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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “liquid transfer system” comprising “a liquid transfer device configured to transfer liquid from the container” in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Note: the determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case. In certain instances, recitations recited in the preamble are not limiting when the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. The preamble in claims 1-14 and 16-19 is directed to “a solvent storage device” and the preamble of claim 15 is directed to “a liquid transfer system”. In this case, the body of the claims fully and intrinsically set forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction, see MPEP § 2111.02.
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 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.
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:
i. “container placement parts” as recited in at least claim 1 has been interpreted as corresponding to openings in a rack or structural equivalents thereof (see applicant’s corresponding US 2024/0288463; para [0048] et seq.;hereinafter ‘463);
ii. “first moving mechanism” as recite in at least claim 1 has been interpreted as corresponding to a first guide component (guide rails) and a first drive assembly (motor) or structural equivalents thereof, see applicant’s corresponding US 2024/0288463; para [0056] et seq., of ‘463;
iii. “second moving mechanism” in claim 2 has been interpreted as corresponding to second guide rails and a second drive assembly (second motor) or structural equivalents thereof, see applicant’s corresponding US 2024/0288463; para [0071] et seq., of ‘463; and
iv. “a liquid transfer device” and “a liquid transfer device” in claim 15 has been interpreted as liquid transfer pump or structural equivalents thereof (see para [0092] et seq.)
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “at least one layer of a frame which has a receiving chamber with an opening”. The term “frame” is known and accepted in the mechanical art as an open structure that gives shape or support (via the connection of vertical columns and horizontal beams). The term “chamber” is known and accepted in the mechanical art as an “enclosed” space or cavity. A frame by definition is an open structure with multiple openings between the structural elements (e.g. columns and beams). A frame would not form a “chamber” (enclosed space or cavity) with “an opening” (a single opening) absent panels attached to form a chamber that define one opening into the chamber. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term, see MPEP 2173.05(a).
In addition it is not clear what applicant means by the recitation of at least one layer of a frame having a receiving chamber with an opening. Specifically, it is not clear what applicant means by “a layer of a frame”. In particular it is unclear from the claim as to how at least one layer of a frame has a chamber with an opening. The details of the layers of a frame forming multiple chambers and a container carrying assembly connected to the frame at the “opening” vague and indefinite. It is not clear if each “frame layer” forms/includes a chamber, an opening, and/or a container carrying assembly. Moreover, the structural relation between more than one layer of frame and the liquid transfer device in claim 15 is indefinite and vague, see more below.
Claim 8 recites the term “tightly” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tightly” is not defined by the claim, 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. It is not clear from the claim or the specification what applicant considers a “tight” engagement.
Claim 14 recites “the solvent storage device is provided with a plurality of layers of said frame which are fixedly or detachably combined into a whole, and openings of receiving chambers of the plurality of layers of said frame are arranged on a same side of the frame”. This is confusing and indefinite. It is not clear from the claim what applicant considers a “layer” of a frame. Also, the openings of receiving chambers of the plurality of layers of said frame lack antecedent basis and/or positive recitation. It is not clear what applicant means “combined into a whole”. It is not clear what a “whole” device means.
Claim 15 recites “a liquid transfer system, comprising: a liquid transfer device and a solvent storage device according to claim 1, wherein the liquid transfer device is configured to transfer liquid from a container stored in the solvent storage device”. This is not shown. The “liquid transfer device” is not disclosed applicant’s specification in any more detail than merely repeating claim 15 language (see para [0092] et seq., of ‘463). Although liquid transfer devices are known, the specification should indicate the particular configuration of the liquid transfer device with respect to applicant’s solvent storage device that would result in the transfer of liquid from the container. The examiner recommends applicant cancel this independent claim.
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.
(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 1-19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cohen et al., (US 9,199,755; hereinafter “Cohen”).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen teaches solvent storage device (not given patentable weight for the reason delineated above) provided with:
at least one layer of a frame 1 which has a receiving chamber with an opening (loading/unloading port),
a container carrying assembly (rack holder stage including a rack holder 150 for receiving a vial rack, which may contain a plurality of vials 115) for carrying containers is arranged in the receiving chamber, and the container carrying assembly is provided with a plurality of container placement parts (reads on openings 130; see Fig. 2);
wherein the container carrying assembly is connected to the frame through a first moving mechanism 170 for driving the container carrying assembly to move in a straight line at the opening (see col. 13, line 19 et seq.)
Regarding claim 2, Cohen teaches a container sealing assembly is arranged in the receiving chamber and is connected to the frame through a second moving mechanism (reads on cap gripper stage positioning actuator 250); wherein the container sealing assembly comprises a sealing mechanism corresponding to the container placement part, and the second moving mechanism is configured to drive the sealing mechanism to be close to or away from the container placement part so as to make the sealing mechanism be in seal fit with or separate from a mouth (cap gripper stage or assembly 200; see Fig. 15 and wherein caps 120 and/or cap accepting portions 135 of vials 115 disposed in a rack 100 of the container, wherein at least the cap accepting portions 135 of the vial read on the mouth of the vial) .
Regarding claim 3, Cohen teaches the first moving mechanism comprises a first guide component and a first drive assembly, the container carrying assembly is slidably connected to the first guide component, and the first drive assembly is in transmission connection with the container carrying assembly to drive the container carrying assembly to move (As illustrated in Figs. 12-14 of Cohen, there is provided a rack holder 150 which may include a rack receiver 180, such as, for example, a drawer, shelf, or tray, which may be affixed to the rack holder, and/or mounted in or on a rack receiver mount 185 which may include, for example, one or more slides, pivots, hinges, actuators, or mechanisms for providing for movement of the rack receiver between a rack loading/unloading position wherein the rack receiver is positioned to allow placement of a vial rack therein, and a retracted position, such as, for example, a position in which a vial rack disposed in the rack receiver is aligned for engagement with a spinner assembly, or cap gripper assembly, and/or any other position found useful for an application of interest. In some embodiments, a rack receiver may be manually transitioned from one position to another. In some embodiments a rack receiver is positioned mechanically and/or under the control of a controller, allowing for integration with automated devices to load and unload the rack tray, cap gripper assembly, and/or caps. As illustrated in FIG. 14, one or more clamps 160 may be provided for restraining a rack 100 against movement, see col. 10, line 20 et seq.)
Regarding claim 4, Cohen teaches the container carrying assembly comprises a transverse moving plate and a container limit plate (see endwall in Fig. 12) installed above the transverse moving plate, the transverse moving plate is slidably connected to the first guide component, and the first drive assembly is in transmission connection with the transverse moving plate; wherein the container placement part includes a limit hole formed in the container limit plate, and the container is placed in the limit hole and supported on the transverse moving plate (As illustrated in Figs. 12-14 of Cohen, there is provided a rack holder 150 which may include a rack receiver 180, such as, for example, a drawer, shelf, or tray, which may be affixed to the rack holder, and/or mounted in or on a rack receiver mount 185 which may include, for example, one or more slides, pivots, hinges, actuators, or mechanisms for providing for movement of the rack receiver between a rack loading/unloading position wherein the rack receiver is positioned to allow placement of a vial rack therein, and a retracted position, such as, for example, a position in which a vial rack disposed in the rack receiver is aligned for engagement with a spinner assembly, or cap gripper assembly, and/or any other position found useful for an application of interest. In some embodiments, a rack receiver may be manually transitioned from one position to another. In some embodiments a rack receiver is positioned mechanically and/or under the control of a controller, allowing for integration with automated devices to load and unload the rack tray, cap gripper assembly, and/or caps. As illustrated in FIG. 14, one or more clamps 160 may be provided for restraining a rack 100 against movement, see col. 10, line 20 et seq.
Regarding claims 5 and 16-19, Cohen teaches the second moving mechanism comprises a second guide component 145, 245 and a second drive assembly (motor 250 and rod 145 or lead screw shown under motor 250), the container sealing assembly 200 is slidably connected to the second guide component, and the second drive assembly is in transmission connection with the container sealing assembly to drive the container sealing assembly to move; the container sealing assembly comprises a longitudinal moving plate and a mounting plate installed to the longitudinal moving plate 200, the longitudinal moving plate is slidably connected to the second guide component, the second drive assembly is in transmission connection with the longitudinal moving plate, and the sealing mechanism is installed to the mounting plate (see Figs. 13-15).
Regarding claim 6, Cohen teaches the sealing mechanism comprises a guide column 225 installed to the mounting plate, the guide column has a sealing component installed thereon (reads on cap 120, see Fig. 16), the sealing component 120 is arranged corresponding to the container placement part and is configured to be engaged with the mouth 135 of the container 115 (see col. 11, line 61 et seq., and Figs. 12-17).
Regarding claim 7, Cohen teaches the sealing component 120 is movably arranged along an axial direction of the guide column, an elastic member 280 is sleeved on the guide column, and both ends of the elastic member are abutted against the mounting plate and the sealing component respectively (see Fig. 15 and col. 17, line 14 et seq.)
Regarding claim 8, Cohen teaches the sealing component comprises a support sheet 210 sleeved on the guide column and a sealing sheet 275 engaged with the support sheet, and the both ends of the elastic member are abutted against the mounting plate and the support sheet respectively; wherein the sealing sheet is located below the support sheet, and a lower surface of the sealing sheet is configured to be engaged with the mouth of the container.
Regarding claim 9, Cohen teaches the mounting plate has a mounting hole formed therein, the guide column is installed in the mounting hole, an upper end of the guide column is connected to a first fastener, the first fastener presses against an upper side of the mounting plate, a lower end of the guide column is connected to a second fastener, the sealing component is sandwiched between the second fastener and the elastic member, and the second fastener presses against one side of the sealing component that is away from the elastic member (see figs 14-16 and col. 11, line 24 et seq.)
Regarding claim 10, Cohen teaches the first drive assembly comprises a first motor and a first drive rod that cooperates with the first motor in a transmission manner, the first motor is fixed to the frame, and the first drive rod is arranged horizontally and connected to the transverse moving plate to drive the transverse moving plate to move (see col. 11, line 11 et seq.)
Regarding claim 11, Cohen teaches the container sealing assembly is provided with a plurality of said sealing mechanisms (caps 120) which are in one-to-one correspondence with to a plurality of said container placement parts (see Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 12, Cohen teaches the container limit plate is spaced from the transverse moving plate in a vertical direction; wherein when the container is placed in the limit hole 130, a bottom of the container is supported on an upper surface of the transverse moving plate and an outer side wall of the container presses against a wall of the limit hole.
Regarding claim 13, Cohen teaches the frame comprises a bottom plate, a top plate, and a side plate and a back plate connected between the bottom plate and the top plate, wherein the bottom plate, the top plate, the side plate, and the back plate define the receiving chamber, and the opening is arranged on an opposite side of the back plate (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Cohen teaches the solvent storage device is provided with a plurality of layers 200, 150, 300 of said frame which are fixedly or detachably combined into a whole, and openings of receiving chambers of the plurality of layers of said frame are arranged on a same side of the frame. Note that the examiner considers
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Cohen teaches a liquid transfer system, comprising: a liquid transfer device and a solvent storage device according to claim 1, wherein the liquid transfer device is configured to transfer liquid from a container stored in the solvent storage device. Cohen teaches in the “Background” section that laboratory procedures benefit greatly from automated and/or robotic handling of materials such as samples and reagents. There is a need to handle materials that are stored in individual containers such as vials or tubes. Cohen is directed to capping and decapping vials containing sample/reagent liquids. Thus, Cohen implicitly recites a liquid transfer device for the automated handling of the materials stored in the unsealed containers otherwise there would be no point of decapping the vials in Cohen.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
i. Vansickler et al., (US 2020/0319219) which teach an automated pre-analytical processing method and an apparatus for pre-analytical processing of samples to be forwarded to an adjacent analyzer for analysis. Rack label information is read and communicated to a processor. From the rack label information, the processor determines where to route the rack. The pre-analytical system has a rack robot that conveys racks to discrete locations depending upon the routing information assigned to the rack by the processor. The pre-analytical system has an automated station that reads the labels of individual sample containers in the rack that are brought to the automated station on instructions from the processor. Depending on the type of sample container and the type of sample disposed therein, the samples are either prepared for analysis by the automated station or the sample containers are directly passed through the automated station. Prepared samples and passed through samples are passed individually to a batching rack; and
ii. Itoh (US 2013/0307381) which teaches a rack accommodation device includes, a base capable of supporting supporters on a plurality of stages in a first direction and in a plurality of rows in a second direction across the first direction, the supporters each being configured to hold a rack capable of holding a plurality of upright sample holders each accommodating a sample, a first movement mechanism configured to move the supporters in the first direction, and a second movement mechanism configured to move the supporters in the second direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:30am-7pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights