DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant has amended claim 12 to remove the term “about”. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection of claims 12-13 is withdrawn.
Preliminary Remarks
The amendment filed on 09/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, 10, 12, and 15-17 have been amended, claims 19-20 and 22-132 are canceled, and claim 133 has been added. Therefore, claims 1-18, 21, and 133.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(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.
Claims 1-6, 21, and 133 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stevens et al. (US 2024/0230698 A1-hereafter “Stevens”, has an earlier effective filing date as of the provisional application).
Regarding claim 1, Stevens discloses a pipette (multichannel pipette devices, para. [0020]; and para. [0030]) comprising: a proximal section having a handle (multichannel pipettes or pipettes include a handle comprising proximal section, such as in Fig. 2);
“a distal section configured to reversibly attach to a pipette tip having a tip sleeve defining a lumen and a plunger disposed within the lumen;”: Stevens discloses micropipette devices or pipettors (para. [0024]; and para. [0030]), where these devices are known to include a distal section, such as 103 in Fig. 2 and the examples incorporated in the disclosure by reference. Also, Stevens discloses micropipettors or pipettors include a plunger 102 in Fig. 2 of the incorporated reference and a tip sleeve (110 of the incorporated reference, Fig. 2, where sleeve tip 110 includes an interior section or lumen).
“a first actuator disposed in the proximal section that when actuated is operable to control: i) a pipetting function of the pipette; and ii) grasping and ungrasping of the plunger”: Stevens discloses an actuator configured to vertically actuate the actuated Taylor cone emitter device manipulator (para. [0044); the actuators of Stevens are capable of controlling a pipetting function of the pipette; and grasping and ungrasping of the plunger of a pipettor device.
“a second actuator disposed in the proximal section that when actuated is operable to cause the pipette tip sleeve to detach from the distal section of the pipette,”: Stevens discloses the first, second and third actuators (actuators, para. [0042] are capable of actuating to cause the pipette tip sleeve to detach from the distal section of the pipette.
“wherein the first actuator is actuatable to control the pipetting function and grasping and ungrasping of the plunger independently of actuation of the second actuator, and the second actuator is actuatable to cause the tip sleeve to detach independently of actuation of the first actuator.”: Stevens discloses the first, second and third actuators (actuators, para. [0042]), where each actuator operates independently. The first, second and third actuators (actuators, para. [0042] are capable of control the pipetting function and grasping and ungrasping of the plunger independently of actuation.
Regarding claim 2, Stevens discloses sorbent coated electrodes (para. [0043].
Regarding claim 3, Stevens disclose micropipette tips are mounted onto the pipettor by pushing the pipettor into the tip, and friction maintains the tip in place. After the liquid has been dispensed, the tip is ejected off the end of the pipettor, and the entire process is repeated (para. [0020]).
Regarding claim 4, Stevens discloses a first, second and third actuators (actuators, para. [0042]), therefore, the actuators disclosed in Stevens are capable of having first undepressed position and a second partially depressed position, and capable of causing dispensing from the pipette tip and transitioning of the first actuator from the second partially depressed position to the first undepressed position causes aspirating into the pipette tip.
Regarding claim 5, Stevens discloses a first, second and third actuators (actuators, para. [0042]), therefore, the actuators disclosed in Stevens are capable of allowing one of the actuators to have a third fully depressed position.
Regarding claim 6, Stevens discloses a first, second and third actuators (actuators, para. [0042]), therefore, the actuators disclosed in Stevens are capable of transitioning the first actuator from the second partially depressed position to the third fully depressed position causes ungrasping of the plunger, and transitioning the first actuator from the third fully depressed position to the second partially depressed position.
Regarding claim 21, Stevens discloses a pipette of claim 1 (discussed above); a pipette tip (also discussed above), and a docking assembly (docked devices, para. [0049]) and a excitation voltage supply (para. [0070]).
Regarding claim 133, Stevens discloses a pipette device comprising a proximal section and a distal section having a tip sleeve defining a lumen and plunger. Moreover, Stevens discloses a first, second and third actuators (actuators, para. [0042] are capable of actuating to cause the pipette tip sleeve to detach from the distal section of the pipette; a excitation voltage supply (para. [0070]) for generating an electrical pulse. Also, Stevens discloses a tip ejector (para. [0027]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0230698 A1 by Stevens et al. (hereafter “Stevens”, has an earlier effective filing date as of the provisional application) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of WO2013/166203A2-Jackson et al. (hereafter “Jackson”).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 9-10, and 15-16 Stevens discloses the invention discussed above in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a gripper mechanism, a gripper jaw, and a gripping sleeve.
For claims 7, 8, 9, 10, and 15 Jackson teaches a gripper 40 is a small collet that extends when the plunger 20 is fully depressed (para. [0052], line 2, Fig. 1, shown disposed on the distal end of pipette device 100, Fig. 1) and Jackson teaches when plunger 20 is released, gripper 40 clamps down on a pipette tip 70 that is to be used for pipetting (para. [0052], lines 2-3). Also, Jackson teaches a gripper jaw (first end 40a, para. [0045], line 12, Fig. 1) and an opening (slot 41, para. [0045], line 13, Fig. 1) and a gripping sleeve (pipette end 55 encloses 40, which also encloses first end 40a, shown in Fig. 1. With respect to claim 16, Stevens discloses a tip ejector (discussed in claim 13 and a first, second, and third actuator, discussed above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Stevens to include a gripper mechanism, a gripper jaw, and a gripping sleeve as taught by Jackson, since Jackson teaches the gripper clamps onto a pipette tip in order to be used for pipetting (para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, Stevens discloses the first, second and third actuators (actuators, para. [0042]), where each actuator operates independently. The first, second and third actuators (actuators, para. [0042] are capable of being in a first undepressed position and a second depressed position.
Regarding claim 12, Stevens discloses the invention discussed above in claim 11, but does not disclose a tip interface.
For claim 12, Jackson discloses a retention platform (shown in annotated Fig. 3C below) to engage tabs of an attachment interface (gripper fingers 42, para. [0052], lines 2-3, Fig. 3) of the pipette tip to secure a tip sleeve defining the lumen of the pipette tip (interior of tip 70, Fig. 3C).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Stevens discloses a tip ejector typically a slidable sheath around the shaft of the device that engages with the upper lip of the disposable tip and pushes to overcome the friction connection (para. [0027]). Further, the attachment interface was discussed above in claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Stevens discloses the first, second and third actuators (actuators, para. [0042]), where each actuator operates independently. The first, second and third actuators (actuators, para. [0042] are capable of traversing a blank travel distance when pressed.
Regarding claim 17, Stevens discloses a power electrode disposed within the sample loading antechamber (para. [0043]). A gripper jaw and a gripper mechanism is discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, Stevens discloses metals may also be used in the construction (para. [0067]) and Stevens discloses a power electrode disposed within the sample loading antechamber (para. [0043]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. More specifically, the current rejection above pertains to new reference(s) relied upon addressing the newly amended claim limitations; the arguments filed rely on the reference or combination of references not currently being used in the present Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENORA A. ABEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/LENORA A ABEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights