach wherein a first aspiration rate during the lowering of the pipette for the lowering distance is lower than a second aspiration rate, after the lowering distance has been passed.
However, Kawanabe et al. teaches a relationship between the elapsed time and a pressure in an aspiration system during the aspiration. At a time when the pump moving time elapses, the aspiration force becomes greater than that by a conventional method, but as the pressure in the aspirating system becomes equal to a predetermined value of pressure, the moving amount of the piston is returned to the degree in which only the necessary aspiration volume of the liquid sample can be aspirated, whereby the aspiration force is immediately reduced. As shown in Fig. 13, as time progresses past the pump moving time, the aspiration force decreases (see Kawanabe et al., col. 3, lines 24-39, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lowering of the dispenser of Abe et al. to incorporate a decreasing aspiration force over time (as taught by Kawanabe et al.), for the benefit of allowing the aspiration of high viscosity samples in a short period of time (see Kawanabe et al., col. 10, lines 32-44).
Regarding claim 15, Abe et al. teaches a dispensing system 1, which includes a robot 10. The robot 10 is used for work of moving a dispenser 30, which performs the suction of the liquid C1 to be dispensed. The dispenser 30 may be a pipette or syringe, operated electrically or manually, configured to automatically suction or discharge a liquid through a certain signal or a certain operation (see Abe et al., [0044], Fig. 1, Fig 2A-2B). The robot 10 may be any robot that can execute work of moving the dispenser 30, where it may have a single arm or a double arm type (see Abe et al., [0046], Fig. 1). Abe additionally teaches a controller 100 in the dispensing system 1, configured to execute at least: acquiring location information for the liquid surface SF1, location information for the boundary BD1, and location information for the tip 30a of the dispenser 30 based on the image captured by the camera 43; and controlling the robot 10 to lower the dispenser 30 based on the location information for the tip 30a, the location information for the liquid surface SF1, and the location information for the boundary BD1 when suctioning the liquid C1 into the dispenser 30. The processor 101 executes a program in cooperation with at least one of the memory 102 and the storage 103 to configure each function of the controller 100 described above (see Abe et al., [0063], [0082], Fig. 1, Fig. 7).
Abe et al. fails to teach a pressure device for changing a pressure in a volume connected to the pipette for aspirating and dispensing a liquid medium in the pipette; a pressure sensor for pressure measurements in the volume connected to the pipette; and a control device for controlling the pressure device and the pipetting arm and for receiving a pressure signal from the pressure sensor.
However, Kawanabe et al. teaches a diluent pipette 42 for dispensing a diluent, with an air hose 44 connected at one end thereof to the nozzle 32 and at the other end thereof to a syringe 46 serving as a pump for causing aspirating and dispensing action. Between the syringe 46 and the nozzle 32 is a pressure sensor 54 for measuring the internal pressure of the air hose 44. The pressure sensor can output a signal when detecting internal pressure in the air hose 44, where it is fed into an analog-digital converter 82 via a limiter circuit 80, converting the sensor signal into a digital signal to be fed into a control unit 84 (see Kawanabe et al., col. 4, lines 19-30, col.4-5, lines 62-8, Fig. 1, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, robot, and controller of Abe et al. to incorporate an air hose with a pump used for aspiration and dispensing, a pressure sensor measuring the internal pressure of the air hose, and a detectable signal outputted by the pressure sensor (as taught by Kawanabe et al.), for the benefit of improving the operations in pipetting by being able to aspirate the necessary volume from a sample, and to be able to draw high viscosity samples in a short period of time (see Kawanabe et al., col. 10, lines 31-44).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. as applied to claim 5 and 9 above, and further in view of Kawanabe et al. and Wernet et al. (US PG-Pub 20160116322 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Abe et al. teaches the image processing module 120 acquiring the location information for the boundary BD1, where it can be roughly estimated based on the information indicating an amount of the object C2 not to be dispensed (see Abe et al., [0117], [0345] Fig. 1, Fig. 2A-2B). Abe et al. additionally teaches the analysis region setting module 170 which sets the second analysis region indicating an amount of the object C2 not to be dispensed, using the information about size and the shape of the container 90 and the information indicating an amount of the object C2 not to be dispensed to calculate the position of the boundary BD1 in the container 90 (see Abe et al., [0285], Fig. 29).
While Abe et al. doesn't explicitly teach additionally teaches when a difference of the estimated interface position and the measured interface position is higher than a threshold; Abe et al. does teach a first processing module 122 calculating a difference between a first image (an image not including the tip 30a) and a second image (an image including the tip 30a) for each pixel, extracts a analysis region in which the difference is larger than a threshold, and acquires the location information for the tip 30a based on a position of the region (see Abe et al., [0291]-[0292], Fig. 29-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a difference between the estimated boundary location and the calculated position of the boundary to see if its higher than a predetermined threshold, for the benefit of accurately setting the analysis region and limiting the search range for boundary BD1, preventing erroneous recognition from improved acquisition accuracy for the location information for the boundary BD1 (see Abe et al., [0345], Fig. 2A-2B).
The combination of Abe et al. and Kawanabe et al. fails to teach providing a plausibility message for the interface detection.
However, in the analogous art of methods for monitoring at least one media-specific property of a medium, Wernet et al. teaches performing a plausibility check based on a comparison between the measured values of a capacitive operating mode, and a conductive operating mode that a media-specific property can be ascertained. This check comprises checking the control, evaluation, and output units based on the measured values ascertained in at least one of the two operating modes whether the media-specific property to be monitored lies within a predetermined tolerance band, and it generates a report, when the media-specific property to be monitored lies outside of the predetermined tolerance band (see Wernet et al., [0012], [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the difference between the estimated and calculated boundaries being greater than a threshold of the combination of Abe et al. and Kawanabe et al. to further incorporate a plausibility check in determining if values fall out of specified tolerances and creating generated report (as taught by Wernet et al.), for the benefit of allowing for countermeasures for removing the deviations can be introduced once detected, either by the user or by an switching signal (see Wernet et al. [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Abe et al. teaches the image processing module 120 acquiring the location information for the boundary BD1, where it can be roughly estimated based on the information indicating an amount of the object C2 not to be dispensed (see Abe et al., [0117], [0345] Fig. 1, Fig. 2A-2B). Abe et al. additionally teaches the analysis region setting module 170 which sets the second analysis region indicating an amount of the object C2 not to be dispensed, using the information about size and the shape of the container 90 and the information indicating an amount of the object C2 not to be dispensed to calculate the position of the boundary BD1 in the container 90 (see Abe et al., [0285], Fig. 29).
The combination of Abe et al. and Kawanabe et al. fails to teach providing a plausibility message for the interface detection.
However, Wernet et al. teaches performing a plausibility check based on a comparison between the measured values of a capacitive operating mode, and a conductive operating mode that a media-specific property can be ascertained. This check comprises checking the control, evaluation, and output units based on the measured values ascertained in at least one of the two operating modes whether the media-specific property to be monitored lies within a predetermined tolerance band, and it generates a report, when the media-specific property to be monitored lies outside of the predetermined tolerance band (see Wernet et al., [0012], [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calculated and/or acquired boundary position from the combination of Abe et al. and Kawanabe et al. to further incorporate a plausibility check in determining if values fall out of specified tolerances and creating generated report (as taught by Wernet et al.), for the benefit of allowing for countermeasures for removing the deviations can be introduced once detected, either by the user or by an switching signal (see Wernet et al. [0037]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dunker et al. (US PG-Pub 20200209274 A1) and Delubac (WO 2019060716 A1, as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Abe et al. teaches the analysis region setting module 170 which sets the second analysis region indicating an amount of the object C2 not to be dispensed, using the information about size and the shape of the container 90 and the information indicating an amount of the object C2 not to be dispensed to calculate the position of the boundary BD1 in the container 90 (see Abe et al., [0285], Fig. 29).
Abe et al. fails to teach stopping the pipette tip at the detected position and generating overpressure to dispense an amount of the second aspirated liquid medium and/or an amount of the first aspirated liquid medium from the pipette.
However, in the analogous art of pipetting device with functional checking and method, Dunker et al. teaches a pipetting apparatus 1, that can create a vacuum inside the pipette tip 11 when the piston element chamber is moved upwards by an electric motor. By this, the sample to be pipetted is sucked into the pipette tip, and the sample is dispensed from the pipette tip by an overpressure in the piston chamber (see Dunker et al, [0118], Fig. 1a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calculated position of the boundary of Abe et al. to incorporate dispensing a sample using overpressure in a pipette (as taught by Dunker et al.), for the benefit of being able to set operational parameters on the electric pipette, allowing automation in tasks such as the suction of dispensing of fluids at a set volume, the sequence and repetition of these processes, and if applicable temporal parameters for the temporal distribution of said processes (see Dunker et al., [0006]).
Furthermore, the combination of Abe et al, and Dunker et al. fails after detection of the measured interface position, stopping the pipette tip at the detected position and dispense an amount of the second aspirated liquid medium and/or an amount of the first aspirated liquid medium from the pipette.
However, in the analogous art of methods and systems for sample extraction, Delubac teaches a sample extraction device extracting a second sample 556 (e.g. plasma) from a container and dispense it into a new, clean container. At the beginning of the process, the sample extraction device lowers the first pipette tip 556 and a second pipette tip 558 until they reach the height of the first container 560 and second container 562, where the tips begin to aspirate air (i.e. the first sample 564) as they are lowered into the containers. When the first pipette tip 556 reaches the air/plasma (i.e. the first sample/second sample) interface, the flow rate of the first sample extraction device is rapidly decreased, indicating the extraction of the second sample 566 (e.g. plasma) vs. the extraction of the first sample 564 (e.g. air). Likewise, the same decrease in flow rate occurs when the second pipette tip 558 reaches the air/plasma (i.e. the first sample/second sample) interface (see Delubac, [0096], Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calculated position of the boundary and the dispensing of a sample by creating overpressure as taught by the combination of Abe et al. and Dunker et al. to further incorporate performing the dispensing by having the pipette tips reach the interface between two samples (as taught by Delbuac), for the benefit of accurate fractionation of liquid and/or viscous samples, including whole blood, and the simple, efficient, and automated separation of analytes from whole blood and other primary samples (see Delubac, [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tracy C Colena whose telephone number is (571)272-1625. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/TRACY CHING-TIAN COLENA/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797