DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed 5/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 10/23/2023 and 6/10/2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
The drawings are incomplete because Figs. 5 and 5a are not shown or labeled in the drawings filed 10/23/2023.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an attaching mechanism configured to attach to the mounting body” in claim 1, line 7;
interpreted as one or a plurality of attaching magnets and one or a plurality of metal bodies, evidenced by [0011] in the written disclosure.
“a removing mechanism configured to remove the mounting body” in claim 1, line 10;
interpreted as a remover and a remover moving mechanism, where the remover moving mechanism is a plurality of pressing rods, evidenced by [0013] and [0039] in the written disclosure.
“a control unit configured to control operations of the plurality of dispensing nozzles, the attaching mechanism and the removing mechanism” in claim 1, lines 12-13;
interpreted as a computer, evidenced by [0018] in the written disclosure.
“a magnetic force applying unit configured to exert a magnetic force on an inside of each of the plurality of dispensing tips” in claim 12, lines 3-4;
interpreted as a plurality of comb magnets, evidenced by [0043] in the written disclosure.
“a comb moving mechanism configured to move the plurality of comb sections in a direction in which the plurality of comb sections are inserted into or pulled out from gaps between the plurality of dispensing nozzles” in claim 13, lines 6-8;
interpreted as a motor, evidenced by [0043] in the written disclosure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “another of the mounting body and the dispensing body” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear is intended to be a duplication of the originally recited mounting body and dispensing body or, if the one or a plurality of attaching magnet is provided to one of the mounting plate frame and the dispensing body and, the one or a plurality of metal bodies is provided the other of the mounting plate frame and the dispensing body. For examination on the merits, it will be interpreted that the one or a plurality of attaching magnet is provided to one of the mounting plate frame and the dispensing body and, the one or a plurality of metal bodies is provided the other of the mounting plate frame and the dispensing body, as this interpretation appears consistent with Fig. 7a in the drawings filed 10/23/2023 (see elements 144b and 432).
Claims 6 and 8 are similarly rejected as they contain similar limitations.
Claims 7 and 9 are similarly rejected as they depend upon rejected claims 4 and 8 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friswell et al. (US 2003/0027345 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Friswell, presented in IDS dated 6/10/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Friswell discloses a dispensing device (Fig. 1, liquid handling system 10) including a plurality of dispensing nozzles (Fig. 4, syringe bodies 58) arranged at a predetermined interval in a first direction and a second direction (Fig. 5B shows uniform array of syringe bodies 58), the dispensing device comprising:
a dispensing body (Fig. 4, block 56) configured to support the plurality of dispensing nozzles ([0057]);
a mounting body (Fig. 9, removable cannula array) configured to allow a plurality of dispensing tips to be mounted on the mounting body (Fig. 9 shows a plurality of cannulas mounting on cannula array) at the predetermined interval in the first direction and the second direction (Fig. 9 shows uniform array of cannulas);
an attaching mechanism ([0066], lines 18-28 and [0067] describe attaching mechanism as a mounting system) configured to attach the mounting body, on which the plurality of dispensing tips are mounted, to the dispensing body to install the plurality of dispensing tips on the plurality of dispensing nozzles (Fig. 4, cannula attached to the syringe bodies);
a removing mechanism ([0060], [0066], [0069] describes removing mechanism as an ejection mechanism) configured to remove the mounting body, on which the plurality of dispensing tips are mounted, from the dispensing body ([0060], “ejection mechanism…apply a downward force on the cannula array plate, away from the syringe body block”); and
a control unit ([0067], “computer-based system controller”) configured to control operations of the plurality of dispensing nozzles, the attaching mechanism, and the removing mechanism ([0067], “computer-based system controller…to accomplish automated operation of the dispensing system”).
The claimed attaching mechanism and removing mechanism each are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see Claim Interpretation section above). The corresponding prior art elements performs the functions specified in the claim, are not precluded by any explicit definition provided in the specification for equivalents, and are equivalents of the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation. Examiner finds that the prior art elements are equivalent to the limitations of note because of at least one of the following reasons:
The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
In particular, the prior art elements preform the identical functions specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding elements disclosed in the specification. Therefore, the corresponding prior art elements are prima facie equivalent to the claimed attaching mechanism and removing mechanism (MPEP § 2183).
Regarding claim 10, Friswell discloses the dispensing device according to claim 1, wherein the removing mechanism includes a remover ([0060], “a ejection mechanism comprising spring-loaded alignment pins”) and a remover moving mechanism ([0060], “a spring…may be used to preload each alignment pin”), the remover being configured to apply a force to the mounting body in a direction in which the mounting body separates from the dispensing body ([0060], “spring-loaded alignment pins…serve to apply a downward force on the cannula array plate 28, away from the syringe body block”), the remover moving mechanism being configured to move the remover.
The limitation “being configured to move the remover” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed remover moving mechanism and does not differentiate the claimed remover moving mechanism from the prior art remover moving mechanism because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The remover moving mechanism of Friswell would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the plurality of dispensing tips are removed from the plurality of dispensing nozzles” is contingent on the remover pressing an upper surface of the mounting body and/or upper end surfaces of the plurality of dispensing tips and has been given an appropriate patentable weight (MPEP § 2111.04 II). No further prior art rejections are required as all structure necessary to meet the claim is taught and/or anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 14, Friswell discloses the dispensing device according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of dispensing nozzles includes an elastic member that comes into contact with each of the plurality of dispensing tips ([0015], “a sealing mat of silicone rubber are provided between the syringe bodies and cannulas”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friswell in view of Carl (US Patent 5,497,670 A) (presented in IDS dated 6/10/2025).
Regarding claim 2, Friswell discloses the dispensing device according to claim 1. wherein the mounting body includes a mounting plate (Fig. 9, plate), the plurality of dispensing tips being mounted on the mounting plate at the predetermined interval in the first direction and the second direction (Fig. 9, cannulas 112 arranged and mounted in manner claimed).
Friswell is silent to a mounting plate frame, the mounting plate frame enclosing at least a portion of a periphery of the mounting plate.
However, Carl discloses a liquid dispensing apparatus (title; abstract) comprising a mounting body (Fig. 1, see annotated figure below), the mounting body including a plate (Fig. 3, pipette tip plate 18 – see figure below) and a mounting plate frame (Fig. 3, plate holder 16), the mounting plate frame enclosing at least a portion of a periphery of the mounting plate (Fig. 3, plate holder 16 and pipette tip plate 18 arranged in manner claimed). The prior art mounting plate frame is shown to support the prior art mounting plate (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
174
321
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dispensing device of Friswell to include a mounting plate frame for supporting the mounting plate, as shown by Carl, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches the dispensing device according to claim 2, wherein the mounting plate has a rectangular shape (Friswell, Fig. 9 shows rectangular shape), and the mounting plate frame encloses three sides of the rectangular shape (Carl, Fig. 3 shows the mounting plate frame encloses three sides of a rectangular shape).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches the dispensing device according to claim 2.
The prior art combination is silent to the mounting plate frame suspended from the dispensing body.
Nonetheless, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). Modifying the prior art combination device such that the mounting plate frame is suspended from the dispensing body would amount to merely rearrangement of parts, as such a modification would predictably result in the dispensing body attaching to the mounting body.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friswell and Carl as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wilmer (US 2019/0255533 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Wilmer, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches the dispensing device according to claim 2.
The prior art combination is silent to the attaching mechanism including one or a plurality of attaching magnets and one or a plurality of metal bodies, the one or the plurality of attaching magnets being provided to one of the mounting plate frame and the dispensing body, the one or the plurality of metal bodies being provided to another of the mounting plate frame and the dispensing body.
However, Wilmer discloses a liquid-dispensing device (title, “metering device”; [0002] metering device is a pipetting device), including one or a plurality of attaching magnets ([0262], “second magnetic coupling element of the pipette top part 178”; Fig. 19) and one or a plurality of metal bodies ([0262], “first magnetic coupling element 186”; Fig. 18). The one or the plurality of attaching magnets being provided to a pipette top part, i.e., a mounting plate frame, and the one or the plurality of metal bodies being provided to a metering head, i.e., a dispensing body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination attaching mechanism such that it includes one or a plurality of attaching magnets and one or a plurality of metal bodies in the locations claimed for the purpose of attaching the mounting plate frame to the dispensing body, as Wilmer shows this method for improving the prior art combination device is known in the art.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination teaches the dispensing device according to claim 4.
The prior art combination is silent to the plurality of attaching magnets are disposed to surround one of the plurality of dispensing tips and the plurality of dispensing nozzles, and the plurality of metal bodies are disposed to surround another of the plurality of dispensing tips and the plurality of dispensing nozzles.
Nonetheless, the limitations “to surround one of the plurality of dispensing tips and plurality of dispensing nozzles” and “to surround another of the plurality of dispensing tips and the plurality of dispensing nozzles” are directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed and does not differentiate the claimed plurality of attaching magnets and plurality of metal bodies from the prior art plurality of attaching magnets and plurality of metal bodies because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art plurality of attaching magnets and plurality of metal bodies would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Claims 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friswell in view of Wilmer.
Regarding claim 6, Friswell teaches the dispensing device according to claim 1, wherein the attaching mechanism includes one or a plurality of attaching magnets and one or a plurality of metal bodies, the one or the plurality of attaching magnets being provided to one of the mounting body and the dispensing body, the one or the plurality of metal bodies being provided to another of the mounting body and the dispensing body.
Friswell is silent to the attaching mechanism including one or a plurality of attaching magnets and one or a plurality of metal bodies, the one or the plurality of attaching magnets being provided to one of the mounting body and the dispensing body, the one or the plurality of metal bodies being provided to another of the mounting body and the dispensing body.
However, Wilmer discloses a liquid-dispensing device (title, “metering device”; [0002] metering device is a pipetting device), including one or a plurality of attaching magnets ([0262], “second magnetic coupling element of the pipette top part 178”; Fig. 19) and one or a plurality of metal bodies ([0262], “first magnetic coupling element 186”; Fig. 18). The one or the plurality of attaching magnets being provided to a pipette top part, i.e., a mounting body, and the one or the plurality of metal bodies being provided to a metering head, i.e., a dispensing body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination attaching mechanism such that it includes one or a plurality of attaching magnets and one or a plurality of metal bodies in the locations claimed for the purpose of attaching the mounting body to the dispensing body, as Wilmer shows this method for improving the device of Friswell is known in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Friswell discloses the dispensing device according to claim 1.
Friswell is silent to the attaching mechanism including one or a plurality of first magnets and one or a plurality of second magnets, the one or the plurality of first magnets being provided to one of the mounting body and the dispensing body, the one or the plurality of second magnets being provided to another of the mounting body and the dispensing body.
However, Wilmer discloses a liquid-dispensing device (title, “metering device”; [0002] metering device is a pipetting device), including one or a plurality of first magnets ([0262], “second magnetic coupling element of the pipette top part 178”; Fig. 19) and one or a plurality of second magnets. The one or the plurality of attaching magnets being provided to a pipette top part, i.e., a mounting body, and the one or the plurality of metal bodies being provided to a metering head, i.e., a dispensing body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination attaching mechanism such that it includes one or a plurality of attaching magnets and one or a plurality of metal bodies for the purpose of attaching the mounting body to the dispensing body, as Wilmer shows this method for improving the device of Friswell is known in the art.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art combination teaches the dispensing device according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of first magnets are disposed to surround one of the plurality of dispensing tips and the plurality of dispensing nozzles, and the plurality of second magnets are disposed to surround another of the plurality of dispensing tips and the plurality of dispensing nozzles.
The prior art combination is silent to the plurality of first magnets are disposed to surround one of the plurality of dispensing tips and the plurality of dispensing nozzles, and the plurality of second magnets are disposed to surround another of the plurality of dispensing tips and the plurality of dispensing nozzles.
Nonetheless, the limitations “to surround one of the plurality of dispensing tips and plurality of dispensing nozzles” and “to surround another of the plurality of dispensing tips and the plurality of dispensing nozzles” are directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed plurality of first magnets and plurality of second magnets and does not differentiate the claimed plurality of first magnets and plurality of second magnets from the prior art plurality of first magnets and plurality of second magnets because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art plurality of first magnets and plurality of second magnets would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friswell in view of Tajima (US Patent 6,509,193 B1) (hereinafter referred to as Tajima, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 12, Friswell teaches the dispensing device according to claim 1.
Friswell is silent to the dispensing device comprising a magnetic force applying unit configured to exert a magnetic force on an inside of each of the plurality of dispensing tips in a state in which the plurality of dispensing tips mounted on the mounting body are attached to the plurality of dispensing nozzles.
However, Tajima discloses an apparatus for controlling magnetic particles by pipetting machine comprising a magnetic force applying unit (col. 7, lines 56-58, “magnetic field source M shaped like a comb”) for controlling magnetic particles in a pipette tip (col. 7, line 54-col. 8, line 2; Fig. 8 shows comb magnet exerting a magnetic force on an insides of plurality of pipette tips).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Friswell to comprise a magnetic force applying unit to control magnetic particles in a pipette tip, as taught by Tajima, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The limitation “configured to exert a magnetic force on an inside of each of the plurality of dispensing tips” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed magnetic force applying unit and does not differentiate the claimed a magnetic force applying unit from the prior art a magnetic force applying unit because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art magnetic force applying unit would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art combination teaches the dispensing device according to claim 12, wherein the magnetic force applying unit includes a comb section (Figs. 7 and 8) including
a protruding piece (Fig. 8 – see annotated figure below),
a comb magnet (set forth above) on the protruding piece, and
a comb moving mechanism (Fig. 8, roller RA and raise-lower mechanism O) configured to move the plurality of comb sections in a direction in which the plurality of comb sections are inserted into or pulled out from gaps between the plurality of dispensing nozzles (col. 7, line 54-col. 8, line 2; Fig. 8 shows comb sections can move).
PNG
media_image3.png
723
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The claimed comb moving mechanism is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see Claim Interpretation section above). The corresponding prior art element performs the function specified in the claim, is not precluded by any explicit definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, and is an equivalent of the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation/s. Examiner finds that the prior art element is equivalent to the limitations of note because of at least one of the following reasons:
The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
In particular, the prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Therefore, the prior art rollers and raise-lower mechanism is prima facie equivalent to the claimed comb moving mechanism (MPEP § 2183).
Although the prior art combination does not teach a plurality of comb sections, plurality of protruding pieces, or a plurality of comb magnets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art combination device to further comprise a plurality of comb sections, a plurality of protruding pieces, and a plurality of comb magnets as such a modification represents mere duplication of the protruding piece and comb magnet. It has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04 VI B). Such a modification would predictably improve capabilities of the magnetic force applying unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hofstadler et al (US 2010/0075430 A1) discloses a sample processing unit for samples comprising magnetically responsive particles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN J CARREON whose telephone number is (571)272-6818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights