DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Restriction/Election
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a conveyor with a buffer and a spur, classified in G01N35/04, G01N2035/0462.
II. Claims 15-20, drawn to a conveyor with a diverter and a gripper, classified in G01N35/04, G01N35/0099.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related apparatuses. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions of group I present distinct products from the invention of group II because the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, are mutually exclusive, and would require a different field of search. Specifically, group I requires a buffer and a spur, none of which is required by group II; and group II requires a gripper with a base to engage a bottom of a carrier, none of which is required by group I. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and/or
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different class/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); and/or
The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or
The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Charles Cappellari on 1/31/26, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/8/23, 11/8/23, 12/6/23, 6/17/24, 3/6/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1-14 being examined and claims 15-20 deemed withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because it does not end in a comma. The examiner suggests applicants add a comma.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “groove” and “flange” of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The examiner notes that [247] of the PGPub of the instant specification denotes these features as “not shown”. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-14 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.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what structure applicants are attempting to define by a "spur conveyor" in line 7. The spur conveyor is defined has having a path (just a region of space) and a gripper. However, typically in the art a conveyor includes an actual conveyor belt that is below the carrier and on which the carrier is transported. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear whether the conveyor is solely defined by the linear path and gripper, or whether there is an actual conveyance mechanism. Specifically, there are two potential interpretations and it is unclear which of the interpretation applicants are attempting to define. The first interpretation is just a gripper that picks up and moves vertically from above, and the second interpretation is a gripper that moves horizontally along a conveyor belt. The examiner believes applicants are attempting to define the latter second interpretation, but as drafted a potential infringer would not know which of the interpretations applicants are intending.
Claims 2-14 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Hamada et al (US 20100282003; hereinafter “Hamada”).
As to claim 1, Hamada teaches a conveyor assembly for transporting a carrier coupled to a receptacle containing a sample (Hamada; Title), comprising: a processing instrument comprising a pipettor and a processing position at which the receptacle coupled to the carrier is aligned with the pipettor; a buffer conveyor configured to transport the carrier coupled to the receptacle along a first linear path; and a spur conveyor configured to transport the carrier coupled to the receptacle along a second linear path arranged perpendicular to the first linear path defined by the buffer conveyor, the spur conveyor comprising: a gripper configured to selectively grasp the carrier coupled to the receptacle and move the carrier coupled to the receptacle along the second linear path between the buffer conveyor and the processing position (Hamada teaches spur conveyor 25 which includes a gripper 25a that moves a container along a linear path to processing position 21a within the housing where the sample is aspirated; Figs. 1A, 4, [45, 52-54, 61, 122]. Hamada teaches a buffer conveyor as 43 that is perpendicular to spur conveyor 25; Fig. 4).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haechler et al (US 20140072473; hereinafter “Haechler”; already of record) in view of Hawker, CD (Hawker, CD; Laboratory Automation: Total and Subtotal; Clinics in Laboratory Medicine; 27 (2007) p. 749-770; hereinafter “Hawker”; already of record) in view of Miller, K (US 20050037502; hereinafter “Miller”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Haechler teaches a conveyor assembly for transporting a carrier coupled to a receptacle containing a sample (Haechler; Fig. 1, 6, 8-9), comprising: a processing instrument comprising a pipettor and a processing position at which the receptacle coupled to the carrier is aligned with the pipettor; a buffer conveyor configured to transport the carrier coupled to the receptacle along a first linear path (Haechler teaches a pipettor 13 which aspirates from a processing position in the processing instrument/analyzer 2, and a buffer conveyor 23 which moves samples on a first linear path off of main host conveyor 8 and to the processing instrument/analyzer; Fig. 1, 6, 8-9, [56, 65, 66, 68, 20]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Haechler does not specifically teach a spur conveyor configured to transport the carrier coupled to the receptacle along a second path to the processing position such that the spur conveyor moves the carrier coupled to the receptacle between the buffer conveyor and processing position. However, Hawker teaches the analogous art of features of automated processing devices, where the interfaces to the analyzer/assay devices are known to have various configurations including a probe which extends outside of the analyzer to aspirate the sample on a conveyor adjacent to the analyzer as an obvious variant of diverting the carrier onto a conveyor that is part of the analyzer (Hawker; p. 762 #9). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have modified the interface of the processing instrument/analyzer that pipettes samples at a pipetting position outside of the processing instrument/analyzer as in Haechler to be a spur conveyor which transfers the carrier coupled to the receptacle to an aspiration position within the analyzer as in Hawker because Hawker teaches that the different interfaces to the analyzer are obvious variants (Hawker; p. 762 #9). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a matter of design choice in light of the teachings of Hawker (Hawker; p. 762 #9).
Modified Haechler does not specifically teach that the second linear path is arranged perpendicular to the first linear path defined by the buffer conveyor, or that the spur conveyor includes a gripper configured to selectively grasp the carrier coupled to the receptacle and move the carrier coupled to the receptacle between the buffer conveyor and the processing position. However, Miller teaches the analogous art of a conveyor assembly that conveys samples to a processing instrument/analyzer (Miller; Fig. 7), with a second linear path is arranged perpendicular to the first linear path defined by the buffer conveyor, or that the spur conveyor includes a gripper configured to selectively grasp the carrier coupled to the receptacle and move the carrier coupled to the receptacle between the buffer conveyor and the processing position (Miller teaches conveyor 14 forming a first linear path where carrier are moved linearly and perpendicularly from conveyor 14 to various processing sections, including processing instrument/analyzer 38/42, via robotic mechanisms and/or conveyor tracks, where the carriers are then moved back to the conveyor via the same robotic mechanism; Fig. 7, [29]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the interface including the spur conveyor which moves samples to the processing instrument to be aspirated of modified Haechler to have included a robotic gripper as in Miller because Miller teaches that a robotic gripper is a known and typical device to help interface and unload/load samples to processing stations (Miller; [29]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified the spur conveyor and buffer conveyor of modified Haechler such that the spur conveyor was perpendicular to the buffer conveyor as in Miller to provide the advantage of ensuring that multiple analyzers/processing stations could fit compactly off a main conveyor line since it has been held that changes in shape are not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the spur conveyor and buffer conveyor of modified Haechler such that the spur conveyor was perpendicular to the buffer conveyor as in Miller as a matter of design choice since Miller shows perpendicular conveyors (Miller; Fig. 7).
As to claim 2, modified Haechler teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, further comprising: a host conveyor configured to transport the carrier coupled to the receptacle along a third linear path extending parallel to the first linear path defined by the buffer conveyor (Haechler teaches host conveyor 8 which is parallel to buffer 23; Fig. 1, 6, 8-9, [43-44, 51-66, 68, 20]).
As to claim 3, modified Haechler teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 2, further comprising: a first diverter configured to move the carrier coupled to the receptacle from the host conveyor to an input section of the buffer conveyor; and a second diverter configured to move the carrier coupled to the receptacle from an output section of the buffer conveyor to the host conveyor (Haechler teaches a first diverter 6’ to move from host conveyor 8 to buffer 23’, and a second diverter 6’’ to move a carrier from output of buffer to the host conveyor; Fig. 1, 6, 8-10, [58, 43-44, 51-66, 68, 20]).
As to claim 4, modified Haechler teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 3, wherein the input section of the buffer conveyor comprises a first track configured to transport the carrier coupled to the receptacle along the first linear path from the first diverter to the spur conveyor, and wherein the output section of the buffer conveyor comprises a second track configured to transport the carrier coupled to the receptacle along the first linear path from the spur conveyor to the second diverter (Haechler teaches the left side of the buffer 23’ as the first track and the right side as the second track; Fig. 1, 6, 8-10, [58, 43-44, 51-66, 68, 20]).
As to claim 5, modified Haechler teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 3, wherein the buffer conveyor comprises a single track defining the input section and the output section of the buffer conveyor, and the single track is configured to transport the carrier coupled to the receptacle along the first linear path from the first diverter to the second diverter (Haechler teaches buffer track 23’ moving from first diverter 6’ to 6’’; Fig. 1, 6, 8-10, [58, 43-44, 51-66, 68, 20]).
As to claim 6, modified Haechler teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, further comprising a diverter configured to move the carrier coupled to the receptacle from an input section of the buffer conveyor to the spur conveyor (The modification of the interface of the processing instrument/analyzer that pipettes samples at a pipetting position outside of the processing instrument/analyzer as in Haechler to be a spur conveyor which transfers the carrier coupled to the receptacle to an aspiration position within the analyzer as in Hawker has already been discussed above. Because the modification results in a spur conveyor that branches from the buffer conveyor and goes to the analyzer, then some type of diverter mechanism would be required in order to transfer the carrier from the buffer to the spur conveyor).
As to claim 7, modified Haechler teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 6, wherein the diverter is configured to move the carrier coupled to the receptacle between: (i) a first position to receive the carrier coupled to the receptacle from the input section of the buffer conveyor, (ii) a second position to align the carrier coupled to the receptacle with the gripper of the spur conveyor, and (iii) a third position to transfer the carrier coupled to the receptacle on an output section of the buffer conveyor (The modification of the interface of the processing instrument/analyzer that pipettes samples at a pipetting position outside of the processing instrument/analyzer as in Haechler to be a spur conveyor which transfers the carrier coupled to the receptacle to an aspiration position within the analyzer as in Hawker has already been discussed above. Because the modification results in a spur conveyor that branches from the buffer conveyor and goes to the analyzer, then some type of diverter mechanism would be required in order to transfer the carrier from the buffer to the spur conveyor. In this case, the diverter would be capable of moving to each of these positions). However, if modified Haechler is deemed incapable of moving a diverter to each of these positions, then Haechler teaches that the diverters move to three positions including from a first entry, to a delivery position, and then also to an exit position (Haechler; [58], Fig. 7-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the diverter that moves to transfer the carrier from the buffer to the spur conveyor of modified Haechler to have been the diverter that moves to three positions as in Haechler because Haechler teaches that it is known for a diverter to move between different conveyor positions (Haechler; [58], Fig. 7-10]), and because Haechler teaches that the rotating diverter enables multiple samples to be addressed and moved at the same time (Haechler; [58], Fig. 7-10).
As to claim 8, modified Haechler teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 7, wherein a portion of the diverter overlaps the buffer conveyor such that the diverter is located between the input portion of the buffer conveyor and the output portion of the buffer conveyor (The modification of the interface of the processing instrument/analyzer that pipettes samples at a pipetting position outside of the processing instrument/analyzer as in Haechler to be a spur conveyor which transfers the carrier coupled to the receptacle to an aspiration position within the analyzer as in Hawker has already been discussed above in claim 1. Further, the modification of the diverter that moves to transfer the carrier from the buffer to the spur conveyor of modified Haechler to have been the diverter that moves to three positions as in Haechler has already been discussed above in claim 7, see also Haechler; [58], Fig. 7-10. This modification would result in the diverter of Haechler being in the buffer conveyor 23’ to divide the buffer conveyor into an input and output portion).
As to claim 9, modified Haechler teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 8, wherein the diverter defines at least one recess configured to receive the carrier coupled to the receptacle, and when the carrier coupled to the receptacle is received in the at least one recess, the diverter is configured to rotate the carrier coupled to the receptacle between the first, second, and third positions (The modification of the interface of the processing instrument/analyzer that pipettes samples at a pipetting position outside of the processing instrument/analyzer as in Haechler to be a spur conveyor which transfers the carrier coupled to the receptacle to an aspiration position within the analyzer as in Hawker has already been discussed above in claim 1. Further, the modification of the diverter that moves to transfer the carrier from the buffer to the spur conveyor of modified Haechler to have been the diverter that moves/rotates to three positions as in Haechler has already been discussed above in claim 7, see also Haechler; [58], Fig. 7-10. This modification would result in the diverter of Haechler having the recesses to receive the receptacles and rotate).
As to claim 13, modified Haechler teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the gripper comprises: a base configured to engage a bottom of the carrier coupled to the receptacle, a first prong movably coupled to the base of the gripper, and a second prong movably coupled to the base of the gripper (The modification of the interface including the spur conveyor which moves samples to the processing instrument to be aspirated of modified Haechler to have included a robotic gripper as in Miller has already been discussed above in claim 1. Miller teaches where the robotic mechanisms are known to include clamping robotic hands which would include two prongs that open and close to grip carriers; [29]).
As to claim 14, modified Haechler teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 13, wherein the first and second prongs are configured to collectively move between (i) an open configuration in which the carrier coupled to the receptacle is not secured by the first and second movable prongs of the gripper, and (ii) a closed configuration in which the carrier coupled to the receptacle is secured by the first and second movable prongs of the gripper (The modification of the interface including the spur conveyor which moves samples to the processing instrument to be aspirated of modified Haechler to have included a robotic gripper as in Miller has already been discussed above in claim 1. Miller teaches where the robotic mechanisms are known to include clamping robotic hands which would include two prongs that open and close to grip carriers; [29]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haechler et al (US 20140072473; hereinafter “Haechler”; already of record) in view of Hawker, CD (Hawker, CD; Laboratory Automation: Total and Subtotal; Clinics in Laboratory Medicine; 27 (2007) p. 749-770; hereinafter “Hawker”; already of record) in view of Miller, K (US 20050037502; hereinafter “Miller”; already of record) and in view of Pedrazzini, G (US 20150260746; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”; already of record).
As to claims 10-11, modified Haechler teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, with the spur conveyor assembly that includes a gripper that moves along the second linear path between the buffer conveyor and the processing position (see above).
Modified Haechler does not specifically teach wherein the spur conveyor assembly comprises a base defining the second linear path, and the gripper is translatably coupled to the base, or wherein the second linear path is defined by a groove formed in the base of the spur conveyor, and the gripper comprises a flange translatably received within the groove of the base. However, Pedrazzini teaches the analogous art of sample transport handler with a conveyor assembly that comprises a base defining the second linear path, and the gripper is translatably coupled to the base, or wherein the second linear path is defined by a groove formed in the base of the spur conveyor, and the gripper comprises a flange translatably received within the groove of the base (Pedrazzini teaches robotic handling device 8 which is on a base which is over belt 161 that connects to the handler and where the flange 160 of the handler is connected into a groove in guide 16, with a motor 162 driving the belt; Fig. 11-12, [36, 37, 38, 39, 59]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the robotic gripper which moves between the buffer conveyor and the processing position of modified Haechler to have been configured as a container handling device with a belt and motor drive with a corresponding flange/groove in the base supporting the handler as in Pedrazzini because Pedrazzini teaches that the belt drive enables sliding and translation to reach the necessary positions (Pedrazzini; [36]).
As to claim 12, modified Haechler teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the spur conveyor transports the gripper along the linear path between the buffer conveyor and the processing position (see above).
Modified Haechler does not specifically teach that spur conveyor comprises a movable track configured to transport the gripper. However, Pedrazzini teaches the analogous art of sample transport handler with a conveyor that includes a movable track configured to transport the gripper (Pedrazzini teaches robotic handling device 8 which is on a base which is over belt 161 that connects to the handler and where the flange 160 of the handler is connected into a groove in guide 16, with a motor 162 driving the belt; Fig. 11-12, [36, 37, 38, 39, 59]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the robotic gripper which moves between the buffer conveyor and the processing position of modified Haechler to have been configured as a container handling device with a track supporting the handler as in Pedrazzini because Pedrazzini teaches that the track enables sliding and translation to reach the necessary positions (Pedrazzini; [36]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11846644. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to a processing instrument (claim 1 of ‘644) with a pipettor (claim 20 of ‘644), a buffer conveyor (claim 1 of ‘644), and a spur conveyor with a gripper (claim 1 of ‘644). Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claim 1 are encompassed by the claims of US 11846644.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 13, 23, 24 of copending Application No. 18504323 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to a processing instrument (claims 1,13 of reference application) with a pipettor (claims 6, 13 of reference application), a buffer conveyor that is perpendicular (claims 23-24 of reference application), and a spur conveyor with a gripper (claim 1 of reference application). Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claim 1 are encompassed by the claims of copending Application No. 18504323 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 17 of copending Application No. 18504013 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to a processing instrument (claim 1 of reference application) with a pipettor (claims 4, 17 of reference application), a buffer conveyor (claim 1 of reference application), and a spur conveyor with a gripper (claim 1 of reference application). Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claim 1 are encompassed by the claims of copending Application No. 18504013 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include:
Bhatia et al (US 10527635; hereinafter “Bhatia”; already of record) teaches a gripper that picks up a tube vertically from a rotating spur; Fig. 4.
Itoh, T (US 20170185815; hereinafter “Itoh”; already of record) teaches transfer apparatus 31 that is driven to move carriers off of conveyor; [32-33, 48] Fig. 2.
She et al (US 20170030938; hereinafter “She”) teaches a groove 308 through which the shuttle gripper travels, where the shuttle gripper has a base with some type of extending flange that is within the groove; Fig. 8-9, 11. Also, She teaches in Figure 4 a guide rail 304 with a groove in it, or alternatively where the guide rail 304 protrudes upwards to form a groove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights