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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: “sample, and” in line 4 should read “sample; and”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: “the sample” in line 4 should read “the laboratory liquid sample”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: “the sample” in line 4 should read “the aqueous laboratory liquid sample”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“for use in a laboratory liquid sample handling system” in lines 1-2 should be omitted (because it is repetitive and unnecessary).
“the droplet” in line 6 should read “the at least one impacting droplet”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: “the high-adhesive” in line 2 should read “the at least one high-adhesive”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the impacting” in line 2 should read “the at least one impacting”.
“the impacted” in line 3 should read “the at least one impacting”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: “the pattern” in line 1 should read “the at least one pattern”.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informality: “sample, and” in line 3 should read “sample; and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 3, and 8-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the cap removed from a laboratory liquid sample container" in line 3 (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a cap removed from a laboratory liquid sample container”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a field" in line 4. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the electric field first mentioned in line 5 of claim 1 or to a totally new field. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the field”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the sample" in line 4. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which one of the aqueous laboratory liquid samples mentioned in line 3 of the claim the limitation is referring to. The limitation would have proper antecedent basis if “aqueous laboratory liquid samples,” in line 3 of claim 3 instead read “an aqueous laboratory liquid sample,”. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if “aqueous laboratory liquid samples,” in line 3 of claim 3 instead reads “an aqueous laboratory liquid sample,”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the impacted droplet" in line 6 (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the at least one impacting droplet”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "at least one pattern comprising a rotation symmetry and no mirror symmetry, and/or a mirror symmetry and no rotation symmetry, and/or no rotation symmetry and no mirror symmetry" in lines 6 (emphasis added). It is unclear from this limitation how the at least one pattern can possibly simultaneously have rotation symmetry and not have rotation symmetry, and simultaneously have mirror symmetry and not have mirror symmetry. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 16 as if “and/or” in line 3 instead reads “or” in both instances the term appears in the claim.
Claims 9-19 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 8.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-7 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strzempek et al. (US 2019/0039869), hereinafter Strzempek, in view of Jung et al. (KR 101593063 B1), hereinafter Jung.
Regarding claim 1, Strzempek discloses a laboratory apparatus (42 in Figure 3) for use in a laboratory sample handling system (41 in Figure 3) (Paragraphs 0005 and 0006), wherein the apparatus (42) comprises:
a cap waste disposal catcher (42 in Figure 3), wherein the catcher (42) is designed to catch a laboratory cap (2 in Figures 1-3) removed from a laboratory sample container (3 in Figure 1) containing a laboratory sample (the “urine sample” described in Paragraph 0014) (Paragraphs 0041 and 0014).
However, Strzempek does not disclose: an electric field generator, wherein the generator is designed to generate an electric field to attract a residue of the sample released by the cap to the catcher.
Jung teaches that it was known to provide an electric field generator (210 or 20 in Figure 1), wherein the generator (210 or 20) is designed to generate an electric field (the “electric field” described throughout the Machine Translation of KR 101593063 B1) to attract a residue (the “ammonia ions” described throughout the Machine Translation of KR 101593063 B1) of a sample (the “urine” described throughout the specification of Jung) to a catcher (10 in Figures 3-5) (Paragraphs 0034, 0035, and 0028-0030 of Machine Translation of KR 101593063 B1), in order to provide the catcher (10) with a deodorizing function, allow the residue (“ammonia ions”) to be collected, and allow odor and toxicity caused by the residue (the “ammonia ions”) to be removed together with the residue (Paragraphs 0001, 0008, 0014, 0030, 0031, 0035, and 0036 of Machine Translation of KR 101593063 B1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Strzempek to incorporate the teachings of Jung by providing the apparatus of Strzempek with an electric field generator, wherein the generator is designed to generate an electric field to attract a residue (the ammonia ions of the “urine sample” of Strzempek in the “residue” described in Paragraph 0015 lines 28-30 of Strzempek) of the sample (the “urine sample” of Strzempek) released by the cap to the catcher, because doing so would provide the catcher with a deodorizing function, allow the residue to be collected, and allow odor and toxicity caused by the residue to be removed together with the residue.
Regarding claim 2, Strzempek in view of Jung teaches that the laboratory sample handling system (41 of Strzempek as modified in view of Jung) is a laboratory liquid sample handling system (because 41 of Strzempek handles containers 3 containing urine samples and caps 2 contaminated with residues of urine samples, Paragraphs 0014 and 0015 of Strzempek), that the catcher (42 of Strzempek as modified in view of Jung) is designed to catch the cap (2 of Strzempek) removed from a laboratory liquid sample container (3 of Strzempek) containing a laboratory liquid sample (the “urine sample” described in Paragraph 0014 of Strzempek) (Paragraphs 0041 and 0014 of Strzempek), and that the generator (210 or 20 of Jung) is designed to generate the field (the “electric field” of Jung) to attract a liquid residue (ammonia ions of the “urine sample” of Strzempek) of the sample (“urine sample” of Strzempek) released by the cap (2 of Strzempek) to the catcher (Paragraphs 0034, 0035, and 0028-0030 of Machine Translation of KR 101593063 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Strzempek in view of Jung teaches that the laboratory liquid sample handling system (41 of Strzempek as modified in view of Jung) is configured to handle aqueous laboratory liquids (because 41 of Strzempek handles containers 3 containing urine samples as stated in Paragraph 0014 of Strzempek, and urine samples are aqueous laboratory liquids), that the laboratory liquid sample container (3 of Strzempek) is configured to hold aqueous laboratory liquid samples (urine samples, which are aqueous laboratory liquid samples) (Paragraph 0014 of Strzempek), and that the generator (210 or 20 of Jung) is designed to generate a field to attract an aqueous liquid residue (ammonia ions of the “urine sample” of Strzempek) of the sample (“urine sample” of Strzempek) released by the cap (2 of Strzempek) to the catcher (Paragraphs 0034, 0035, and 0028-0030 of Machine Translation of KR 101593063 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Strzempek in view of Jung teaches that the generator (210 of Jung) is designed to generate an electrostatic field to electrostatically attract the residue (ammonia ions of the “urine sample” of Strzempek) (because 210 of Jung is a stationary electrode and its electric field does not vary with time once activated, as stated in Paragraphs 0028, 0029, and 0041 of Machine Translation of KR 101593063 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Strzempek in view of Jung teaches that the generator (210 of Jung) is an electrostatic generator (because 210 of Jung is a stationary electrode and its electric field does not vary with time once activated, as stated in Paragraphs 0028, 0029, and 0041 of Machine Translation of KR 101593063 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Strzempek in view of Jung teaches that the generator (210 or 20 of Jung) is designed to generate the field (the “electric field” of Jung) at least at a surface (inner surface) of the catcher (42 of Strzempek as modified in view of Jung) (because Paragraphs 0028 and 0011 of Machine Translation of KR 101593063 B1 teaches that 210 generates the “electric field” on the “inner surface” of catcher 10).
Regarding claim 7, Strzempek in view of Jung teaches that the generator (210 or 20 of Jung) is designed to generate the field (the “electric field” of Jung) at least at an inner surface of the catcher (42 of Strzempek as modified in view of Jung) (because Paragraphs 0028 and 0011 of Machine Translation of KR 101593063 B1 teaches that 210 generates the “electric field” on the “inner surface” of catcher 10).
Regarding claim 20, Strzempek in view of Jung teaches that the catcher (42 of Strzempek as modified in view of Jung) comprises a cap waste disposal chute (42 of Strzempek as modified in view of Jung) (apparent from Figure 3 of Strzempek, Paragraphs 0041 and 0043 of Strzempek).
Regarding claim 21, Strzempek in view of Jung teaches that the cap waste disposal chute (42 of Strzempek as modified in view of Jung) is designed to guide the cap (2 of Strzempek) away to a cap waste disposal compartment (the “cap disposal compartment” described in Paragraph 0043 of Strzempek) (Paragraph 0043 of Strzempek).
Regarding claim 22, Strzempek in view of Jung teaches that the system (41 of Strzempek as modified in view of Jung) comprises:
a decapper (1 in Figures 1-3 of Strzempek), wherein the decapper (1 of Strzempek) is designed to remove a laboratory cap (2 of Strzempek) from a laboratory sample container (3 of Strzempek) containing a laboratory sample (the “urine sample” described in Paragraph 0014) (Paragraphs 0028, 0041, and 0014 of Strzempek), and
a laboratory apparatus (42 of Strzempek as modified in view of Jung) according to claim 1 (see 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 23, Strzempek in view of Jung teaches that the decapper (1 of Strzempek) is designed to drop the removed cap (2 of Strzempek) to the catcher (42 of Strzempek as modified in view of Jung) (Paragraph 0041 of Strzempek).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-19 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art reference, Strzempek (see 103 rejection of claim 1 above), teaches that the catcher (42 of Strzempek as modified in view of Jung) comprises a surface (inner surface of 42 of Strzempek), and that the surface (inner surface of 42 of Strzempek) is designed to be exposed to at least one impacting droplet of a laboratory liquid sample (the “urine sample” described in Paragraph 0014 of Strzempek) (clear when Figure 3, Paragraph 0015 lines 28-30, and Paragraph 0041 of Strzempek are considered together).
However, Strzempek, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious that the surface is heterogeneously patterned to originate a heterogeneous flow velocity within the impacted droplet on the surface for reducing a rebound energy of the droplet.
Regarding claims 9-19, they are indicated as being allowable solely because they depend from claim 8 which is allowable as stated above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights