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 statement (IDS) submitted on 7/15/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, 10-12, 20-26, drawn to an automated conveyor assembly with a diverter, classified in G01N35/04.
II. Claims 13-19, drawn to a method of transporting carriers including aspirating a sample, classified in G01N35/1011, G01N35/0095.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus of group I can be practiced by another method such as transporting carriers (not aspirating) or transporting carriers to a different instrument aside from a processing instrument. Alternatively, the process of group II can be practiced by a different apparatus such as an apparatus with an aspirator.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
a. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and/or
b. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
c. The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different class/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); and/or
d. The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or
e. The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner reached out to applicants representative on 10/27/25 to request a restriction election. Applicants requested that a preliminary amendment be entered. Therefore, the preliminary amendment on 11/7/25 was entered. The restriction in the instant office action is based off of the preliminary amendment filed on 11/7/25. During a telephone conversation with John Higgins on 1/14/26, a provisional election was made without travers to prosecute the invention of group 1, claims 1-8, 10-12, 20-26. Attorney Higgins requested that an office action containing the restriction be mailed so that applicants may contemplate filing a divisional application for the non-elected claims. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Status
Claims 1-8, 10-26 are pending with claims 1-8, 10-12, 20-26 being examined and claims 13-19 deemed withdrawn.
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 1-8, 10-12, 20-26 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.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what structure applicants are attempting to define by a “spur conveyor” in lines 3-6. The spur conveyor is defined has having a path (just a region of space) and a gripper. However, typically in the art a conveyor includes an actual conveyor belt that is below the carrier and on which the carrier is transported. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear whether the conveyor is solely defined by the linear path and gripper, or whether there is an actual conveyance mechanism. Specifically, there are two potential interpretations and it is unclear which of the interpretations applicants are attempting to define. The first interpretation is just a gripper that picks up and moves vertically from above, and the second interpretation is a gripper that moves horizontally along a conveyor belt. The examiner believes applicants are attempting to define the latter second interpretation, but as drafted a potential infringer would not know which of the interpretations applicants are intending.
Claims 2-8, 10-12, 20-26 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
With respect to claim 7, it is unclear what “shaped closely” is describing as “closely” is a relative/subjective term that is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is unclear what would or would not be “closely” shaped.
As to claim 7, it is also unclear what shape applicants are attempting to convey with respect to the portion of the movable prongs. Specifically, applicants relate the positively claimed movable prongs shape to the carrier which has not been positively recited as part of the conveyor. Therefore, it is unclear what shape is required by the claims and a potential infringer would not know which shapes do or do not infringe on the claims. Further, it becomes unclear whether or not applicants are attempting to claim the carrier because the carrier appears to be a function of the conveyor/gripper prongs and is not positively recited. Applicants do not positively recite the carrier, and the gripper (now positively recited) is configured to interact with the carrier. Therefore, references to the carrier are directed towards intended use of the gripper. However, claim 7 attempts to define the carrier by relating it to the gripper. The problem is that the relationship of the carrier and the gripper is defined in terms of the relationship between the gripper and the unclaimed carrier when in use. This is indefinite as it is unclear how this is meant to further define the conveyor assembly as a whole, and it is unclear how this is met given a gripper alone (without including the carrier). The fact is, with such a recitation, a given gripper that meets the other limitations could meet the limitations of the claim when used with a carrier and fail to meet the limitations of the claim when used without a carrier. As such, given any gripper 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 carrier is not positively recited, then it is unclear what limitations of the relationship of the carrier is attempting to define with respect to the gripper.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear what a “receptacle alignment block” is defining. What is this block, and how does it relate to the other recited structures of the spur conveyor subassembly (gripper or diverter)? There is no clarification on how the alignment block relates or functions with the other recited features of the gripper or diverter, and it is therefore unclear how the alignment block is defined. Additionally, claim 24 appears to describe the processing position which is not positively claimed and is part of the unclaimed instrument/housing, and not part of the claimed spur conveyor subassembly. Therefore, because the alignment block is at the processing position, it is unclear how the alignment block is part of the spur conveyor subassembly which is a separate structure from that of the instrument/processing position.
Claim 21 recites “the spur conveyor assembly” where this has not been previously recited. Therefore, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear. The examiner notes that a spur conveyor and a conveyor assembly have been referred to, but the spur conveyor has not been referred to as an assembly. The examiner suggests applicants remove the term “assembly”.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Friedman, G (US 20150101911; hereinafter “Friedman”).
As to claim 1, Friedman teaches an automated conveyor assembly for transporting a carrier coupled to a processing receptacle to a processing position within an instrument (Friedman; Fig. 5A-5F), the automated conveyor assembly comprising: a spur conveyor defining a first linear path and comprising a gripper configured to selectively grasp 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; and 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 spur 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 (Friedman teaches a spur conveyor 542 which includes a gripper 524 with gripping cleats that grip a carrier and move the carrier on liner path 542, and a diverter as the circular portion between track 540 and 542 that has recesses and moves the carrier from a second carrier position just before 542 to the first carrier position down the path of 542 at the end of 540, and where the circular diverter moves to be aligned with the respective positions Fig. 5A, 5D, [50, 51, 54, 60]).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Haechler et al (US 20140072473; hereinafter “Haechler”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Haechler teaches an automated conveyor assembly for transporting a carrier coupled to a processing receptacle to a processing position within an instrument (Haechler teaches a ; Figs. 8-10), the automated conveyor assembly comprising: a spur conveyor defining a first linear path and comprising a gripper configured to selectively grasp 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; and 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 spur 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 (Haechler teaches a conveyor 23’ and a rotating diverter 6’, where the carriers move from one position on line 8’ that is offset from line 23’ and then to the next position at the entry on line 23’ via the rotating diverter, and after arriving at the line 23’ then the samples move to the processing position for pipetting; Figs. 8-10, [56, 58, 67]).
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.
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 1-8, 20, 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).
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 defining a first linear path and comprising a gripper configured to selectively grasp 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]).
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 5, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the gripper comprises at least two movable prongs configured to apply pressure to the carrier grasped by the gripper (Miller teaches where the robotic mechanisms are known to include clamping robotic hands which would include two prongs that open and close to grip carriers; [29]).
As to claim 6, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 5, 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 (Miller 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; [29]. 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 5, 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 (Miller 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; [29]. 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 and could have a similar shape to 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 5, 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 (Miller 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; [29]. Some portion of the prong would protrude from the inside out in order to create a 3D object, and therefore would overlap 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 20, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the spur conveyor comprises a base defining the first linear path, and wherein the gripper is translatably coupled to the base (Miller teaches a base as the base of the conveyance path, and because a robotic gripper is moving to move the carriers to/from the analyzers then the gripper is moving/translating on the base; see claim 1 above).
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 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]).
Claims 21-22 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 Pedrazzini, G (US 20150260746; hereinafter “Pedrazzini”).
As to claim 21, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, with the spur conveyor assembly 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 22, modified Miller teaches the automated conveyor assembly of claim 1, wherein the spur conveyor transports the gripper along the first linear path between the first carrier position and the processing position (see above).
Modified Miller does not specifically teach that spur conveyor comprises a movable track configured to transport the gripper. However, Pedrazzini teaches the analogous art of sample transport handler with a conveyor that includes a movable track configured to transport the gripper (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 track supporting the handler as in Pedrazzini because Pedrazzini teaches that the track enables sliding and translation to reach the necessary positions (Pedrazzini; [36]).
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 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 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 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). Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claim 1 are encompassed by the claim 1 of US 11846644.
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”) teaches a gripper that picks up a tube vertically from a rotating spur; Fig. 4.
Itoh, T (US 20170185815; hereinafter “Itoh”; already of record) teaches transfer apparatus 31 that is driven to move carriers off of conveyor; [32-33, 48] Fig. 2.
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