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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
It is noted that the claims are not drafted (according to US practices) such that each of the positively claimed structural elements are listed on separate indented lines within the body of the claims.
It is noted that the phrase “at least one” only requires 1 and the phrase “at least two” only requires 2.
The term “plurality” only requires 2.
It is noted that the various “configured to…” clauses recited in the claims do not provide for any further structural elements, but are directed to intended, possible use.
It is noted that the metering chamber and storage chamber (see for example claim 7). are not defined by any specific distinguishing structures. The term “metering” and “storage” as well as the term “inlet” and “outlet” are directed to the intended use of the openings. This also applicable to terms “waste”, “buffer”, etc. that do not provide for any structure of any chamber and “overflow”, “ventilation”, etc. that do not provide for any structure of any duct, opening, nor any other structure.
It is noted that the term “or” and “and/or (which minimally means “or”) provide for alternatives, not requirements.
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 1-24 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what is structurally required of two openings to be considered as “mutually spaced-spaced apart” because the claim does not clearly defined in the claims. Any two openings not in the same exact location can be considered as “mutually spaced-apart”.
As to claim 1, it is unclear if it is intended for the carrier to comprise “a connecting line” because the claim does not clearly recite such. If it is intended for the carrier to comprise such, then the claim should clearly recite such.
As to claims 1, 3, 5, 12-14, and 17-18, it is unclear what/which chamber is being referenced by the respective phrases “the chamber” and “said chamber” because claim one previously recites “at least one chamber”. Therefore, it is unclear what is the nexus of the phrases to the prior “at least one chamber”.
As to claim 1, it is unclear if it is intended for the carrier to comprise a connecting line because the claim does not clearly recited such. The “disposed such that…” clause does not require the carrier to comprise “a connecting line”. See also further similar phrases recited throughout the claims. The clause appears to be directed to what is not present rather than what is present as a structural element of the invention.
As to claims 1 and 11, it is unclear what/which ventilation openings are being referenced by the phrase “the ventilation openings” because the claim previously recites “at least two mutually spaced-apart ventilation openings”
Claims 2-24 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim.
As to claims 3 and 12, it is unclear which/what inform opening is being referenced by “the inflow opening” because claim 1 previously recites “at least one inflow opening”.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required to be considered as “a runoff edge”, “dripping edge”, “impact point of a pouring jet”, and “a pouring jet” because none of such are structurally defined in the claim. The names of the edges, point, etc. do not provide for any clearly definitive structure.
As to claim 4, it is unclear what the “configured so as to be open toward one side” is meant to modify and what is structurally required by such phrase because the claim does not clearly recite such. It is unclear if intended for some structure to actually comprise and opening or some other structure that can possible be opened. It is noted that the fluidic system has been recited as comprising multiple structures. Furthermore, it is unclear what “one side” refers to because nothing has been claimed as comprising any sides. Therefore, it is unclear what is considered as “toward one side”. Furthermore, there is no indication what is structurally required of a blade to be considered as a “fastening” blade because the claim does not clearly recite such. Also applicable to claim 16.
As to claims 5 and 18, it is unclear what/which chambers is being referenced by the respective phrases “the chambers” because claim 1 previously recites “at least one chamber” and claim 5 recites “a plurality of chambers”.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required by the term “adjacent” because the term does not provide for nor require any structural connectivity nor definitive relationship (distance) of any chambers. The term “adjacent” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What may be considered as “adjacent” to one person may not be considered as such to another and vice versa.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the ends thereof" and “each case”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior mention of any ends. It is unclear what the pronoun “thereof” references. Furthermore, there is no prior mention of any cases. It is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the phrase “in each case” and if it is intended for the invention to comprises any fluidic duct because the claim does not clearly recite such.
As to claims 8-9, it is unclear what/which measuring region is being referenced by “the measuring region” because claim 8 previously recites “at least one measuring region”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required to define a “measuring region” because region is not defined by and definitive structure, structural boundaries (dimensions) so as to determine where such region begins and ends, so to be distinguished between any other structures or “regions”. Any location can be named as desired, including a measuring region. It is unclear if it is intended for the invention to comprise a cover. If so, the claim should clear recite such…such as “comprising a removable cover element closing….”
As to claim 9, it is unclear if it is intended for the carrier or some prior positively claimed element of the carrier to comprise a measuring chamber and (what is structurally required to define a measuring chamber) and at least two chambers (and what is structurally required to define such) because the claim does not clearly recite such. Reciting that a measuring region is located in a measuring chamber or connected to at least two waste chamber does not require none of the latter to be structural elements of the carrier.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required by “connected in front of the measuring region (24) in a processing direction, and/or one of the at least two waste chambers (5, 5a, 5b) being connected behind the measuring region (24) in a processing direction”. No measuring region has been sufficient define so as to determine what is “in front of and behind the measuring region”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is “a processing direction” because such is not defined in the claim. No processing of anything is required to be performed in any definitive direction.
Claim 9 recites the limitations " the first waste chamber (5) of the at least two waste chambers (5, 5a, 5b)”; “the second waste chamber (5) of the at least two waste chambers (5)"; and “the overflow duct (28, 28a, 28b) of the second waste chamber (5) of the at least two waste chambers (5). . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such waste chambers have been previously positively claimed as elements of the carrier. See above. Furthermore, no second waste chamber has been claimed as comprising an overflow duct (note no overflow of anything is ever required to occur). It is unclear how an overflow duct can be claimed as an element of a second waste chamber that has not been previously positively claimed as n element of the carrier.
It is unclear what is structurally required by claim 10, because no measuring chamber has been positively claimed as an element of the carrier. The invention is the carrier not the carrier and some additional structure intended to be, can be used with the carrier. However, it is noted that the phrase “releasably connectable to” does not require any actually connection. The phrase is directed to what is intended to, can be possible.
It is unclear what is structurally required by claim 11, because the at least two waste chambers have not been previously positively claimed as elements of the carrier. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required to be considered as “a buffer chamber” because such is not structurally defined in the claim. The name of the chamber does not provide for any structure of the chamber.
Furthermore, it is unclear if it is intended for the carrier (or some prior positively claimed element of the carrier) to comprise a ventilation duct because the claim does not clearly recite such. Reciting that at least of the ventilation openings transitions into a ventilation duct does not require the latter to be an element of the carrier. Furthermore, there is no basis for “its course”. It is presumed that “its” refers to the ventilation duct. If so, the claim should clearly recite such. However, such duct nor anything has been claimed as comprising any clearly defined course.
As to claim 12, it is unclear what is required by the claim because it is unclear what is meant by the at least two ventilations converge because the claim does not provide for such. Are such openings required to “converge” with each other, some other structural element, etc. It is unclear what is meant by “converge”. Although the terms “overflow” and “inflow” do not provide for any further structure, it is unclear if it is intended for the carrier, the chamber (what/which) to comprise an overflow duct by the claim does not recite such. The “transitions into” clause does not require the overflow duct be an element of the invention.
Furthermore, it is noted that overflow opening is labeled as “29” and “28”.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required of the inflow opening to be considered “formed as an inflow region” because such is not structurally define (see rejection above directed to “measuring region”). Any opening can be named as desired even as being considered located in a desired named region.
As to claims 13, it is unclear what is structurally required of a chamber to be considered as having “a siphon-type profile” because such is not structurally defined in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the at least one ventilation opening". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is nexus of such to the previously recited “at least two mutually spaced-apart ventilation openings” of claim 1. However, it is unclear if anything is actually required to be located between the concavity and a centrifugal axis (of what, not defined in the claim as being any structure) because the term “positionable” is directed to can possibly be, not what is required. It is noted that any intangible line can be named a centrifugal axis that is not structure not claimed as structural element.
As to claim 14, it is unclear what is required by “the depression (9) is disposed opposite an inflow opening” because it is unclear if it intended for some structure to comprise an inflow opening, and what is the nexus of such to the prior recited “at least one inflow opening” of claim 1 because the claim does not recite such. Therefore, it is also unclear which/what inflow opening is being reference by “the inflow opening”.
As to claim 15, it is unclear what is structurally required for a receptacle to be considered as “a receptacle region” because such region is not structurally defined in the claim and to be considered as “for an sampling instrument” (not claimed as an element of the invention; nor specifically structurally defined in the claim). Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required to be considered as “a purging opening” because such is not structurally defined. There is no requirement for any purging of anything is ever required to be performed. It is noted that there is no structural distinction between a purging “opening”, “an exit”, and “a drain”.
As to claim 16, it is unclear what/which, “the fastening blade” because the claim previously recites “at least one fastening blade”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally considered “a longitudinal extent of the sample carrier” and “at least one clearance” because such are not structurally defined in the claim.
As to claim 17, the chambers because the claim previously recites a plurality of chambers. Furthermore, it is noted that “centrifugal force” is not structure. There is no requirement for any centrifugal force to be applied in anything in any specific direction. Therefore, it is unclear how the stack can be defined relative to such direction.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the stacked arrangement". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is the nexus of such to prior recited “at least one arrangement of the chambers”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required of “a drain” and “an overflow” because such is not structurally defined. It is unclear what is “a stacking direction” in relation to an inflow. An inflow is not structure. Furthermore, there is no requirement of any “inflow” of anything to occur in any chamber. It is unclear what chamber is considered as being referenced as “this chamber” and what is structurally required to be “a branch” and “a further processing path” because such is not structurally defined in the claim. It is noted that no processing path has been previously claimed so as to determine what is a “further” processing path.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the chamber that follows…" and “the following chamber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required of a chamber to be considered as a “following” and a “further” following chamber because the claim does not clearly recite such.
Claims 18-19 recites the limitation "the chambers" and “the arrangement”, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear what/which chambers are being referenced by such. It is unclear what is the nexus of “the arrangement” to the prior recited “at least one arrangement”. It is noted that any structure(s) can be considered as an “arrangement”.
As to claim 19, it is unclear if the “connecting region”, “measuring region”, and “at least one further arrangement of chambers” are intended to be structural elements of the carrier because as presented drafted are not claimed as such. Reciting that a prior positively claimed structure is connected to a structure not previously claimed does not require the latter structure to be an element of the invention. It is further unclear what is structurally required to define the connecting region and measuring region because the claim does not provide for such. See prior rejections above. It is also unclear what is required of an arrangement to be considered as “further” because the claim does not clearly recite such.
It is further unclear what/which chambers are being referenced by “each chamber” because the claim does not clearly recite such.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the metering chamber". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is the nexus of such to the “at least one metering chamber” of claim 7 because the claim does not clearly recite such. See also claims 21-22.
As to claims 20, it is unclear what is structurally required of a fluidic duct to be considered as having “a siphon-type profile” because such is not structurally defined in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what the “and runs through the concavity” clause modifies.
As to claim 21, it is unclear what is required of structures to be considered as “aerating” structures because such are not structurally defined in the claim. However, it is noted that no “aerating” is required to be performed. Furthermore, it is noted that the phrase “formed between” does not provide for nor require any structurally connectively of any claimed structural elements.
It is further unclear if the “a reservoir” and “a depression” are structural elements of the carrier because as presently drafted such are not claimed as such. However, it is unclear what is required to be considered as “a compensation substance” and “an activation element” because such are not specified as being any specific material, chemical, nor structure in the claim. No compensating nor activating of anything is required to occur. See also prior remarks directed to “formed between”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the pressure of the reservoir" in the next-to-last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is unclear what is further structurally required by claim 22, what the carrier is further required to comprise because the claim does not clearly recite such. The reservoir has not been previously positively claimed as a structural element of the carrier. See rejection of claim 21.
It is unclear what is further structurally required by claim 23 because no measuring region has been previously positively claimed nor structurally defined in the claims. See rejection of claim 19. Furthermore, it is unclear if it is intended for the carrier to comprise a cover and cover element because the claim does not clearly recite such. Reciting what the unclaimed measuring region is at least partially formed by a cover does not require the cover to be an element of the carrier. Furthermore, the term “fastenable” is directed to what is possible not what is required. The cover is not required to be fastened to anything.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required to be considered as “thickenings” because such are not structurally defined in the claim and it is unclear what periphery of what is being referenced because the claim does not recite such.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required by “a cover element (25) closes the ventilation element (59) at least before measuring” because as noted above no cover is positively claimed and such is directed to process steps. There is no requirement of any closing of the ventilation element and any measuring of anything ever to be performed by anything nor anyone.
It is unclear what is structurally required by 24 because the cover element is not positively claimed as a structural element and reciting that such is connected to a rotatable gripping element not positively claimed as structural element of the carrier nor prior positively claimed element of the carrier does not required such gripping element to be an element of the carrier.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-3, 5, 7-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Augstein; Manfred et al., US 2012/0301371.
Augstein discloses a rotatable carrier 3 comprising a fluidic system comprising a plurality of chambers 13. FIG. 9 shows that a star-shaped or circular arrangement of reagent chambers 13 can also be expanded. Thus, as shown here, six reagent chambers 13 can be fluidically interconnected via mutually spaced venting ports/openings and connecting channels 14a, 14b, and 31 such that ports are connected via the channels that do not run through the chambers (Abstract, paragraphs 0006, 14, 31, 36, 78-81 ; Figures 1-10c).
As to claims 2 and 14, the chambers 13 comprise a base including a depression. (paragraph 0051, Figure 2a-c).
As to claim 3, the chamber is formed by a wall having a projection disposed between a dripping edge and impact point. (Figures 2b-c, 8a-b).
As to claims 5, the carrier includes a plurality of chambers including at least one arrangement of chambers adjacent two further chambers. (Figure 9).
As to claims 7-12, the chambers can be named as desired (metering, storage, waste, measuring, etc.). The openings, channels, etc. can also be named as desired (inlet, outlet, ventilation, overflow, inflow, etc. Furthermore, any location “region” of the carrier can named as desired.
As to claims 13-14, any of the channels/ducts 14a, 14b, 31 can be said as having “a siphon type profile”. The chamber has a depression, concavity. An inflow/ventilation opening via the channels/ducts, between the depression and a centrifugal axis; and the depression is opposite and inflow opening. See figures.
As to claim 15, in figure 9, the receptacle 13a (receptacle region) includes multiple openings including an opening between further openings, exit and drain of the receptacle.
As to claim 17, the chambers 13 are in a stacked arrangement.
As to claims 18-19, one wall of the chambers is formed from a central post. Figure 8a and 8b. Any location can be referenced to as connecting and/or measuring region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saiki; Hiroshi et al.; OKAMOTO; Fusatoshi et al.; Madou; Marc et al.; HORII; Kazuyoshi et al.; MIURA; Yoshinobu et al.; Boehm; Christoph et al.; KOUGE; Masahiro et al.; NOSE; Tomoyuki et al.; Boehm; Christoph et al.; De Oliveira Garcia Da Fonseca; Joao Manuel et al.; Peytavi; Regis et al.; Augstein; Manfred et al.; Saiki; Hiroshi et al.; Wang; Mark et al. and Boehm; Christoph disclose carrier devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights