DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/5/24, 1/9/24, 6/17/24, 3/6/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, it is unclear if applicants are attempting to claim the instrument (or host conveyor) or not because the instrument (or host conveyor) appears to be a function of the conveyor assembly (buffer conveyor subassembly or spur conveyor subassembly) and is not positively recited. Applicants do not positively recite the instrument (or host conveyor) in lines 2-3, and the conveyor assembly (buffer conveyor subassembly or spur conveyor subassembly) is configured to transport carriers within/from/to the instrument (or host conveyor). Therefore, references to the instrument (or host conveyor) are directed to intended use of the conveyor assembly (buffer conveyor subassembly or spur conveyor subassembly). However, lines 4-7 and 8-10 of claim 1 then attempts to limit the instrument (or host conveyor) by relating it to the conveyor assembly (buffer conveyor subassembly or spur conveyor subassembly). The problem is that the relationship of the instrument (or host conveyor) and the conveyor assembly (buffer conveyor subassembly or spur conveyor subassembly) is defined in terms of the relationship between the conveyor assembly (buffer conveyor subassembly or spur conveyor subassembly) and the unclaimed instrument (or host conveyor) when in use. This is indefinite as it is unclear how this is meant to further define the conveyor assembly (buffer conveyor subassembly or spur conveyor subassembly) and it is unclear how this is met given a conveyor assembly (buffer conveyor subassembly or spur conveyor subassembly) alone (without including the instrument (or host conveyor)). The fact is, with such a recitation, a given conveyor assembly (buffer conveyor subassembly or spur conveyor subassembly) that meets the other limitations could meet the limitations of the claim when used with a instrument (or host conveyor) and fail to meet the limitations of the claim when used without a instrument (or host conveyor). As such, given any conveyor assembly (buffer conveyor subassembly or spur conveyor subassembly) alone, it is unclear whether the limitations of the claim would be met and it is unclear how to determine whether or not the limitation is met. In summary, because the instrument (or host conveyor) is not positively recited, then it is unclear what limitations the relationship of the instrument (or host conveyor) is attempting to define with respect to the conveyor assembly (buffer conveyor subassembly or spur conveyor subassembly). Please clarify which structures are required in the claim. Further, Claims 2, 4, 5, 8 all recite various relationships of the conveyor assembly (buffer conveyor subassembly or spur conveyor subassembly) to the instrument (or host conveyor), or attempt to further define the instrument (or host conveyor) and are similarly rejected as it is unclear whether or not applicants are intending to recite the instrument or host conveyor because there are positively recited features that are then directly related to the unclaimed features. A potential infringer would not understand whether or not the instrument or host conveyor is attempting to be claimed, and it would not be clear to a potential infringer whether a device that is absent an instrument or host conveyor would read on the claims or would not read on the claims.
Claims 2-20 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Pedrazzini, G (US 20100034701; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”).
As to claim 1, Pedrazzini teaches a conveyor assembly for transporting a plurality of carriers coupled to respective processing receptacles from a host conveyor assembly outside an instrument to a processing position within the instrument (Pedrazzini; Fig. 1), the conveyor assembly comprising:
a buffer conveyor subassembly configured to transport the plurality of carriers coupled to the respective receptacles from the host conveyor assembly to a first transfer position and configured to transport the plurality of carriers coupled to the respective receptacles from a second transfer position to the host conveyor assembly (Pedrazzini teaches a buffer conveyor 6/40 which moves carriers from host conveyor 11 to first transfer position at the entry way to spur 4/5/7, and from a second transfer position as the exit of spur 4/5/7 to the host conveyor 11; Fig. 1, 6, 8, [28, 29, 36, 42-50, 52]. The examiner notes that the host conveyor is not positively recited);
a spur conveyor subassembly configured to transport the plurality of carriers coupled to the respective receptacles from a third transfer position to the processing position within the instrument, the spur conveyor subassembly comprising a diverter configured to transport one of the plurality of carriers coupled to one of the respective receptacles from the first transfer position to the third transfer position while simultaneously transporting another one of the plurality of carriers coupled to another one of the respective receptacles from the third transfer position to the second transfer position (Pedrazzini teaches a spur 4/5/7 that transfers carriers from a third position which is the position just after entering spur 4/5/7 to a processing position 80 of instrument; Fig. 1, 6, 8, [28, 29, 36, 42-50, 52]. The spur 4/5/7 includes diverter 30 as a positioning disc which transports a carrier from the first position at the entry way of spur 4/5/7 to the third position just after entering spur 4/5/7, while also transporting a carrier from the third position just after entering spur 4/5/7 to the second position as the exit of spur 4/5/7 to the host conveyor 11; Fig. 1, 6, 8, [28, 29, 36, 42-50, 52]. Pedrazzini teaches multiple samples are processed simultaneously such that they move and are diverted through the diverter in a sequential manner. The examiner notes that the instrument and the host conveyor are not positively recited).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the buffer conveyor subassembly is mounted to an outer surface of the instrument (In as much as claimed and as best understood, the instrument is not positively recited. Pedrazzini teaches a buffer conveyor which is mounted to the instrument; Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the third transfer position is outside of the instrument (In as much as claimed and as best understood, the instrument is not positively recited. Pedrazzini teaches a buffer conveyor which is mounted to the instrument; Fig. 1).
As to claim 5, Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the spur conveyor subassembly further comprises a sensor configured to detect an identifier of one of the plurality of carriers positioned at the processing position of the instrument (Pedrazzini teaches a sensor 12 which identifies the carrier to control blocking at the sampling position 80; claim 2, [32, 38, 46-49], Fig. 1).
As to claim 6, Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the buffer conveyor subassembly comprises a single movable track, and wherein a portion of the diverter overlaps the single movable track forming an input portion and an output portion of the buffer conveyor subassembly (Pedrazzini teaches the buffer having a single track 6/40 where the diverter 4/5/7 and 30 overlaps the track to form an input to and output from the buffer; Fig. 1, see also claim 1 above).
As to claim 7, Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 6, wherein the input portion of the buffer conveyor subassembly has a length sufficient to queue a plurality of carriers (Pedrazzini teaches input to the buffer which is capable of queueing multiple carriers; Fig. 1).
As to claim 8, Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 7, wherein the instrument is configured to aspirate at least portions of samples from processing receptacles coupled to carriers at the processing position and to dispense the portions of the samples into cavities defined by an assay receptacle, and wherein the length of the input portion of the buffer conveyor subassembly is sufficient to queue a number of carriers at least equal to a number of cavities defined by the assay receptacle (In as much as claimed and as best understood, the instrument is not positively recited and limitations towards the instrument do not further define the conveyor assembly. Pedrazzini teaches instruments which aspirate at a sampling position 80; claim 2, [32, 38, 46-49], Fig. 1. Pedrazzini teaches input to the buffer which is capable of queueing multiple carriers; Fig. 1).
As to claim 15, Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the spur conveyor further comprises a portion defining a recess configured to receive a portion of a receptacle coupled to a carrier positioned at the processing position within the instrument (Pedrazzini teaches a sensor stop device 70 with a recess 51 that receives the receptacle, where the stop device works to stop the receptacle at the processing/sampling position 80; claim 2, [32, 36, 37, 38, 46-49, 52], Fig. 1, 8).
As to claim 20, Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the spur conveyor subassembly further comprises a movable track configured to transport one of the plurality carriers between the third transfer position and the processing position within the instrument (Pedrazzini teaches a spur 4/5/7 that transfers carriers from a third position which is the position just after entering spur 4/5/7 to a processing position 80 of instrument; Fig. 1, 6, 8, [28, 29, 36, 42-50, 52]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedrazzini, G (US 20100034701; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”) in view of Marty et al (US 20160169926; hereinafter “Marty”; already of record).
As to claim 4, Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, with a portion of a path between the third position and the processing position at which a pipettor accesses the sample (Pedrazzini teaches a spur 4/5/7 that transfers carriers from a third position which is the position just after entering spur 4/5/7 to a processing position 80 of instrument; Fig. 1, 6, 8, [28, 29, 36, 42-50, 52]. Pedrazzini teaches instruments which aspirate at a sampling position 80; claim 2, [32, 38, 46-49], Fig. 1).
Pedrazzini does not specifically teach a cover over a portion of the path, or the cover having an opening configured to allow a distal end of a pipettor of the instrument to pass therethrough. However, Marty teaches the analogous art of a receptacle, where the receptacle is moved into position which includes a cover an opening configured to allow a distal end of a pipettor of the instrument to pass (Marty teaches cover 23 which secures the receptacle in place so that pipettor can access the receptacle through holes 26; Figs. 1-6 [47-50, 54-56]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the path on which the receptacle moves of Pedrazzini to include a cover as in Marty because Marty teaches that the cover improves the ability to secure the receptacle in a fixed position for processing (Marty; [47-50, 56-57]), and also because Marty teaches that the cover includes holes that allows a pipette to access the receptacle contents (Marty; [54-56]).
Claims 9, 12, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedrazzini, G (US 20100034701; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”) in view of Miller, K (US 20050037502; hereinafter “Miller”; already of record) in view of Haechler et al (US 20140072473; hereinafter “Haechler”; already of record).
As to claims 9, 12, 13, Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, with the diverter and spur covneyor (see above).
Although Pedrazzini teaches the diverter, Pedrazzini does not specifically teach the diverter defines a first concave recess and a second concave recess, the first concave recess being configured to receive a carrier at the first transfer position, and the second concave recess being configured to receive a carrier at the third transfer position; and Pedrazzini does not teach the diverter is configured to rotate about an axis, and further comprising a base and a drive assembly coupled to the base and configured to rotate the diverter, wherein the diverter is rotatably coupled to the base.
However, Miller teaches the analogous art of a conveyor assembly that conveys samples to a processing instrument/analyzer (Miller; Fig. 7), with a second linear path that moves carriers from the conveyor to the analyzer (Miller teaches conveyor 40/44 forming a spur conveyor path where carriers are moved linearly from conveyor 14 to instrument/analyzer 38/42 and then moved back to the conveyor 14; Fig. 7, [29]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the interface including the spur conveyor off of the buffer which moves samples to the processing instrument to be aspirated of Pedrazzini to have included linear conveyor path to the analyzer as in Miller because Miller teaches that a linear conveyor path to an analyzer is a well-known transportation method to analyzers for carries (Miller; [29], Fig. 7). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified the spur conveyor and buffer conveyor of Pedrazzini such that the spur conveyor was perpendicular to the buffer conveyor as in Miller to provide the advantage of ensuring that multiple analyzers/processing stations could fit compactly off a main conveyor line since it has been held that changes in shape are not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the spur conveyor and buffer conveyor of modified Pedrazzini such that the spur conveyor was perpendicular to the buffer conveyor as in Miller as a matter of design choice since Miller shows perpendicular conveyors (Miller; Fig. 7). The resulting modification results in a spur conveyor that moves to/from the analyzer and is perpendicular to the buffer conveyor, thereby having the intersection defined by the three transfer positions.
Further, Haechler teaches a rotating diverter move to three positions including from a first entry, to a delivery position, and then also to an exit position, and having multiple concave recesses, and where the diverter is configured to rotate about an axis, and further comprising a base and a drive assembly coupled to the base and configured to rotate the diverter, wherein the diverter is rotatably coupled to the base (Haechler; [58], Fig. 7-10. Since the device of Haechler rotates then it would have a driver to control the rotation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the intersection of the spur conveyor and the buffer conveyor for diverting carriers to/from the analyzer of modified Pedrazzini to have used the diverter that rotates to move to three positions as in Haechler because Haechler teaches that it is known for a diverter to move between different conveyor positions (Haechler; [58], Fig. 7-10]), and because Haechler teaches that the rotating diverter enables multiple samples to be addressed and moved at the same time (Haechler; [58], Fig. 7-10), and because Haechler teaches that recesses help to hold and receive carriers (Haechler; [58], Fig. 7-10). The resulting modification is a diverter that includes recesses to rotate between the various transfer positions.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedrazzini, G (US 20100034701; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”) in view of Miller, K (US 20050037502; hereinafter “Miller”; already of record) in view of Haechler et al (US 20140072473; hereinafter “Haechler”; already of record) in view of Ferihumer et al (US 20170212140; hereinafter “Ferihumer”).
As to claims 10-11, modified Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 9, where the diverter includes multiple recesses to move the samples and where the recesses are evenly spaced (The modification of Pedrazzini with Miller and Haechler results in the diverter having multiple recesses; see Haechler Fig. 7-10).
Modified Pedrazzini does not specifically teach the diverter further defines a third concave recess, and wherein the first, second, and third concave recess of the diverter are equally spaced about a periphery of the diverter. However, Ferihumer teaches the analogous art of a sample handling device that includes a rotating diverter with three concave recesses (Ferihumer; Fig. 2, 3, [47, 53, 57, 61, 62]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the diverter which moves carriers to three positions of modified Pedrazzini to have included three recesses for holding carriers as in Ferihumer because this would provide the advantage of moving carriers to each position sequentially, and because Ferihumer beaches that revolving devices can have varying numbers of recesses (Ferihumer; [61]), and also since it has been held that changes in shape are not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Claims 16-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedrazzini, G (US 20100034701; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”) in view of Itoh, T (US 20170185815; hereinafter “Itoh”; already of record).
As to claims 16, Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, with the spur conveyor subassembly to move carriers at the third transfer position and transport the carriers to the processing position within the instrument (Pedrazzini teaches moving the carriers from the third position to the processing position for aspiration; see claim 1 above. The examiner notes that the instrument is not positively recited).
Pedrazzini does not specifically teach that the spur conveyor includes a movable gripper configured to grasp the carrier, where the gripper comprises at least two movable prongs configured to apply pressure to the carrier grasped by the gripper. However, Itoh teaches the analogous art of a conveyor that transports samples, with a gripper to grasp the carrier to move the carrier along a conveyance path, and the gripper comprises at least two movable prongs configured to apply pressure to the carrier grasped by the gripper (Itoh teaches a transfer apparatus 31 that grips carriers to move them off a conveyor along a conveyance path; [32-33, 48] Fig. 2. Because Itoh grips, then it would include two prongs as grippers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the carrier transport to the analyzer via conveyor of Pedrazzini to use the gripping transfer conveyor as in Itoh because Itoh teaches that a gripper is a well-known device to move carriers in a conveyance system (Itoh; [32-33, 48] Fig. 2).
As to claim 19, modified Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 17, wherein the at least two movable prongs are further configured to contact a receptacle coupled to the carrier grasped by the gripper (The modification in claim 17 addresses the two movable prongs. How the prongs are configured to contact is a matter of intended use and the prongs are capable of this operation).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedrazzini, G (US 20100034701; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”) in view of Itoh, T (US 20170185815; hereinafter “Itoh”; already of record) in view of Noda et al (US 20160334431; hereinafter “Noda”).
As to claim 18, modified Pedrazzini teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 17, with the gripper with prongs, which holds the carrier to the spur conveyor subassembly (see claim 15 above) and where as a distal end of a pipettor of the instrument is placed and removed from a respective processing receptacle (see claim 1 above) where the carrier is grasped by the gripper during processing (The examiner notes that the modification of the conveyor which moves to a pipetting processing position of Pedrazzini to be a gripper as in Itoh has already been discussed previously in claim 15). The examiner also notes that as best understood that the relationship with respect to the instrument is intended use.
Modified Pedrazzini does not teach each of the at least two movable prongs comprises a portion having a protrusion configured to mate with a groove defined by the carrier grasped by the gripper. However, Noda teaches the analogous art of a gripper with two prongs each having a protrusion (Noda teaches a gripper, which has protrusions and can be shaped according to the object which is being clamped, for clamping during pipetting; [25, 27, 29, 37, 58, 59, 63] Fig. 1, 2, 4. How the protrusion is configured to mate is a matter of intended use). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the gripper prongs which grip the carrier during pipetting of modified Pedrazzini to have included protrusions as in Noda because Noda teaches that the protruding and elastic bodies are commonly used as to securely hold/clamp during pipetting (Noda; [25, 27, 29, 37, 58, 59, 63] Fig. 1, 2, 4) and because Noda teaches that the protrusions with elastic bodies help to suppress vibrations and center the container (Noda; [27, 62]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11846644. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to a conveyor assembly (claim 1 of ‘644) with a buffer conveyor (claim 1 of ‘644), and a spur conveyor with a diverter (claim 1 of ‘644). Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claim 1 are encompassed by the claims of US 11846644.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 23, 24 of copending Application No. 18504323 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to a conveyor assembly (claim 1 of reference application) with a buffer conveyor (claims 23, 24 of reference application), and a spur conveyor with a diverter (claim 1 of reference application). Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claim 1 are encompassed by the claims of copending Application No. 18504323 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 7 of copending Application No. 18504076 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to a conveyor assembly (claim 1 of reference application) with a buffer conveyor (claim 1 of reference application), and a spur conveyor with a diverter (claim 1, 6, 7 of reference application). Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claim 1 are encompassed by the claims of copending Application No. 18504076 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include:
Bhatia et al (US 10527635; hereinafter “Bhatia”; already of record) teaches a gripper that picks up a tube vertically from a rotating spur; Fig. 4.
She et al (US 20170030938; hereinafter “She”) teaches a groove 308 through which the shuttle gripper travels, where the shuttle gripper has a base with some type of extending flange that is within the groove; Fig. 8-9, 11. Also, She teaches in Figure 4 a guide rail 304 with a groove in it, or alternatively where the guide rail 304 protrudes upwards to form a groove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Benjamin R Whatley/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights