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. Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 4 and 9 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation " the upper part's upper surface extending collar " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 4, the recitation that the collection vessel is formed by “an upwardly from the upper part’s upper surface extending collar is unclear. It is unclear as to what structure this language is referring to and its intended meaning. For claim interpretation and examination purposes, this claim is interpreted that the upper part recited in claim 3 has an upward or vertical part from the surface extending from the upper part forming a collar surrounding the upper end of the central receiving hole. Claim 9 recites the limitation " the central receiving channel " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 1 , 2 and 8 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furst et al. (US 2002/0185161 A1; hereinafter “ Furst ”) in view of Woods (US 4,905,909; hereinafter “Woods”) . Regarding claim 1, Furst teaches a cleaning device (device 1; paragraph s 24 – 28 ; figures 1 and 2) for the cleaning of a pipetting tip (e.g., pipette probe; paragraphs 10 – 18, 22 and 29; figure 3), the cleaning device co mp rising a horizontally extending upper part (flange 5; paragraph 25) and a vertically from the lower end of the upper part extending shaft (device 1) , wherein both parts comprise a vertically extending central receiving hole (the volume indicated by insert 20; paragraph 26) for receiving the pipetting tip, and wherein the upper part comprises at least one nozzle ( groove 22 contains holes 23 that serve as nozzles ; paragraph 26) which is arranged perpendicular to the central receiving hole (the volume indicated by insert 20) and which is connected by a channel (channel 22) to a first connector (flanges 5) to a cleaning fluid supply (e.g., for wash fluid or cleaning fluids ; paragraph 26) . Furst does no specifically teach that the nozzle is an oscillating nozzle. However, Woods teaches a fluidic oscillating nozzle for cleaning and washing surfaces (Abstract; col. 1, lines 1 – 28) . Therefore, as evidenced by Woods, oscillating nozzles for cleaning surfaces is well known in the art of cleaning devices. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore , i t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the nozzle is an oscillating nozzle as taught by Woods to enable effective cleaning of an inserted pipette tip in the Furst device . Regarding claim 2 , Furst teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the lower end of the shaft comprises a second connector for connecting the lower end of the central receiving hole to a drain (e.g., opening 3 and screw 4; figure 1; paragraph 27) . Regarding claim 8, Furst teaches the device of claim 1, comprising at least two opposite to another arranged oscillating nozzles (groove 22 contains holes 23 that serve as nozzles; figure 1; paragraph 26) . Regarding claim 9, Furst teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the channel (channel s 22 are on either side of the volume indicated by insert 20 ) for connecting the at least one oscillating nozzle (holes 23) to a cleaning fluid supply surrounds the central receiving channel (the volume indicated by insert 20) ( figure 1; paragraph 26) . Regarding claim 10, Furst teaches the device of claim 1, comprising holes in the upper part for fixing the device (paragraph 24) . Regarding claim 11, as discussed above for the rejection of the apparatus claim 1, Furst in view of Woods teaches all of the positively recited structure of the apparatus as claimed. The claimed method merely recites the conventional operation of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, modifed Furst teaches a method for cleaning of a pipette tip, comprising the following steps: providing a cleaning fluid to the oscillating nozzle (cleaning fluid is provided to the nozzles 23; figure 3 ( h ) ) ; moving the pipette tip into a central receiving hole of a cleaning device comprising a horizontally extending upper part and a vertically from the lower end of the upper part extending shaft, wherein both parts comprise a vertically extending central receiving hole for receiving the pipetting tip, and wherein the upper part comprises at least one oscillating nozzle which is arranged perpendicular to the central receiving hole and which is connected by a channel to a first connector to a cleaning fluid supply (see figures 3(a) – 3(h)) ; applying an oscillating flow of cleaning fluid from the oscillating nozzle to the pipette tip while moving it along a z-axis into the central receiving hole (see figure 3(h)) ; and removing the pipette tip from the central receiving hole (see figures 3(k) – 3(l)) . Regarding claim 12, modified Furst teaches the method of claim 11, wherein an oscillating flow of cleaning fluid from the oscillating nozzle is also applied to the pipette tip during its removal from the central receiving hole (see figures 3(g) – 3( i ); paragraph 67) . Claim (s) 3 , 4 , 7 , 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furst et al. (US 2002/0185161 A1; hereinafter “ Furst ”) and Woods (US 4,905,909; hereinafter “Woods”), and further in view of Gut (US 2012/0017945 A1; hereinafter “Gut”). Regarding claim 3, modified Furst does not specifically teach the device of claim 1, wherein the upper part comprises on its upper surface a collection vessel for fluids. However, Gut teaches a related washing apparatus comprising an upper part compris ing on its upper surface a collection vessel (wash element 18 for washing the fluid manipulator 3 is inserted in the cavity 14 below top opening 15; figures 2, 3A and 3B; paragraphs 82 – 84) for fluids. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the upper part comprises on its upper surface a collection vessel for facilitating washing and holding cleaning fluids. Regarding claim 4, Gut further teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the collection vessel is formed by an upwardly from the upper part's upper surface extending collar surrounding the upper end of the central receiving hole ( e.g., a central receiving hole comprising free space 20 with surrounding upright collar 24 and the edge of the opening 15; paragraphs 84 and 85 ; figure 2 ) . Regarding claim 7, modified Furst does not specifically teach the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one oscillating nozzle is a l so connected to a supply for compressed air. However, Gut teaches that fluid pumps can be used to pump compressed gas such as air, nitrogen , or other gas , through the cleaning nozzle which is well known in the art (paragraph 58). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the at least one oscillating nozzle is a l so connected to a supply for compressed air. Regarding claims 13, and 14, modified Furst does not specifically teach the use of compressed air in the operation of the cleaning device. However, as discussed above for the rejection of claim 7, the use of compressed air with related cleaning devices is well known in the art. Regarding claim 13, modified Furst in view of Gut teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the oscillating nozzle applies compressed air to the pipette tip during its removal from the central receiving hole ( see Gut: paragraph 58) . Regarding claim 14, modified Furst in view of Gut teaches the method of claim 13, wherein a single oscillating nozzle is used for applying cleaning fluid and compressed air to the pipette tip ( see Gut: paragraph 58) . Claim (s) 5 , 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furst et al. (US 2002/0185161 A1; hereinafter “ Furst ”) and Woods (US 4,905,909; hereinafter “Woods”), and further in view of Dunfee et al. (US 2008/0099057 A1; hereinafter “ Dunfee ”). Regarding claim 5, modified Furst does not specifically teach the device of claim 1, wherein the upper part comprises on its upper surface a blind hole which is connected by a drain channel to the central receiving hole. Regarding claim 6, modif i ed Furst also does not further teach the device of claim 5, wherein the blind hole is arranged inside the collection vessel . Regarding claim 15, modified Furst does not specifically teach the method of claim 11, wherein a blind hole in the upper surface of the upper part is used for cleaning the inner part of the pipette tip. However, Dunfee teaches a pertinent cleaning apparatus comprising a blind hole (cleansing well 72; paragraphs 35, 36 and 41; figure 4), which are well known in the art of cleaning devices for automatic analyzers. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein to incorporate a blind hole or cleansing well as claimed to facilitate effective pipette tip or probe cleaning. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN J. SINES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1263 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9 AM-5 PM EST M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lyle Alexander can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN J. SINES Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 1796 /BRIAN J. SINES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796