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 1-6, in the reply filed on 06/23/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/23/2026.
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.
Claim 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “the conveyance tiles” (plural), “the other conveyance tiles” and “the other points” in lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claims 1 and 6 establishes “a conveyance tile”, the claims do not have antecedent basis to “conveyance tiles” (plural). While claim 6 establishes “a plurality of the conveyance tiles”, the claim does not have antecedent basis to “the other conveyance tiles”. While claim 6 establishes “a position” in line 4, claim 6 does not have antecedent basis to “the other points…”
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “when a plurality of the conveyance tiles are provided…” (emphasis added). It is unclear if the limitations following “when” is an intended use and not positively recited structurally, or if applicant intends to positively recite “a plurality of the conveyance tiles” as part of the sample conveying device.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shiga et al. (US 20230027956 A1; cited in the IDS filed 06/16/2025; effectively filed 01/08/2020).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. However, the applied reference has different inventors than the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Shiga teaches a sample conveying device (abstract, paragraph [0001], and Fig. 7) that conveys a sample container containing a sample (abstract, paragraph [0001], and Fig. 7, teaches a specimen transport system that transports a specimen tube containing a biological sample), comprising:
a holder (Fig. 7, holder 202) that includes a magnetic material (magnetic body 203) and holds the sample container (Fig. 7 teaches holder 202 holds specimen tube 201); and
a conveyance tile (Fig. 7, transport surface 204) that includes a plurality of magnetic poles (Fig. 7, magnetic poles 207), each of which includes a coil shaft (Fig. 7, core 205) and a coil wound around an outer peripheral side of the coil shaft (Fig. 7 and [0051] teaches winding 206 wound around an outer periphery of the core), wherein
specifications of either the coil or the coil shaft are different between the magnetic pole directly below a position where the holder does not stop and the magnetic pole directly below a position where the holder stops in the conveyance tile (Fig. 7 and [0101]-[0102] teaches the coil and coil shaft 207B directly below a position where the holder 202 stops has different shapes, material, density, and windings than the other coil or coil shafts 207 at positions where the holder does not stop; note that “does not stop” and “stops” is interpreted as an intended use of the holder, see MPEP 2114; [0052]-[0056] teaches applying and stopping voltage to the magnetic pole in order to generate transport force to move the holder on the transport surface).
Regarding claim 2, Shiga further teaches wherein as the specifications, magnetic permeability of the coil shaft is changed ([0101]-[0102] teaches the material and density is different from the other cores and windings, therefore the magnetic permeability is changed since the material and density is different).
Regarding claim 3, Shiga further teaches wherein as the specifications, the number of turns of the coil is changed (Fig. 7 and [0101]-[0102] teaches the shape of the windings 206B are different from the other windings, which shows more compact windings, therefore a different number of turns of the windings or coil).
Regarding claim 4, Shiga further teaches wherein as the specifications, cross-sectional areas of the coil and the coil shaft are changed (Fig. 7 and [0101]-[0102] teaches the shape of the core 205B and windings 206B are different, therefore the cross-sectional areas of the coil and windings are changed).
Regarding claim 5, Shiga further teaches wherein as the specifications, a length of the coil is changed (Fig. 7 and [0101]-[0102] teaches the shape of the core 205B and windings 206B are different, therefore the length is of the winding 206B, e.g. the length of the winding around the core, is changed as shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Shiga further teaches wherein when a plurality of the conveyance tiles are provided, an end portion of the conveyance tile in contact with the other conveyance tiles is set to a position where the holder does not stop, and one or more of the other points is set to a position where the holder stops (interpreted as an intended use of the conveyance tile, see MPEP 2114; [0052]-[0056] teaches applying and stopping voltage to the magnetic poles in order to generate transport force to move or attract the holder on the transport surface; [0094] teaches individually applying voltages to each magnetic poles; therefore, the conveyance tile is structurally capable of setting an end portion to move the holder, i.e. does not stop, and other points where the holder is attracted or stops).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heise et al. (US 20140234065 A1; cited in the IDS filed 11/13/2023) and Ingram-Tedd et al. (US 20200324971 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Heise teaches a sample conveying device (abstract; Figs. 1-5; “laboratory sample distribution system”) that conveys a sample container containing a sample (abstract, Figs. 1-5, [0056] teaches the system distributes samples within sample container or tubes 3), comprising:
a holder (Figs. 1,4, container carrier 1) that includes a magnetic material (Fig. 4, magnet 2) and holds the sample container (Fig. 4 teaches container carrier 1 holds sample container 3); and
a conveyance tile (Figs. 1 and 5, sub-plane 23) that includes a plurality of magnetic poles (Figs. 2,5, electro-magnetic actuator 5’), each of which includes a coil shaft (Fig. 5, center finger 11) and a coil wound around an outer peripheral side of the coil shaft (Fig. 5, coil 16).
Heise fails to teach: wherein specifications of either the coil or the coil shaft are different between the magnetic pole directly below a position where the holder does not stop and the magnetic pole directly below a position where the holder stops in the conveyance tile.
Ingram-Tedd teaches a transporting device (abstract) including a relocating unit that uses magnetic mechanisms ([0072]). Ingram-Tedd teaches different shapes of coils (wide coils etc.), angles of coils and cores, overlaps of coils and spacing of cores may be used to obtain different effects such as enhanced attraction/repulsion or optimal magnetic fields for movement ([0243]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coil or coil shaft at different positions of Heise to incorporate Ingram-Tedd’s teachings of magnetic transporting devices and different coil and core specifications ([0243]) to provide: wherein specifications of either the coil or the coil shaft are different between the magnetic pole directly below a position where the holder does not stop and the magnetic pole directly below a position where the holder stops in the conveyance tile. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully enhancing attraction/repulsion or optimal magnetic fields for movement at different positions as taught by Ingram-Tedd.
Regarding claim 2, modified Heise fails to teach: wherein as the specifications, magnetic permeability of the coil shaft is changed.
Ingram-Tedd teaches a transporting device (abstract) including a relocating unit that uses magnetic mechanisms ([0072]). Ingram-Tedd teaches different shapes of coils (wide coils etc.), angles of coils and cores, overlaps of coils and spacing of cores may be used to obtain different effects such as enhanced attraction/repulsion or optimal magnetic fields for movement ([0243]). Ingram-Tedd teaches additionally or alternatively, materials of predetermined magnetic permeability are used to achieve movement of the transporting device ([0072], [0104], [0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coil shaft of modified Heise to incorporate Ingram-Tedd’s teachings of magnetic transporting devices and different coil and core specifications ([0243]), such as magnetic permeability ([0072],[0104],[0114]) to provide: wherein as the specifications, magnetic permeability of the coil shaft is changed. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully enhancing attraction/repulsion or optimal magnetic fields for movement at different positions by changing known properties of the coil shaft, such as magnetic permeability as taught by Ingram-Tedd.
Regarding claim 3, modified Heise fails to teach: wherein as the specifications, the number of turns of the coil is changed.
Ingram-Tedd teaches a transporting device (abstract) including a relocating unit that uses magnetic mechanisms ([0072]). Ingram-Tedd teaches different shapes of coils (wide coils etc.), angles of coils and cores, overlaps of coils and spacing of cores may be used to obtain different effects such as enhanced attraction/repulsion or optimal magnetic fields for movement ([0243]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coil of modified Heise to incorporate Ingram-Tedd’s teachings of magnetic transporting devices and different coil and core specifications, such as shapes, angles, and overlaps of coils ([0243]), to provide: wherein as the specifications, the number of turns of the coil is changed. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully enhancing attraction/repulsion or optimal magnetic fields for movement at different positions by changing known characteristics of the coil, such as the number of turns, as taught by Ingram-Tedd.
Regarding claim 4, modified Heise fails to teach: wherein as the specifications, cross-sectional areas of the coil and the coil shaft are changed.
Ingram-Tedd teaches a transporting device (abstract) including a relocating unit that uses magnetic mechanisms ([0072]). Ingram-Tedd teaches different shapes of coils (wide coils etc.), angles of coils and cores, overlaps of coils and spacing of cores may be used to obtain different effects such as enhanced attraction/repulsion or optimal magnetic fields for movement ([0243]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coil and coil shaft of modified Heise to incorporate Ingram-Tedd’s teachings of magnetic transporting devices and different coil and core specifications, such as shapes of the coil and core ([0243]), to provide: wherein as the specifications, cross-sectional areas of the coil and the coil shaft are changed. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully enhancing attraction/repulsion or optimal magnetic fields for movement at different positions by changing known characteristics of the coil and coil shaft, such as the shape or cross-sectional area, as taught by Ingram-Tedd.
Regarding claim 5, modified Heise fails to teach: wherein as the specifications, a length of the coil is changed.
Ingram-Tedd teaches a transporting device (abstract) including a relocating unit that uses magnetic mechanisms ([0072]). Ingram-Tedd teaches different shapes of coils (wide coils etc.), angles of coils and cores, overlaps of coils and spacing of cores may be used to obtain different effects such as enhanced attraction/repulsion or optimal magnetic fields for movement ([0243]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coil of modified Heise to incorporate Ingram-Tedd’s teachings of magnetic transporting devices and different coil specifications, such as shapes, angles, and overlaps of the coil ([0243]), to provide: wherein as the specifications, a length of the coil is changed. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully enhancing attraction/repulsion or optimal magnetic fields for movement at different positions by changing known characteristics of the coil, such as the shapes, angles, and overlaps and therefore length, as taught by Ingram-Tedd.
Regarding claim 6, Heise further teaches wherein when a plurality of the conveyance tiles are provided (Fig. 1 teaches a plurality of sub-planes 23), an end portion of the conveyance tile in contact with the other conveyance tiles (Fig. 1 teaches the end portions sub-planes are in contact with other sub-planes) is set to a position where the holder does not stop, and one or more of the other points is set to a position where the holder stops (interpreted as an intended use of the conveyance tile, see MPEP 2114; [0020] teaches moving a container by applying a magnetic force; [0038] teaches the electro-magnetic actuator can cause a holding force; [0052] teaches the actuators can be activated to provide a push or pull force; [0083] teaches the actuators can be activated independently; therefore, the conveyance tile is structurally capable of setting an end portion to move the holder, i.e. does not stop, and other points where the holder is attracted or stops).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aoyama et al. (US 20210398723 A1) teaches an object to be conveyed including a magnet, and magnetic poles including a core and winding (abstract). Aoyama teaches the shapes of the magnetic pole 25A and the permanent magnet 10A are different ([0098]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights