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 .
Response to Amendment
As to the amended claims and remarks filed on 4/22/26, the previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Based on the claim amendments, the previous 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn and new rejections are entered to address the amended claims.
The restriction requirement has been withdrawn as applicants have canceled the claims.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 21, 23-26 are pending with claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 21, 23-26 being examined and claims 5, 9, 13-20 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 21 recites “a groove of the base” in line 4 where it is unclear if this groove is a new groove or if applicants are intending to refer back to the groove recited in claim 1. As best understood, the examiner believes applicants may be attempting to refer to the groove of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 21, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, K (US 20050037502; hereinafter “Miller”; already of record) in view of Schacher et al (US 20180321268; hereinafter “Schacher”; already of record) in view of Itoh, T (US 20170185815; hereinafter “Itoh”; already of record) in view of Pedrazzini, G (US 20150260746; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Miller teaches an automated conveyor assembly for transporting a carrier coupled to a processing receptacle to a processing position within an instrument (Miller; Figure 7), the automated conveyor assembly comprising: a spur conveyor comprising: a base and the spur conveyor defining a first linear path configured to selectively move the carrier coupled to the processing receptacle at a first carrier position outside of the instrument and move the carrier along the first linear path between the first carrier position and the processing position in the instrument (Miller teaches where carriers are moved linearly from conveyor 14 and to various processing sections, including analyzers 38/42, via robotic mechanisms and/or conveyor tracks, where the carriers are then moved back to the conveyor via the same robotic mechanism; Fig. 7, [29]. Miller teaches where the robotic mechanisms are known to include clamping robotic hands which would open and close to grip carriers; [29]. The examiner notes that the housing/instrument and processing position are not part of the claimed conveyor structure as they are not positively recited in the body of the claim; and therefore, what the housing/instrument include do not further define the conveyor structure).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “for…”, “configured to…”, etc…). 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.
Although Miller teaches moving the samples off of the main conveyor and to the analyzer, Miller does not specifically teach a diverter configured to displace the carrier coupled to the processing receptacle from (i) a second carrier position outside the instrument and laterally offset from a conveyor to (ii) the first carrier position, wherein the diverter defines a first recess configured to receive the carrier coupled to the processing receptacle, the diverter configured to rotate between (i) a first diverter position at which the first recess is aligned with the second carrier position and (ii) a second diverter position at which the first recess is aligned with the first carrier position. However, Schacher teaches the analogous art of a conveyor system for receptacles and carriers (Schacher; Figs. 1-5 [36-53]) with a diverter configured to displace the carrier coupled to the processing receptacle from (i) a second carrier position outside the instrument and laterally offset from the conveyor to (ii) the first carrier position, wherein the diverter defines a first recess configured to receive the carrier coupled to the processing receptacle, the diverter configured to rotate between (i) a first diverter position at which the first recess is aligned with the second carrier position and (ii) a second diverter position at which the first recess is aligned with the first carrier position (Schacher teaches diverter 2 which accepts carriers from 10 and rotates between various positions; [20, 37, 38, 46, 55] Fig. 1. Schacher also teaches diverter 3 which accepts carriers and moves then to a conveyor 18; Fig. 1. Schacher teaches variations of the rotating diverters which accept from a second carrier position that is laterally offset and rotate to a different position to then move the carrier to a conveyor for transport; Fig. 1-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the spur conveyor which accepts diverted samples from the main conveyor to the analyzer (and vice versa) of Miller to have included a rotating diverter to move the samples to/from the conveyor as in Schacher because Schacher teaches that rotating carousels are known devices for distributing samples to/from conveyors (Schacher; [28, 29]), and that using the rotating carousels helps to simplify construction and operation (Schacher; [7]).
Although Miller teaches that the liner conveyor may be a robotic mechanism and suggests the use of robotic grippers (Miller; [29], Fig. 7), Miller does not specifically teach that the conveyor includes a gripper to selectively grasp the carrier and move the carrier in the instrument, and where the gripper comprises at least two movable prongs configured to apply pressure to the carrier. 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 since gripping cannot occur without at least two different structures to form the grip and since any protrusion forming the gripping finger would satisfy the prong structure). 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 Miller 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).
Modified Miller does not specifically teach the gripper translatably received within a groove of the base. However, Pedrazzini teaches the analogous art of sample transport handler with a conveyor assembly that includes a robotic handler that is translatably received within a groove of the base (Pedrazzini teaches robotic handling device 8 which is on a base which is over belt 161 that connects to the handler and where the flange 160 of the handler is connected into a groove in guide 16, with a motor 162 driving the belt; Fig. 11-12, [36, 37, 38, 39, 59]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the robotic gripper which moves between the first carrier position and the processing position of modified Miller to have been configured as a container handling device with a belt and motor in the base supporting the handler with a groove as in Pedrazzini because Pedrazzini teaches that the belt drive enables sliding and translation to reach the necessary positions (Pedrazzini; [36]).
As to claim 2, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the diverter further defines a second recess, wherein the second recess is aligned with the second carrier position when the diverter is at the second diverter position (The modification of the spur conveyor which accepts diverted samples of Miller to have included a rotating diverter to move the samples to/from the conveyor as in Schacher has already been discussed above. Schacher teaches diverter 2 with multiple recesses that can be at various positions; Fig. 1. See also Figs. 3-5).
As to claim 3, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 2, wherein the diverter further defines a third recess and is movable between the first diverter position, the second diverter position, and a third diverter position at which i) the first recess is aligned with a third carrier position outside the instrument and laterally offset from the spur conveyor on an output side of the spur conveyor, (ii) the third recess is aligned with the second carrier position on an input side of the spur conveyor, and iii the second recess is aligned with the first carrier position (The modification of the spur conveyor which accepts diverted samples of Miller to have included a rotating diverter to move the samples to/from the conveyor as in Schacher has already been discussed above. Schacher teaches diverter 2 with multiple recesses that can be at various positions; Fig. 1. See also Figs. 3-5. The recesses that are next to each other are spaced an equal distance from each other).
As to claim 4, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 3, wherein the first recess, the second recess, and the third recess are spaced equally about an axis about which the diverter rotates (The modification of the spur conveyor which accepts diverted samples of Miller to have included a rotating diverter to move the samples to/from the conveyor as in Schacher has already been discussed above. Schacher teaches diverter 2 with multiple recesses that can be at various positions; Fig. 1. See also Figs. 3-5. The recesses that are next to each other are spaced an equal distance from each other).
As to claim 6, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein 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 such that as a distal end of a pipettor of the instrument is removed from a respective processing receptacle of the carrier grasped by the gripper, the gripper holds the carrier to the spur conveyor (The modification of the conveyor of Miller to use the gripping transfer conveyor as in Itoh has already been discussed above. 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 since gripping cannot occur without at least two different structures to form the grip and since any protrusion forming the gripping finger would satisfy the prong structure. Itoh teaches robotic clamping hands which would include two movable prongs, and each prong having first and second portions as arbitrary regions, each regions having shapes. Some portion of the prong would protrude from the inside out in order to create a 3D object, and therefore would mate with any correspondingly configured carrier. The examiner notes that the carrier and receptacle are not positively recited and therefore the shape is intended use).
As to claim 7, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the at least two movable prongs comprises a portion shaped to closely correspond to a respective portion of a perimeter of the carrier (The modification of the conveyor of Miller to use the gripping transfer conveyor as in Itoh has already been discussed above. 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 since gripping cannot occur without at least two different structures to form the grip and since any protrusion forming the gripping finger would satisfy the prong structure. Itoh teaches robotic clamping hands which would include two movable prongs, and each prong having first and second portions as arbitrary regions, each regions having shapes. Some portion of the prong would protrude from the inside out in order to create a 3D object, and therefore would mate with any correspondingly configured carrier. The examiner notes that the carrier and receptacle are not positively recited and therefore the shape is intended use).
As to claim 8, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the at least two movable prongs comprises a portion that, when the gripper is grasping the carrier, overlaps in a vertical direction at least a respective portion of the carrier (The modification of the conveyor of Miller to use the gripping transfer conveyor as in Itoh has already been discussed above. 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 since gripping cannot occur without at least two different structures to form the grip and since any protrusion forming the gripping finger would satisfy the prong structure. Itoh teaches robotic clamping hands which would include two movable prongs, and each prong having first and second portions as arbitrary regions, each regions having shapes. Some portion of the prong would protrude from the inside out in order to create a 3D object, and therefore would mate with any correspondingly configured carrier. The examiner notes that the carrier and receptacle are not positively recited and therefore the shape is intended use).
As to claim 21, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, with the spur conveyor that includes a gripper that moves between the first carrier position and the processing position (see above).
Modified Miller does not specifically teach wherein the spur conveyor assembly comprises: a drive belt disposed below the base and operatively coupled to a flange of the gripper that is translatably received within a groove of the base; and a motor operatively coupled to the drive belt, the motor configured to rotate the drive belt in a first angular direction to move the gripper one direction and in a second angular direction to move the gripper in the opposite direction. However, Pedrazzini teaches the analogous art of sample transport handler with a conveyor assembly that comprises: a drive belt disposed below the base and operatively coupled to a flange of the handler that is translatably received within a groove of the base; and a motor operatively coupled to the drive belt, the motor configured to rotate the drive belt in a first angular direction to move the handler in one direction and in a second angular direction to move the handler in the opposite direction (Pedrazzini teaches robotic handling device 8 which is on a base which is over belt 161 that connects to the handler and where the flange 160 of the handler is connected into a groove in guide 16, with a motor 162 driving the belt; Fig. 11-12, [36, 37, 38, 39, 59]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the robotic gripper which moves between the first carrier position and the processing position of modified Miller to have been configured as a container handling device with a belt and motor in the base supporting the handler as in Pedrazzini because Pedrazzini teaches that the belt drive enables sliding and translation to reach the necessary positions (Pedrazzini; [36]).
As to claim 23, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, further comprising a buffer conveyor configured to transport the carrier coupled to the receptacle along a second linear path to the second carrier position (Miller teaches buffer conveyor 14 which moves the carriers; Fig. 7. The modification of the spur conveyor which accepts diverted samples of Miller to have included a rotating diverter to move the samples to/from the conveyor as in Schacher has already been discussed above).
As to claim 24, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 23, wherein the first linear path defined by the spur conveyor is arranged perpendicular to the second linear path defined by the buffer conveyor (Miller teaches buffer conveyor 14 is perpendicular to spur conveyor moving to/from the analyzers; see claim 1 above and Fig. 7).
As to claim 25, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 23, wherein the buffer conveyor is mounted to an outer surface of the instrument (The examiner notes that the instrument is not part of the claimed conveyor structure as they are not positively recited in the body of the claim; and therefore, what the instrument includes does not further define the conveyor structure. Miller teaches the buffer conveyor 14 that is outside of the various processing instruments/analyzers; see Fig. 7 and claim 1 above. Further, the buffer conveyor of Miller is capable of being placed outside a correspondingly configured instrument).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, K (US 20050037502; hereinafter “Miller”; already of record) in view of Schacher et al (US 20180321268; hereinafter “Schacher”; already of record) in view of Itoh, T (US 20170185815; hereinafter “Itoh”; already of record) in view of Pedrazzini, G (US 20150260746; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”; already of record) in view of Marty et al (US 20160169926; hereinafter “Marty”; already of record).
As to claim 10, modified Miller teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, with a portion of a path between the second position and the processing position (Miller teaches a linear path from/to conveyor 14 and to/from various processing sections, including analyzers 38/42; Fig. 7, [29]).
Miller does not specifically teach the path includes a cover. However, Marty teaches the analogous art of a receptacle, where the receptacle is moved into position which includes a cover (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 modified Miller 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]).
As to claim 11, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 10, wherein the cover defines an opening configured to allow a distal end of a pipettor of the instrument to pass (The examiner notes that the housing/instrument and pipettor are not part of the claimed conveyor structure as they are not positively recited in the body of the claim; and therefore, what the housing/instrument and pipettor include do not further define the conveyor structure. The modification of the path on which the receptacle moves of Miller to include the cover as in Marty has already been discussed in claim 11 above. Marty teaches that the cover includes openings to permit pipette access; Figs. 1-6 [47-50, 54-56]).
As to claim 12, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 11, further comprising an alignment block configured to automatically align the processing receptacle coupled to the carrier at the processing position at an orientation aligned with a direction of travel of the pipettor (The modification of the path on which the receptacle moves of Schacher to include the cover as in Marty has already been discussed in claim 21 above. Marty teaches that the cover includes openings to permit pipette access, and where the opening includes a tapered surface, as an alignment block, that tapers towards and secures the container; Figs. 1-6 [47-50, 54-56]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, K (US 20050037502; hereinafter “Miller”; already of record) in view of Schacher et al (US 20180321268; hereinafter “Schacher”; already of record) in view of Itoh, T (US 20170185815; hereinafter “Itoh”; already of record) in view of Pedrazzini, G (US 20150260746; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”; already of record) in view of Haechler et al (US 20140072473; hereinafter “Haechler”; already of record).
As to claim 26, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 24 (see above).
Modified Miller does not specifically teach a host conveyor defining a third linear path parallel to the second linear path; and a second diverter configured to transfer the carrier coupled to the receptacle from the third linear path to the second linear path. However, Haechler teaches the analogous art of carrier transport to analyzers with a third linear path parallel to the second linear path; and a second diverter configured to transfer the carrier coupled to the receptacle from the third linear path to the second linear path (Haechler teaches third path 8’ with a diverter 6’ which moves carriers to second path 23’, where 23’ is an auxiliary/buffer to an analyzer; Figs. 8-10, [56, 58, 67]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the analyzer with conveyor of Miller to have included a separate buffer conveyor between the host conveyor and the analyzer as in Haechler because Haechler teaches that the buffer line helps to transport samples to analyzers (Haechler; [56]) and helps to temporarily store samples (Haechler; [39]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the additional conveyor helps to prevent the main host conveyor from backing up when samples are waiting for analysis at respective analysis stations.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 21, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, K (US 20050037502; hereinafter “Miller”; already of record) in view of Schacher et al (US 20180321268; hereinafter “Schacher”; already of record) in view of Itoh, T (US 20170185815; hereinafter “Itoh”; already of record) in view of She et al (US 20170030938; hereinafter “She”).
As to claim 1, Miller teaches an automated conveyor assembly for transporting a carrier coupled to a processing receptacle to a processing position within an instrument (Miller; Figure 7), the automated conveyor assembly comprising: a spur conveyor comprising: a base and the spur conveyor defining a first linear path configured to selectively move the carrier coupled to the processing receptacle at a first carrier position outside of the instrument and move the carrier along the first linear path between the first carrier position and the processing position in the instrument (Miller teaches where carriers are moved linearly from conveyor 14 and to various processing sections, including analyzers 38/42, via robotic mechanisms and/or conveyor tracks, where the carriers are then moved back to the conveyor via the same robotic mechanism; Fig. 7, [29]. Miller teaches where the robotic mechanisms are known to include clamping robotic hands which would open and close to grip carriers; [29]. The examiner notes that the housing/instrument and processing position are not part of the claimed conveyor structure as they are not positively recited in the body of the claim; and therefore, what the housing/instrument include do not further define the conveyor structure).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “for…”, “configured to…”, etc…). 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.
Although Miller teaches moving the samples off of the main conveyor and to the analyzer, Miller does not specifically teach a diverter configured to displace the carrier coupled to the processing receptacle from (i) a second carrier position outside the instrument and laterally offset from a conveyor to (ii) the first carrier position, wherein the diverter defines a first recess configured to receive the carrier coupled to the processing receptacle, the diverter configured to rotate between (i) a first diverter position at which the first recess is aligned with the second carrier position and (ii) a second diverter position at which the first recess is aligned with the first carrier position. However, Schacher teaches the analogous art of a conveyor system for receptacles and carriers (Schacher; Figs. 1-5 [36-53]) with a diverter configured to displace the carrier coupled to the processing receptacle from (i) a second carrier position outside the instrument and laterally offset from the conveyor to (ii) the first carrier position, wherein the diverter defines a first recess configured to receive the carrier coupled to the processing receptacle, the diverter configured to rotate between (i) a first diverter position at which the first recess is aligned with the second carrier position and (ii) a second diverter position at which the first recess is aligned with the first carrier position (Schacher teaches diverter 2 which accepts carriers from 10 and rotates between various positions; [20, 37, 38, 46, 55] Fig. 1. Schacher also teaches diverter 3 which accepts carriers and moves then to a conveyor 18; Fig. 1. Schacher teaches variations of the rotating diverters which accept from a second carrier position that is laterally offset and rotate to a different position to then move the carrier to a conveyor for transport; Fig. 1-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the spur conveyor which accepts diverted samples from the main conveyor to the analyzer (and vice versa) of Miller to have included a rotating diverter to move the samples to/from the conveyor as in Schacher because Schacher teaches that rotating carousels are known devices for distributing samples to/from conveyors (Schacher; [28, 29]), and that using the rotating carousels helps to simplify construction and operation (Schacher; [7]).
Although Miller teaches that the liner conveyor may be a robotic mechanism and suggests the use of robotic grippers (Miller; [29], Fig. 7), Miller does not specifically teach that the conveyor includes a gripper to selectively grasp the carrier and move the carrier in the instrument, and where the gripper comprises at least two movable prongs configured to apply pressure to the carrier. 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 since gripping cannot occur without at least two different structures to form the grip and since any protrusion forming the gripping finger would satisfy the prong structure). 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 Miller 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).
Modified Miller does not specifically teach the gripper translatably received within a groove of the base. However, She teaches the analogous art of sample transport handler with a conveyor assembly that includes a robotic handler that is translatably received within a groove of the base (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, [36, 39, 45, 48]. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the robotic gripper which moves between the first carrier position and the processing position of modified Miller to have been configured the handler in a groove as in She because She teaches that the guide groove helps to guide the transport (She; [39]), and because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that any groove support in a conveyance system would serve as guard rails to keep the moving components within the groove and that the groove would also serve to guide movement along the groove itself.
As to claim 2, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the diverter further defines a second recess, wherein the second recess is aligned with the second carrier position when the diverter is at the second diverter position (The modification of the spur conveyor which accepts diverted samples of Miller to have included a rotating diverter to move the samples to/from the conveyor as in Schacher has already been discussed above. Schacher teaches diverter 2 with multiple recesses that can be at various positions; Fig. 1. See also Figs. 3-5).
As to claim 3, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 2, wherein the diverter further defines a third recess and is movable between the first diverter position, the second diverter position, and a third diverter position at which i) the first recess is aligned with a third carrier position outside the instrument and laterally offset from the spur conveyor on an output side of the spur conveyor, (ii) the third recess is aligned with the second carrier position on an input side of the spur conveyor, and iii the second recess is aligned with the first carrier position (The modification of the spur conveyor which accepts diverted samples of Miller to have included a rotating diverter to move the samples to/from the conveyor as in Schacher has already been discussed above. Schacher teaches diverter 2 with multiple recesses that can be at various positions; Fig. 1. See also Figs. 3-5. The recesses that are next to each other are spaced an equal distance from each other).
As to claim 4, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 3, wherein the first recess, the second recess, and the third recess are spaced equally about an axis about which the diverter rotates (The modification of the spur conveyor which accepts diverted samples of Miller to have included a rotating diverter to move the samples to/from the conveyor as in Schacher has already been discussed above. Schacher teaches diverter 2 with multiple recesses that can be at various positions; Fig. 1. See also Figs. 3-5. The recesses that are next to each other are spaced an equal distance from each other).
As to claim 6, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein 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 such that as a distal end of a pipettor of the instrument is removed from a respective processing receptacle of the carrier grasped by the gripper, the gripper holds the carrier to the spur conveyor (The modification of the conveyor of Miller to use the gripping transfer conveyor as in Itoh has already been discussed above. 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 since gripping cannot occur without at least two different structures to form the grip and since any protrusion forming the gripping finger would satisfy the prong structure. Itoh teaches robotic clamping hands which would include two movable prongs, and each prong having first and second portions as arbitrary regions, each regions having shapes. Some portion of the prong would protrude from the inside out in order to create a 3D object, and therefore would mate with any correspondingly configured carrier. The examiner notes that the carrier and receptacle are not positively recited and therefore the shape is intended use).
As to claim 7, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the at least two movable prongs comprises a portion shaped to closely correspond to a respective portion of a perimeter of the carrier (The modification of the conveyor of Miller to use the gripping transfer conveyor as in Itoh has already been discussed above. 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 since gripping cannot occur without at least two different structures to form the grip and since any protrusion forming the gripping finger would satisfy the prong structure. Itoh teaches robotic clamping hands which would include two movable prongs, and each prong having first and second portions as arbitrary regions, each regions having shapes. Some portion of the prong would protrude from the inside out in order to create a 3D object, and therefore would mate with any correspondingly configured carrier. The examiner notes that the carrier and receptacle are not positively recited and therefore the shape is intended use).
As to claim 8, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the at least two movable prongs comprises a portion that, when the gripper is grasping the carrier, overlaps in a vertical direction at least a respective portion of the carrier (The modification of the conveyor of Miller to use the gripping transfer conveyor as in Itoh has already been discussed above. 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 since gripping cannot occur without at least two different structures to form the grip and since any protrusion forming the gripping finger would satisfy the prong structure. Itoh teaches robotic clamping hands which would include two movable prongs, and each prong having first and second portions as arbitrary regions, each regions having shapes. Some portion of the prong would protrude from the inside out in order to create a 3D object, and therefore would mate with any correspondingly configured carrier. The examiner notes that the carrier and receptacle are not positively recited and therefore the shape is intended use).
As to claim 21, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, with the spur conveyor that includes a gripper that moves between the first carrier position and the processing position (see above).
Modified Miller does not specifically teach wherein the spur conveyor assembly comprises: a drive belt disposed below the base and operatively coupled to a flange of the gripper that is translatably received within a groove of the base; and a motor operatively coupled to the drive belt, the motor configured to rotate the drive belt in a first angular direction to move the gripper one direction and in a second angular direction to move the gripper in the opposite direction. However, Pedrazzini teaches the analogous art of sample transport handler with a conveyor assembly that comprises: a drive belt disposed below the base and operatively coupled to a flange of the handler that is translatably received within a groove of the base; and a motor operatively coupled to the drive belt, the motor configured to rotate the drive belt in a first angular direction to move the handler in one direction and in a second angular direction to move the handler in the opposite direction (Pedrazzini teaches robotic handling device 8 which is on a base which is over belt 161 that connects to the handler and where the flange 160 of the handler is connected into a groove in guide 16, with a motor 162 driving the belt; Fig. 11-12, [36, 37, 38, 39, 59]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the robotic gripper which moves between the first carrier position and the processing position of modified Miller to have been configured as a container handling device with a belt and motor in the base supporting the handler as in Pedrazzini because Pedrazzini teaches that the belt drive enables sliding and translation to reach the necessary positions (Pedrazzini; [36]).
As to claim 23, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, further comprising a buffer conveyor configured to transport the carrier coupled to the receptacle along a second linear path to the second carrier position (Miller teaches buffer conveyor 14 which moves the carriers; Fig. 7. The modification of the spur conveyor which accepts diverted samples of Miller to have included a rotating diverter to move the samples to/from the conveyor as in Schacher has already been discussed above).
As to claim 24, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 23, wherein the first linear path defined by the spur conveyor is arranged perpendicular to the second linear path defined by the buffer conveyor (Miller teaches buffer conveyor 14 is perpendicular to spur conveyor moving to/from the analyzers; see claim 1 above and Fig. 7).
As to claim 25, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 23, wherein the buffer conveyor is mounted to an outer surface of the instrument (The examiner notes that the instrument is not part of the claimed conveyor structure as they are not positively recited in the body of the claim; and therefore, what the instrument includes does not further define the conveyor structure. Miller teaches the buffer conveyor 14 that is outside of the various processing instruments/analyzers; see Fig. 7 and claim 1 above. Further, the buffer conveyor of Miller is capable of being placed outside a correspondingly configured instrument).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, K (US 20050037502; hereinafter “Miller”; already of record) in view of Schacher et al (US 20180321268; hereinafter “Schacher”; already of record) in view of Itoh, T (US 20170185815; hereinafter “Itoh”; already of record) in view of She et al (US 20170030938; hereinafter “She”) in view of Marty et al (US 20160169926; hereinafter “Marty”; already of record).
As to claim 10, modified Miller teaches the conveyor assembly of claim 1, with a portion of a path between the second position and the processing position (Miller teaches a linear path from/to conveyor 14 and to/from various processing sections, including analyzers 38/42; Fig. 7, [29]).
Miller does not specifically teach the path includes a cover. However, Marty teaches the analogous art of a receptacle, where the receptacle is moved into position which includes a cover (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 modified Miller 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]).
As to claim 11, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 10, wherein the cover defines an opening configured to allow a distal end of a pipettor of the instrument to pass (The examiner notes that the housing/instrument and pipettor are not part of the claimed conveyor structure as they are not positively recited in the body of the claim; and therefore, what the housing/instrument and pipettor include do not further define the conveyor structure. The modification of the path on which the receptacle moves of Miller to include the cover as in Marty has already been discussed in claim 11 above. Marty teaches that the cover includes openings to permit pipette access; Figs. 1-6 [47-50, 54-56]).
As to claim 12, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 11, further comprising an alignment block configured to automatically align the processing receptacle coupled to the carrier at the processing position at an orientation aligned with a direction of travel of the pipettor (The modification of the path on which the receptacle moves of Schacher to include the cover as in Marty has already been discussed in claim 21 above. Marty teaches that the cover includes openings to permit pipette access, and where the opening includes a tapered surface, as an alignment block, that tapers towards and secures the container; Figs. 1-6 [47-50, 54-56]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, K (US 20050037502; hereinafter “Miller”; already of record) in view of Schacher et al (US 20180321268; hereinafter “Schacher”; already of record) in view of Itoh, T (US 20170185815; hereinafter “Itoh”; already of record) in view of She et al (US 20170030938; hereinafter “She”) in view of Haechler et al (US 20140072473; hereinafter “Haechler”; already of record).
As to claim 26, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 24 (see above).
Modified Miller does not specifically teach a host conveyor defining a third linear path parallel to the second linear path; and a second diverter configured to transfer the carrier coupled to the receptacle from the third linear path to the second linear path. However, Haechler teaches the analogous art of carrier transport to analyzers with a third linear path parallel to the second linear path; and a second diverter configured to transfer the carrier coupled to the receptacle from the third linear path to the second linear path (Haechler teaches third path 8’ with a diverter 6’ which moves carriers to second path 23’, where 23’ is an auxiliary/buffer to an analyzer; Figs. 8-10, [56, 58, 67]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the analyzer with conveyor of Miller to have included a separate buffer conveyor between the host conveyor and the analyzer as in Haechler because Haechler teaches that the buffer line helps to transport samples to analyzers (Haechler; [56]) and helps to temporarily store samples (Haechler; [39]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the additional conveyor helps to prevent the main host conveyor from backing up when samples are waiting for analysis at respective analysis stations.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11846644 in view of Pedrazzini, G (US 20150260746; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”; already of record) or alternatively in view of She et al (US 20170030938; hereinafter “She”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to a conveyor assembly to transport a carrier coupled to a receptacle, and comprising a spur conveyor that includes a gripper to grasp the carrier outside the housing and move the carrier along a linear path to within a processing instrument, and a diverter having a recess that rotates between the first and second position (see claim 1 of ‘644). Reference patent ‘644 also teaches a base (claim 11), where the gripper includes movable prongs (claim 12-13). Reference patent ‘644 does not specifically teach that the gripper is translatably received within a groove of the base. However, Pedrazzini teaches the analogous art of sample transport handler with a conveyor assembly that includes a robotic handler that is translatably received within a groove of the base (Pedrazzini teaches robotic handling device 8 which is on a base which is over belt 161 that connects to the handler and where the flange 160 of the handler is connected into a groove in guide 16, with a motor 162 driving the belt; Fig. 11-12, [36, 37, 38, 39, 59]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the robotic gripper which moves between the first carrier position and the processing position of modified the claims of Reference Patent ‘644 to have been configured as a container handling device with a belt and motor in the base supporting the handler with a groove as in Pedrazzini because Pedrazzini teaches that the belt drive enables sliding and translation to reach the necessary positions (Pedrazzini; [36]). Alternatively, She teaches the analogous art of sample transport handler with a conveyor assembly that includes a robotic handler that is translatably received within a groove of the base (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, [36, 39, 45, 48]. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the robotic gripper which moves between the first carrier position and the processing position of modified Miller to have been configured the handler in a groove as in She because She teaches that the guide groove helps to guide the transport (She; [39]), and because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that any groove support in a conveyance system would serve as guard rails to keep the moving components within the groove and that the groove would also serve to guide movement along the groove itself.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 13, 17, 18 of copending Application No. 18504013 (reference application) in view of Pedrazzini, G (US 20150260746; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”; already of record) or alternatively in view of She et al (US 20170030938; hereinafter “She”). 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 spur conveyor, and a diverter (claim 1 of reference application). Reference application ‘013 teaches that the diverter has a first and second recess (claim 9), the prongs of the gripper (claims 17, 18), and a base (claim 13). Reference application ‘013 does not specifically teach that the gripper is translatably received within a groove of the base. However, Pedrazzini teaches the analogous art of sample transport handler with a conveyor assembly that includes a robotic handler that is translatably received within a groove of the base (Pedrazzini teaches robotic handling device 8 which is on a base which is over belt 161 that connects to the handler and where the flange 160 of the handler is connected into a groove in guide 16, with a motor 162 driving the belt; Fig. 11-12, [36, 37, 38, 39, 59]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the robotic gripper which moves between the first carrier position and the processing position of modified Miller to have been configured as a container handling device with a belt and motor in the base supporting the handler with a groove as in Pedrazzini because Pedrazzini teaches that the belt drive enables sliding and translation to reach the necessary positions (Pedrazzini; [36]). Alternatively, She teaches the analogous art of sample transport handler with a conveyor assembly that includes a robotic handler that is translatably received within a groove of the base (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, [36, 39, 45, 48]. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the robotic gripper which moves between the first carrier position and the processing position of the claims of Reference application ‘013 o have been configured the handler in a groove as in She because She teaches that the guide groove helps to guide the transport (She; [39]), and because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that any groove support in a conveyance system would serve as guard rails to keep the moving components within the groove and that the groove would also serve to guide movement along the groove itself.
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, 11, 13, 14, 17 of copending Application No. 18388076 (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 spur conveyor with a diverter (claim 1, 6, 7 of reference application). Reference application ‘076 teaches a groove in the base (claims 11, 17), and prongs of the gripper (claims 13, 14). Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claim 1 are encompassed by the claims of copending Application No. 18388076 (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.
Pedrazzini, G (US 20100034701; hereinafter “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]. 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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/22/26 have been considered, but are moot because the arguments are towards the amended claims and not the current grounds of rejection.
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 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