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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 8-16, in the reply filed on 08/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/17/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first drive unit” in claim 1;
“second drive unit” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In this instant case:
“first drive unit” in claim 1 is being interpreted as an electric motor (instant specification, paragraph [0050]), pulse motor ([0113]), or equivalents thereof
“second drive unit” in claim 3 is being interpreted as a moving mechanism for moving a dispensing head in X and Y directions ([0158],[0161]).
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 4 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “at least H ("H'' is an integer greater than or equal to 2)” in lines 2-3 and “wherein M is m times H ("m" is an integer greater 20 than or equal to 2)” in lines 5-6. It is unclear if the limitations within the parentheses are examples or are part of the claimed invention. The limitations within the parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is suggested to remove the parentheses and positively recite the limitation such as “…wherein H is an integer greater than or equal to 2,…”
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 recites the limitation " the standard posture" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that “a reference posture” and “a posture” are established in claim 10 and “a posture” is established in line 4 of claim 11.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Toi et al. (US 20040094575 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Toi teaches a dispensing device (abstract and Figs. 1-7 teaches a microplate liquid handling system) capable of aspirating or dispensing a liquid from or into each of a plurality of wells provided on a container (abstract teaches “suction/discharge and lateral collective suction/discharge on a single microplate”; Fig. 5 teaches reagent vessels 52A,52B including vessels, i.e. wells, and a microplate 53 with wells 53A; note that “plurality of wells provided on a container” are not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the dispensing device), the plurality of wells being aligned linearly (Fig. 5, reagent vessels 52A,52B are aligned linearly, and wells 53A are aligned linearly), the dispensing device comprising:
a support portion configured to support the container (Fig. 1 teaches stands 55,56 configured to support vessels 52A-52B and microplate 53);
a dispensing head (Figs. 1-2, 6-7, dispensing mechanism 40) having a plurality of tip attachments aligned linearly (Figs. 1-2, 6-7 teach nozzles 46 arranged linearly), the dispensing head being configured to aspirate and dispense a liquid from or into dispensing tips attached to the tip attachments ([0030] teaches nozzles 56 have been mounted with dispensing tips 60, and reagent or the like can be sucked into or discharged from the dispensing tips 60); and
a first drive unit (Figs. 2A-2B and [0024] teach a rotating mechanism 30 including a motor 32 to rotate the dispensing mechanism 40; wherein the rotating mechanism including a motor reads on the interpretation of the first drive unit under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) configured to rotate at least one of the dispensing head and the support portion relative to the other so that an alignment direction of the plurality of tip attachments coincides with an alignment direction of the plurality of wells (interpreted as a functional limitation of the first drive unit, se MPEP 2114; Figs. 2A-2B and 4 and [0024],[0046] teaches the rotating mechanism 30 rotates the dispensing mechanism 40 to vertically align nozzles with containers; therefore, the rotating mechanism 30 is configured to rotate the dispensing mechanism 40, i.e. dispensing head, relative to the stands 55,56, i.e. support portion, so that an alignment direction of the tips 60 coincide with an alignment direction of wells of the reagent vessels 52A,52B or microplate 53).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fournier et al. (US 20090075385 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Toi further teaches wherein the container (note that “container” is not positively recited structurally; Fig. 5 teaches reagent vessels 52A,52B including vessels, i.e. wells, and a microplate 53 with wells 53A) includes a first container (Fig. 5, reagent vessels 52B) having a plurality of first wells (Fig. 5, the vessels of reagent vessels 52B) and a second container (Fig. 5, microplate 53) having a plurality of second wells (Fig. 4, microwells 53A),
wherein the support portion includes a first support portion (Fig. 1, stand 55) configured to support the first container so that the plurality of first wells is aligned in a first direction (Figs. 1 and 5 teach stand 55 supports vessels 52B such that the vessels are aligned in a direction, i.e. longitudinal direction of vessels 1-12) and a second support portion (Fig. 1, stand 56) configured to support the second container so that the plurality of second wells is aligned in a second direction that intersects the first direction (Figs. 1,5 teach stand 56 supports microplate 53 such that microwells 53A are aligned in a second direction, i.e. lateral direction of A-H, that intersects the first direction, i.e. lateral direction of A-H intersects longitudinal direction of vessels 1-12 of vessels 52B),
wherein the first drive unit (Figs. 2A-2B and [0024], rotating mechanism 30) is configured to rotate the dispensing head relative to the first support portion or the second support portion or to rotate the first support portion or the second support portion relative to the dispensing head (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; [0024] and [0040]-[0041] teaches the rotating mechanism 30 rotating the dispensing mechanism 40 such that longitudinal rows and lateral rows can be subject to dispensing and sucking operations; therefore, the rotating mechanism is configured to rotate the dispensing head relative to the first and second support portions as claimed), and
wherein the dispensing device further comprises a controller ([0022], “control device”) to control the dispensing head and the first drive unit ([0022] teaches the control device controls rotation of the dispensing mechanism 40, and suction/discharge by dispensing tips 60 attached to nozzles 46) such that the liquid is aspirated from the first container into two or more dispensing tips of the dispensing head ([0047] teaches reagent is sucked into dispensing tips when the dispensing mechanism is above portion 01 of reagent vessel 52B), and then the aspirated liquid is dispensed into two or more second wells of the second container in a state in which the alignment direction of the plurality of tip attachments coincides with an alignment direction of the plurality of second wells ([0048] teaches the dispensing mechanism is moved and aligned with wells 53A A1-E1 and reagent is discharged into wells A1-E1 of microplate 53).
Toi fails to teach the controller to control the dispensing head and the first drive unit such that the liquid is aspirated from two or more first wells of the first container into two or more dispensing tips of the dispensing head in a state in which the alignment direction of the plurality of tip attachments coincides with an alignment direction of the plurality of first wells, and then the aspirated liquid is dispensed into two or more second wells of the second container in a state in which the alignment direction of the plurality of tip attachments coincides with an alignment direction of the plurality of second wells.
Toi teaches since the rotating mechanism 30 for rotating the dispensing mechanism 40 abut the rotation axis is provided, automatic liquid dispensing operation can be performed with the single dispensing mechanism 40 with respect to the row of wells extending in the longitudinal direction of the microplate 53 and the row of wells extending in the lateral direction thereof; in the dispensing operation, simultaneous fluid discharge can be performed with the wells linearly arrayed; and further, simultaneous fluid suction into dispensing tips can be performed; therefore, drug metabolic reaction test can be easily performed ([0060]). Toi teaches the reagent vessels are divided into sections with different reagents ([0038]; Fig.5).
Fournier teaches a dispensing device (Fig. 1) including a support portion (6) supporting containers (50), a dispensing head (20) having a plurality of pipettes (30), and a drive unit (actuator 10) configured to move the dispensing head ([0042]; Fig. 1). Fournier teaches it is known for an analyzing device to include pipettes carried by a rotary mechanism to rotate and align pipettes with rows or columns of a microassay tray ([0005]); and a need for a simpler unit that is inexpensive to manufacture and can fill a reaction vessel quickly ([0008]). Fournier teaches the dispensing head is movable relative to the table and possessing a row of pipettes designed to draw up, retain and/or eject liquid ([0018]). Fournier teaches a control system for controlling the rotation of the plates (Figs. 2-3, 7-8; [0031]). Fournier teaches a control unit for controlling the dispensing head and drive unit ([0034]), wherein the control unit executes an analysis method by running the analysis program ([0091]). Fournier teaches the method includes: the dispensing head taking reagents from two or more reagent vessels by means of pipettes and filling wells of the tray with the pipettes lined up in the Y direction ([0099]); pivoting the plates and trays into a second position, i.e. rotating the plates (Figs. 7-8; [0102]); taking reagents from reagent from two or more reagent vessels by means of pipettes and filling the wells that are in a second position, i.e. a state in which the alignment direction of the plurality of tips coincides with an alignment direction of the plurality of second wells ([0109]-[0110]). Fournier teaches controlling the actuator to act on the control member of the support in order to place the supporting plate in a second position by pivoting it 90 degrees and using the dispensing unit to fill at least some wells ([0026]-[0027]). Fournier teaches the device is simple and reliable, and enables an analysis method to be carried out reliably and repeatably ([0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller and first container of Toi to incorporate Toi’s teachings of rotation of the dispensing mechanism to automatically suction and dispense different reagents to desired rows or columns of wells ([0038],[0060]; Fig. 5) and Fournier’s teachings of controlling a dispensing device to aspirate reagent from multiple reagent vessels aligned in one orientation and dispensing the reagents to wells aligned in a second, perpendicular orientation due, (Figs. 2-3,7-8; [0026]-[0027],[0099],[0102],[0109]-[0110]) to provide: the controller to control the dispensing head and the first drive unit such that the liquid is aspirated from two or more first wells of the first container into two or more dispensing tips of the dispensing head in a state in which the alignment direction of the plurality of tip attachments coincides with an alignment direction of the plurality of first wells, and then the aspirated liquid is dispensed into two or more second wells of the second container in a state in which the alignment direction of the plurality of tip attachments coincides with an alignment direction of the plurality of second wells. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving simple, reliable, repeatable, and automated aspiration and dispensing of different liquids of the first container into desired wells of the second container with different alignment directions of the tips in relation to the first and second wells. Furthermore, doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for aspiration and dispensing of different reagents to desired wells at various alignment directions of the container, such as rows or columns.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the claimed dispensing device and controller as claimed) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. rotation of one of the dispensing head and wells to aspirate different reagents and dispensing the reagents to desired wells), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the claimed controller would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling dispensing of different liquids of the first container into desired wells of the second container with different alignment directions of the tips in relation to the first and second wells). See MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Toi further the dispensing device as recited in claim 2 (see above claim 2),
wherein the first direction (Toi, Figs. 1 and 5 teach stand 55 supports vessels 52B such that the vessels are aligned in a first direction, i.e. longitudinal direction of vessels 1-12) and the second direction (Figs. 1,5 teach stand 56 supports microplate 53 such that microwells 53A are aligned in a second direction, i.e. lateral direction of A-H) are orthogonal to each other (Figs. 1, 5, longitudinal direction of vessels 1-12 of vessels 52B is orthogonal to the lateral direction of A-H), wherein the dispensing head aspirates the liquid from the first container (Toi,[0055] teaches suction from wells of microplate 53).
Modified Toi fails to teach: wherein when the dispensing head aspirates the liquid from the first container, the alignment direction of the plurality of tip attachments coincides with the first direction, and wherein the controller controls the first drive unit to rotate one of the dispensing head and the second support portion by 90 degrees relative to the other between a time of aspirating the liquid from the first container by the dispensing head and a time of dispensing the liquid into the second container by the dispensing head.
Toi teaches since the rotating mechanism 30 for rotating the dispensing mechanism 40 abut the rotation axis is provided, automatic liquid dispensing operation can be performed with the single dispensing mechanism 40 with respect to the row of wells extending in the longitudinal direction of the microplate 53 and the row of wells extending in the lateral direction thereof; in the dispensing operation, simultaneous fluid discharge can be performed with the wells linearly arrayed; and further, simultaneous fluid suction into dispensing tips can be performed; therefore, drug metabolic reaction test can be easily performed ([0060]). Toi teaches the reagent vessels are divided into sections with different reagents ([0038]; Fig.5).
Fournier teaches it is known for an analyzing device to include pipettes carried by a rotary mechanism to rotate and align pipettes with rows or columns of a microassay tray ([0005]); and a need for a simpler unit that is inexpensive to manufacture and can fill a reaction vessel quickly ([0008]). Fournier teaches the dispensing head is movable relative to the table and possessing a row of pipettes designed to draw up, retain and/or eject liquid ([0018]). Fournier teaches a control system for controlling the rotation of the plates (Figs. 2-3, 7-8; [0031]). Fournier teaches a control unit for controlling the dispensing head and drive unit ([0034]), wherein the control unit executes an analysis method by running the analysis program ([0091]). Fournier teaches the method includes: the dispensing head taking reagents from two or more reagent vessels by means of pipettes and filling wells of the tray with the pipettes lined up in the Y direction ([0099]); pivoting the plates and trays into a second position, i.e. rotating the plates (Figs. 7-8; [0102]); taking reagents from reagent from two or more reagent vessels by means of pipettes and filling the wells that are in a second position, i.e. a state in which the alignment direction of the plurality of tips coincides with an alignment direction of the plurality of second wells ([0109]-[0110]). Fournier teaches controlling the actuator to act on the control member of the support in order to place the supporting plate in a second position by pivoting it 90 degrees and using the dispensing unit to fill at least some wells ([0026]-[0027]). Fournier teaches the device is simple and reliable, and enables an analysis method to be carried out reliably and repeatably ([0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of modified Toi to incorporate Toi’s teachings of rotation of the dispensing mechanism to automatically suction and dispense different reagents to desired rows or columns of wells ([0038],[0060]; Fig. 5) and Fournier’s teachings of controlling a dispensing device to aspirate reagent from multiple reagent vessels aligned in one orientation and dispensing the reagents to wells aligned in a second, perpendicular orientation due, (Figs. 2-3,7-8; [0026]-[0027],[0099],[0102],[0109]-[0110]) to provide: wherein when the dispensing head aspirates the liquid from the first container, the alignment direction of the plurality of tip attachments coincides with the first direction, and wherein the controller controls the first drive unit to rotate one of the dispensing head and the second support portion by 90 degrees relative to the other between a time of aspirating the liquid from the first container by the dispensing head and a time of dispensing the liquid into the second container by the dispensing head. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving simple, reliable, repeatable, and automated aspiration and dispensing of different liquids of the first container into desired wells of the second container with different alignment directions of the tips in relation to the first and second wells. Furthermore, doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for aspiration and dispensing of different reagents to desired wells at various alignment directions of the container, such as rows or columns.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the claimed dispensing device and controller as claimed) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. rotation of one of the dispensing head and wells to aspirate different reagents and dispensing the reagents to desired wells), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the claimed controller would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling dispensing of different liquids of the first container into desired wells of the second container with different alignment directions of the tips in relation to the first and second wells). See MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toi in view of Fournier as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chamberlin et al. (US 20110143947 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Toi further teaches the dispensing device as recited in claim 2, further comprising:
a second drive unit (Fig. 1 and [0025] teaches moving mechanism 20 for moving the dispensing mechanism 40 in X and Y directions, which reads on the interpretation of “second drive unit” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) configured to move the dispensing head in the first direction and the second direction relative to the first support portion and the second support portion (Fig. 1 and [0025] teaches moving mechanism 20 for moving the dispensing mechanism 40 in X and Y directions relative to stands 55,56) or to move the first support portion and the second support portion in the first direction and the second direction relative to the dispensing head (interpreted as not required due to the “or” statement); and
a third support portion (Figs. 1,5, stand 55 of vessels 52A) configured to support a third container (Figs. 1,5, vessels 52A) having a plurality of third wells (Figs. 1,5, wells A-H of vessels 52A),
wherein the first container (Fig. 5, reagent vessels 52B) includes a plurality of first dispensing units (Fig. 5, interpreted as arbitrary groups of the vessels 52B, such as 01-05 and 06-12), each first dispensing unit including a predetermined number of first wells (Fig. 5 teaches each of groups of the vessels 52B, such as 01-05 and 06-12, include a number of vessels, i.e. first wells),
wherein the second container (Fig. 5, microplate 53) includes a plurality of second dispensing units (Fig. 5, interpreted as arbitrary groups of the microwells 53A, such as A1-H1 and A2-H2), each second dispensing unit including a predetermined number of second wells (Fig. 5, teaches each groups of the microwells 53A, such as A1-H1 and A2-H2, include a number of second wells),
wherein the third container (Figs. 1,5, vessels 52A) includes a plurality of third dispensing units (Fig. 5, interpreted as arbitrary groups of the vessels 52A, such as A-D and E-H), each third dispensing unit including a predetermined number of third wells (Fig. 5, teaches each groups of the vessels 52A, such as A-D and E-H, include a number of vessels, i.e. third wells), and
wherein the controller controls the dispensing head, the first drive unit, and the second drive unit such that a series of operations is performed consecutively ([0022] teaches the control device controls the movements of the moving mechanism 20 in the X-, Y-, and Z-axis directions described later, rotation of the dispensing mechanism 40, and suction/discharge by dispensing tips 60 attached to nozzles 46; Figs. 3-4 teaches performing a series of operations consecutively), the series of operations including aspirating a liquid the third container (Fig. 4, step 2e-2g), dispensing a liquid into the plurality of first wells of one first dispensing unit (Fig. 4, step 2k).
Modified Toi fails to teach: the series of operations including aspirating a liquid from a plurality of third wells of one third dispensing unit of the third container, dispensing a liquid into the plurality of first wells of one first dispensing unit, aspirating a liquid from the plurality of first wells of the one first dispensing unit, and dispensing a liquid into the plurality of second wells of one second dispensing unit in turn, and thereafter, the series of operations for the other third dispensing units, the other first dispensing units, and other dispensing units are performed consecutively.
Toi teaches the reagent vessels are divided into sections with different reagents ([0038]; Fig.5).
Fournier teaches the method includes: the dispensing head taking reagents from two or more reagent vessels by means of pipettes and filling wells of the tray with the pipettes lined up in the Y direction ([0099]).
Chamberlin teaches apparatuses for automated sampling, sample preparation, and analysis in a multi-well plate format (abstract). Chamberlin teaches an instrument (Fig. 1(a)) including a pipettor subassembly (400) and auxiliary plate subassembly including multiple plates (300), which enables fully automated random access analysis of samples using array-based multiplexed multi-well plate consumables ([0062]). Chamberlin teaches the pipettor subassembly comprises one or more pipetting probes ([0059]). Chamberlin teaches a process including a wash step to remove unbound material during assay operations ([0071]). Chamberlin teaches a dispensing step for pre-treatment of a sample or reagent including reconstituting a dispensed sample/reagent in an auxiliary plate and then transferring the pre-treated sample/reagent from the auxiliary well to a well of a test plate ([0124]). Chamberlin teaches sequentially transferring a sample/reagent to plurality of wells and then to different wells for serial diluting and exposing the sample to desired reactive conditions ([0125]). Chamberlin teaches a process includes an operation in that involves creating an assay reaction mixture (e.g., by combining a sample with a reagent in an auxiliary well or an assay test well) and an operation that involves analysis or further processing of the product of the assay reaction (e.g., washing a well, inducing and/or detecting an assay, transferring a reaction product from an auxiliary well to another auxiliary well or an assay test well) ([0166]). Chamberlin teaches assay operations are accorded time slices within a repeated sequence of process blocks ([0171]) including a first set of operations including: transferring a sample from a sample tube to a first well of a first set of auxiliary wells in an axillary plate and combining the sample with a reagent ([0172]-[0174]); a second set of operations including: transferring the first sample of the first well of the first set of auxiliary wells to a second auxiliary well and combining with a reagent, and transferring the first sample to a first assay well in an assay plate ([0175]-[0178]); and a third set of operations including dispensing an diluent into a third well of a first set of auxiliary wells, washing the first assay well by cycles of aspirating and dispensing a wash buffer to the well, aspirating the contents of the first assay well, and transferring the reagent from a third well to the first assay well ([0179]-[0183]). Chamberlin teaches auxiliary wells of an auxiliary plate includes reagents and wells of a test plate including distinct assay domains including samples and/or reagents ([0010]); and an alternative embodiments of wells arranged in multiple rows and columns (Figs. 5(c)-5(e)) or a contiguous row (Figs. 5(f)-5(h); [0083]). Chamberlin teaches the apparatus achieves enhanced sensitivity and high sample throughput ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller the containers of modified Toi to incorporate Toi’s teachings of reagent vessels with different reagents ([0038],Fig. 5), Fournier’s teachings of aspirate reagent from multiple reagent vessels ([0099]), and Chamberlin’s teachings of automated sample preparation including sequential dispensing, aspirating, and transferring reagents and samples to sequential wells ([0124]-[0125]), and combining samples and reagents, washing, and transferring a reaction product from auxiliary wells to test wells ({0166],[0171],[0172]-[0183]) to provide: the series of operations including aspirating a liquid from a plurality of third wells of one third dispensing unit of the third container, dispensing a liquid into the plurality of first wells of one first dispensing unit, aspirating a liquid from the plurality of first wells of the one first dispensing unit, and dispensing a liquid into the plurality of second wells of one second dispensing unit in turn, and thereafter, the series of operations for the other third dispensing units, the other first dispensing units, and other dispensing units are performed consecutively. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving simple, reliable, repeatable, and automated aspiration and dispensing of different liquids of first, second, and third dispensing units for desired sample processing operations as taught by Chamberlin, therefore improving automated sample preparation and throughput of the dispensing device. Furthermore, doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for aspiration and dispensing of different liquids to desired wells of different containers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toi in view of Fournier and Chamberlin as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Integra (Integra, “Fast and efficient sample transfer from plate to plate with INTEGRA's electronic pipettes”, 2022; Retrieved from website <https://www.integra-biosciences.com/global/en/applications/fast-and-efficient-sample-transfer-plate-plate-integras-electronic-pipettes> on 09/30/2026).
Regarding claim 4, Toi further teaches wherein the plurality of second wells of the second container (Fig. 5, wells 53A of microplate 53) include M pieces of second wells arranged in at least one row at a second pitch (Fig. 5 shows wells arranged in at least one row at a pitch); wherein the M pieces of second wells of the second container are classified into m sets, each m set including H pieces of second wells (Fig. 5 shows a plurality of wells, which are arbitrarily classified into at least 2 sets each including at least 2 wells).
Modified Toi fails to teach: the dispensing device as recited in claim 3,
wherein the plurality of first wells of the first container includes at least H (“H” is an integer greater than or equal to 2) pieces of first wells aligned in at least one row at a first pitch,
where M is m times H (“m” is an integer greater than or equal to 2),
wherein the first pitch is an integer multiple of the second pitch,
wherein the M pieces of second wells of the second container are classified into m sets, each m set including H pieces of second wells, and
wherein the controller controls the dispensing head, the first drive unit, and the second drive unit such that an aspirating operation to aspirate a liquid from the H pieces of first wells out of the plurality of first wells into H pieces of dispensing tips is performed, and a dispensing operation to dispense the aspirated liquid into one set of the H pieces of second wells.
Chamberlin teaches sets of wells ([0083]). Chamberlin teaches a plate having two types of sets of wells for different assays or panels ([0086]). Chamberlin teaches sets of wells in an auxiliary plate may be a multiple or factor of the number of test wells in the test plate ([0144]). Chamberlin teaches an example of 4-well sets in the 384 well auxiliary plates are also divided into 48 typing sets and 48 subtyping sets ([0249]).
Integra teaches transferring from samples between same well plates or different plate forms is a common process (page 2, first paragraph). Integra teaches automated transferring samples from plates with less wells to a plate with more wells, such as a 24 well plate to 96 well plate (Figs. 1, 7; pages 9-10, section 5). Integra teaches using a 24 channel pipetting head to transfer samples from a 24 well plate to a 96 well plate (page 10; Fig. 7). Integra teaches a plurality of first wells of a first container includes at least H (“H” is an integer greater than or equal to 2) pieces of first wells aligned in at least one row at a first pitch (Fig. 7, interpreted as at least two wells of the 24 well plate aligned in at least one row at a first pitch); a plurality of second wells of the second container include M pieces of second wells arranged in at least one row at a second pitch (Fig. 7, interpreted as at least 4 of the wells of the 96 well plate arranged in at least one row at a second pitch); where M is m times H (“m” is an integer greater than or equal to 2) (Fig. 7, 4 of the wells of the 96 well plate is 2 times the 2 wells of the 24 well plate), wherein the first pitch is an integer multiple of the second pitch (Fig. 7 shows the pitch of the wells of the 24 well plate is twice or two times that of the wells of the 96 well plate), wherein the M pieces of second wells of the second container are classified into m sets, each m set including H pieces of second wells (Fig. 7 shows at least 4 wells of the 96 well plates, which are interpreted as arbitrarily classified into 2 sets, each 2 set includes 2 wells).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dispensing device and controller of modified Toi to incorporate Chamberlin’s teachings of plates having different sets of wells for different assays ([0083],[0086]), a plate may have wells that are a multiple or factor of another plate ([0144]), and dividing plates into well sets ([0249]) and Integra’s teachings of automated transferring samples from plates with less wells to a plate with more wells, such as a 24 well plate to 96 well plate (Figs. 1, 7; pages 9-10, section 5) to provide: the dispensing device as recited in claim 3, wherein the plurality of first wells of the first container includes at least H (“H” is an integer greater than or equal to 2) pieces of first wells aligned in at least one row at a first pitch, where M is m times H (“m” is an integer greater than or equal to 2), wherein the first pitch is an integer multiple of the second pitch, wherein the M pieces of second wells of the second container are classified into m sets, each m set including H pieces of second wells, and wherein the controller controls the dispensing head, the first drive unit, and the second drive unit such that an aspirating operation to aspirate a liquid from the H pieces of first wells out of the plurality of first wells into H pieces of dispensing tips is performed, and a dispensing operation to dispense the aspirated liquid into one set of the H pieces of second wells. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automated processing of desired liquids between different plate forms to desired sets of wells for desired sample processing operations.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the claimed controller, third container, first container, and second container) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. automated processing of desired liquids between different plate forms), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the claimed third support portion configured to support the third container, the first container, the second container, and the controller would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling automated processing of desired liquids between different plate forms). See MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Integra (Integra, “Fast and efficient sample transfer from plate to plate with INTEGRA's electronic pipettes”, 2022; Retrieved from website <https://www.integra-biosciences.com/global/en/applications/fast-and-efficient-sample-transfer-plate-plate-integras-electronic-pipettes> on 09/30/2026).
Regarding claim 6, Toi further teaches wherein the plurality of wells is arranged in a matrix of multiple rows and multiple columns (note that “plurality of wells” of the “container” are not positively recited structurally; Fig. 5, wells 53A are arranged in a matrix of rows and columns), and
wherein the plurality of tip attachments is arranged in a matrix of multiple columns (Fig. 6 teach a row of multiple columns of nozzles 56.
Toi fails to teach: wherein the plurality of tip attachments is arranged in a matrix of multiple rows and multiple columns.
Toi teaches it is known for 96 nozzles arranged in a matrix are operated in synchronism with each other, therefore allowing suction or discharge of liquid collectively on the dispensing tips mounted to the 96 nozzles and to discharge reagent or the like simultaneously onto all the 96 wells in the microplate ([0007]).
Integra teaches transferring from samples between same well plates or different plate forms is a common process (page 2, first paragraph). Integra teaches automated transferring samples from plates with less wells to a plate with more wells, such as a 24 well plate to 96 well plate (Figs. 1, 7; pages 9-10, section 5). Integra teaches using a 24 channel pipetting head to transfer samples from a 24 well plate to a 96 well plate (page 10; Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of tip attachments of Toi to incorporate Toi’s teachings of matrix of nozzles operated in synchronism ([0007]) and Integra’s teachings of automated transferring samples between plates of different forms using multi-channel pipetting heads to transfer samples arranged in a matrix (page 2, first paragraph; Figs. 1, 7; pages 9-10, section 5) to provide: wherein the plurality of tip attachments is arranged in a matrix of multiple rows and multiple columns. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automated processing of desired liquids in a matrix of wells between different plate forms to desired sets of wells for desired sample processing operations.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the plurality of tip attachments is arranged in a matrix of multiple rows and multiple columns) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. automated and simultaneous transferring of liquids between matrix of wells), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the plurality of tip attachments is arranged in a matrix of multiple rows and multiple columns would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling automated processing of desired liquids in a matrix of wells between different plate forms to desired sets of wells for desired sample processing operations). See MPEP 2143(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 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 of Toi et al. (US 20040094575 A1) fails to teach: wherein the first drive unit (Figs. 2A-2B and [0024] teach a rotating mechanism 30 including a motor 32 to rotate the dispensing mechanism 40) rotates the support portion about a first rotation shaft relative to the dispensing head,
wherein the dispensing device further comprises:
a second rotation shaft extending parallel to the first rotation shaft, the second rotation shaft being configured to rotate integrally with the support portion;
an arm attached to the second rotation shaft so as to be rotatable about the second rotation shaft, the arm having a first portion and a first pressing portion;
a first fixing portion; and
a first contact portion provided on the support portion so as to come into contact with a first side of the container supported by the support portion,
wherein when the first fixing portion comes into contact with the first portion of the arm that rotates in one direction together with the support portion, the arm rotates relative to the support portion about the second rotation shaft, and
wherein the first pressing portion presses the second side of the container facing the first side of the container supported by the support portion in a direction toward the first contact portion in accordance with a relative rotation of the arm relative to the support portion at a position facing the first contact portion across the container supported by the support portion to bring the first side of the container into contact with the first contact portion.
A reference Fournier et al. (US 20090075385 A1) teaches a control system for controlling the rotation of the plates (Figs. 2-3, 7-8; [0031]) and controlling the actuator to act on the control member of the support in order to place the supporting plate in a second position by pivoting it 90 degrees and using the dispensing unit to fill at least some wells ([0026]-[0027]). Fournier teaches pivoting the plates and trays into a second position, i.e. rotating the plates (Figs. 7-8; [0102]). Fournier teaches rotating a support portion about a first rotation shaft relative to the dispensing head a rotation shaft (Figs. 1-8 teaches rotating plates 46,48 about shafts 78, which is relative to dispensing head 20). Fournier teaches various arms for providing rotation of the plates (Figs. 2-8 teaches levels 82,83, arms 84, and link 86 that provides rotation of the plates about the axes R). However, Fournier fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 8, such as the claimed second rotation shaft, arm, first fixing portion, and first contact portion.
A reference Kelso et al. (US 20130029856 A1) teaches an apparatus for transferring or interrogating materials by one or more carrier devices to one or more receiving devices (abstract; Figs. 1-3). Kelso teaches the receiving devices can translate and rotate along a deck or platform of the apparatus independently from and simultaneously with each other and with the carrier devices ([0013]; Fig. 2A). Kelso teaches the receiving device includes a rotator that rotates devices ([0050]-[0051]; Figs. 4-5). However, Kelso fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 8.
None of the prior art teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, all of the limitations of claim 8, specifically the combination of structural elements of the dispensing device for rotating the support portion as claimed. Therefore, claim 8 is deemed allowable. Claims 9-16 are deemed allowable over the prior art due to their dependency on claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stafford et al. (US 20130037059 A1) teaches an apparatus for improving fluid exchange across a microplate (abstract); wherein the microplate may be rotated by the operator or automated system through, for example 180 degrees, following aspiration of a solution from the wells of the plate, in order to perform the related dispensing step at the opposite side of the well ([0091]).
Pihl et al. (US 20110183407 A1) teaches apparatuses for aligning at least one tip with a plurality of wells of a multiwell plate (abstract). Pihl teaches the multiwell plate will also adjust in a rotational manner about axis, e.g., a three-axis adjustment ([0089]).
Hamada et al. (US 20160341725 A1) teaches an automated analyzing apparatus including a chip rack and pipette (abstract). Hamada teaches the pipette may include a rotation means such as a stepping motor to rotate the direction of the pipette chip on the horizontal surface; and in this case, regardless of the direction in which the chip rack orients the pipette chip in the direction on the horizontal surface, the measurement can be performed ([0074]).
Edwards et al. (Edwards et al., “High Content Screening: Flow Cytometry Analysis”, Methods Mol Biol. 2009 ; 486: 151–165. doi:10.1007/978-1-60327-545-3_11) teaches a high-throughput flow cytometry sampling platform including an autosampler (abstract). Edwards teaches sequential steps of: dispensing PDB into wells of a dilution plate (page 5, section 3B, step 2), pipetting test compounds from a storage plate to the matching DBD containing wells (page 5, section 3B, step 3), pipetting the test compounds from the dilution plate into corresponding wells of a separate assay plate (page 5, section 3B, step 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights