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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202210833216.0, filed on 07/15/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. The instant invention is anticipated by Pang et al. (US7141213B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pang et al. teaches a sample preparation workstation (See the Abstract, the system 10, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [Col. 6 line 6]-[Col. 27 line 28] in Fig. 1-21), comprising: a preparation platform (See how the workstation 100 comprises a table 112 having a table top 114 in [Col. 14 lines 1-38] in Fig. 1 and Claim 1);
a robotic arm mounted to the preparation platform (See the robotic arm 700 in [Col. 12 line 54]-[Col. 13 line 6] in Fig. 1);
a sample exchange chamber mounted to the preparation platform and used for exchanging a sample before or after experiment with the outside world (See the input section 116 and the placement of holders 14 for holding containers 12 in [Col. 14 lines 1-29] in Fig. 1 and 8A-10C);
a transfer tool mounted to the robotic arm (See how the workstation robotic arm 700 has grippers 726 adapted to grip not only individual containers 12 but also the sectors 300, so that a group of containers 12 can be transported for various processing steps simultaneously in [Col. 14 lines 1-29] in Fig. 1); and
at least one experimental apparatus mounted to the preparation platform (See the analyzer section 118, the two analyzers 2000, and the centrifuge unit 100 in [Col. 14 lines 1-29] in Fig. 1), the robotic arm driving the transfer tool to move so that the transfer tool transfers the sample before experiment in the sample exchange chamber to the experimental apparatus for experiment and transfers the sample after experiment to the sample exchange chamber (See how the loaded sector 300 is placed at a delivery site 106 of the workstation 100 by a robotic arm 700 of the workstation 100, there being a delivery site 106 for each of the analyzers. An analyzer robotic arm 2002 picks up the sector from the delivery site 106 and delivers it to an analyzer transfer site 2004. The analyzer 2000 then proceeds to analyze the specimen according to processing instructions from the process controller, and stores the results of the analysis in the memory of the process controller 500. Then the analyzer robotic arm 2002 picks up the sector 300 containing analyzed specimens from the analyzer transfer site 2004 and returns them to a workstation receiving site 110. The sector 300 at the workstation receiving site 110 is then picked up by the workstation robotic arm 700 for sorting in [Col. 12 line 59]-[Col. 13 line 6] in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Pang et al. teaches the workstation limitations of claim 1.
Pang et al. further teaches a sample preparation workstation (See the Abstract, the system 10, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [Col. 6 line 6]-[Col. 27 line 28] in Fig. 1-21), comprising a plurality of said experimental apparatuses which are distributed around the robotic arm (See the robotic arm 700, the analyzer section 118, the two analyzers 2000, and the centrifuge unit 100 in [Col. 14 lines 1-29] in Fig. 1); wherein the robotic arm is arranged at a central position of the preparation platform, an experimental apparatus far away from the robotic arm is higher than an experimental apparatus close to the robotic arm, and the sample exchange chamber is arranged at an edge position of one side of the preparation platform (See the input section 116 and the placement of holders 14 f in [Col. 14 lines 1-29] in Fig. 1 and 8A-10C) in Fig. 1-21).
Regarding Claim(s) 7-8, Pang et al. teaches the workstation limitations of claim 1.
Pang et al. further teaches a sample preparation workstation (See the Abstract, the system 10, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [Col. 6 line 6]-[Col. 27 line 28] in Fig. 1-21), further comprising: a temporary storage holder mounted to the preparation platform, the robotic arm driving the transfer tool to store the sample on the temporary storage holder (See the input section 116 and the placement of holders 14 for holding containers 12 in [Col. 14 lines 1-29] in Fig. 1 and 8A-10C);
wherein the temporary storage holder comprises at least one layer of storage plate, the storage plate is provided with a first storage position for storing the sample, and the temporary storage holder is arranged at one side of the preparation platform (See how the input section 116 of the table 112, there are provided fifteen sort sites 128 labeled from left to right, as A O, for sectors 300, and corresponding fifteen sort sites 130 A O for racks for holding test tubes in [Col. 16 line 40]-[Col. 17 line 33] in Fig. 4);
wherein the temporary storage holder further comprises a connector arranged at the first storage position and configured to limit the sample at the first storage position; wherein the connector is one of a step pin and an elastic member; wherein the step pin is configured to be inserted into an insertion hole formed in a bottom of a tray with the sample; wherein the elastic member is arranged in the limiting slot functioning as the first storage position, and the elastic member can be abutted with a container with the sample and generate elastic deformation when the container is placed in the limiting slot (See the various pins positioning pins, table magnets, latches, bulkheads, column members, rail members, support members, and adjustment mechanisms used in [Col. 16 line 40]-[Col. 27 line 29] in Fig. 1-21).
Regarding Claim 13, Pang et al. teaches the workstation limitations of claim 1.
Pang et al. further teaches a sample preparation workstation (See the Abstract, the system 10, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [Col. 6 line 6]-[Col. 27 line 28] in Fig. 1-21), wherein the sample exchange chamber (See the input section 116 and the placement of holders 14 for holding containers 12 in [Col. 14 lines 1-29] in Fig. 1 and 8A-10C) comprises: a support assembly which is connected with the preparation platform (See how the workstation 100 comprises a table 112 having a table top 114 in [Col. 14 lines 1-38] in Fig. 1 and Claim 1);
a holding plate which is connected to the supporting assembly and provided with at least two second storage positions for storing the samples; a positioner which is connected to the holding plate, corresponds to the second storage position and configured to limit the sample at the second storage position (See how the containers are held in a holder 14, such as a sector 300, i.e. a holding plate, or a test tube rack 600 in [Col. 11 lines 39-51] in Fig 1 and 8A-10A); and
a sensor which is connected to the holding plate, corresponds to the second storage position, and is configured to sense whether a sample is placed at the second storage position (See the sensor or reed switch 150 or sensor magnet 330, 332 in [Col. 18 line 65]-[Col. 19 line 18] in Fig.7).
Regarding Claim(s) 15-19, Pang et al. teaches the workstation limitations of claim 1.
Pang et al. further teaches a sample preparation workstation (See the Abstract, the system 10, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [Col. 6 line 6]-[Col. 27 line 28] in Fig. 1-21), further comprising: a main body which is arranged on the preparation platform, an accommodation space having an opening at one side being defined by the main body and the preparation platform, and the robotic arm, the sample exchange chamber, the transfer tool and the experimental apparatus being all arranged in the accommodation space; and a station door arranged at the opening; wherein the sample exchange chamber is arranged at one side close to the station door (See in [Col. 15 lines 25-58], [ Col. 27 line 30]-[Col. 28 line 23] in Fig. 1, 14A, and 16A);
further comprising: a three-axis calibration support which is connected to an outer wall of the main body and arranged at one side close to the station door, wherein the three-axis calibration support comprises an X-direction connecting plate, a Y-direction connecting plate and a Z-direction connecting plate which are perpendicular to each other in pairs, one end of the Y-direction connecting plate is connected with one end of the X-direction connecting plate, and the other end of the Y-direction connecting plate is connected with one end of the Z-direction connecting plate (See the support members in [Col. 17 lines 34-56] in Fig. 3A-4 and 20A-B); and
three identification code calibration plates, wherein two of the identification code calibration plates are respectively arranged at two ends of the X-direction connecting plate, and the other identification code calibration plate is arranged at the other end of the Z-direction connecting plate; wherein each of the identification code calibration plates has an identification code arranged therein, the identification code being used for locating the main body by a mobile equipment for externally carrying out sample taking and placing operation (See how the racks 600 are provided with a bar code identification 601 in [Col. 16 line 40]-[Col. 27 line 15] in Fig. 1-21 and Claims 1, 4 and 8);
wherein the station door comprises: a door frame (See how the door member 1032 is supported within a door frame 1034 in [Col. 28 lines 1-23] in Fig. 16A);
a lifting mechanism which is slidably connected to the door frame; a driving mechanism which is mounted to the door frame, connected to the lifting mechanism, and configured to drive the lifting mechanism to slide relative to the door frame; and a door body which is connected to the lifting mechanism and matched with the door frame, the lifting mechanism being configured to drive the door body to slide relative to the door frame (See in [Col. 27 line 29]-[Col. 30 line 9] in Fig. 16A-D);
wherein the station door further comprises: a weight which is slidably connected to the door frame, a sliding direction of the weight being parallel to that of the door body; a pulley block which is mounted to the door frame; and a connecting rope which is wound on the pulley block, one end of the connecting rope being connected with the weight, and the other end of the connecting rope being connected with the lifting mechanism; when the driving mechanism drives the lifting mechanism to ascend, the pulley block and the connecting rope are in cooperation with each other to pull the weight to descend, and when the driving mechanism drives the lifting mechanism to descend, the pulley block and the connecting rope are in cooperation with each other to pull the weight to ascend (See the balance system in [Col. 23 line 20]-[Col. 24 line 20] in Fig. 2 an 17A-B);
wherein the station door further comprises: a weight which is slidably connected to the door frame, a sliding direction of the weight being parallel to that of the door body; a pulley block which is mounted to the door frame; and a connecting rope which is wound on the pulley block, one end of the connecting rope being connected with the weight, and the other end of the connecting rope being connected with the lifting mechanism; when the driving mechanism drives the lifting mechanism to ascend, the pulley block and the connecting rope are in cooperation with each other to pull the weight to descend, and when the driving mechanism drives the lifting mechanism to descend, the pulley block and the connecting rope are in cooperation with each other to pull the weight to ascend (See the balance system in [Col. 23 line 20]-[Col. 24 line 20] in Fig. 2 an 17A-B);
further comprising: a base which is connected to the preparation platform and located under the preparation platform, control devices and electrical devices of the robotic arm and the experimental apparatus being placed in the base (See the process controller 500 in [Col. 12 line 54]-[Col. 13 line 67] and Claims 1-3 and 8); and
a display device which is mounted to the outer wall of the main body and configured for user checking and interaction (See the CRT display 1042 in [Col. 28 lines 20-23] in Fig. 16A-D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (US7141213B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagai et al. (US20180348112A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Pang et al. teaches the workstation limitations of claim 1.
Pang et al. further teaches a sample preparation workstation (See the Abstract, the system 10, and the Claim(s) 1-25 in [Col. 6 line 6]-[Col. 27 line 28] in Fig. 1-21), wherein the at least one experimental apparatus comprises an oscillation device, wherein the oscillation device is configured to oscillate the sample (See the robotic arm 700, the analyzer section 118, the two analyzers 2000, and the centrifuge unit 100 in [Col. 14 lines 1-29] in Fig. 1).
Pang et al. fails to explicitly teach a sample preparation workstation, wherein the at least one experimental apparatus comprises at least one of a powder adding device, an electromagnetic stirring device, an oscillation device, a dissolved clarification detecting device, a liquid level layering detection device and a filtering device; wherein the powder adding device is configured to add a powder sample into the sample, the electromagnetic stirring device is configured to stir the sample, the oscillation device is configured to oscillate the sample, the dissolved clarification detecting device is configured to detect a uniformity degree of the sample, the liquid level layering detection device is configured to detect a layering state of the sample, and the filtering device is configured to filter the sample.
However, in the analogous art of sample preparation apparatuses, systems, methods, and particle analyzers, Nagai et al. teaches a sample preparation workstation (See the Abstract, the sample preparation apparatus 1, and the Claim(s) 1-24 in [0035]-[0078] in Fig. 1-16), wherein the at least one experimental apparatus comprises at least one of a powder adding device (See how the sample preparation unit 3 includes a sample dispensing unit 30A, 30B in [0055] in Fig. 1 and 3), an electromagnetic stirring device (See the stirring unit 601 in [0078] in Fig. 3), an oscillation device (See the centrifugal separation unit 38 in [0055] in Fig. 1), a dissolved clarification detecting device (See the reagent setting unit 35 in [0055]-[0066] in Fig. 1 and Claim 4), a liquid level layering detection device (See the liquid amount detection unit 37 in [0055]-[0057], [0088], [0099] in Fig. 1 and Claim 12) and a filtering device (See in [0141]); wherein the powder adding device is configured to add a powder sample into the sample, the electromagnetic stirring device is configured to stir the sample, the oscillation device is configured to oscillate the sample, the dissolved clarification detecting device is configured to detect a uniformity degree of the sample, the liquid level layering detection device is configured to detect a layering state of the sample, and the filtering device is configured to filter the sample (See in [0035]-[0141]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the workstation of Pang et al. by incorporating wherein at least one experimental apparatus comprises at least one of a powder adding device, an electromagnetic stirring device, an oscillation device, a dissolved clarification detecting device, a liquid level layering detection device and a filtering device (as taught by Nagai et al.) for the benefit of preparing a sample for analysis on a workstation.
Claim(s) 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (US7141213B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deppermann et al.(US20110195866A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 22-23, Pang et al. teaches the workstation limitations of claim 1.
Pang et al. fails to explicitly teach a sample preparation workstation, comprising a mobile equipment and a sample preparation workstation according claims 1, the mobile equipment being configured to take samples from and place samples to the sample exchange chamber of the sample preparation workstation.
However, in the analogous art of automated multi-station small object analysis, Deppermann et al. teaches a sample preparation workstation (See the Abstract, the workstation 22, and the Claim(s) 1-20 and 41-42 in [0031]-[0108] in Fig. 1-19A), comprising a mobile equipment and a sample preparation workstation according claims 1, the mobile equipment being configured to take samples from and place samples to the sample exchange chamber of the sample preparation workstation (See the mobile staging console 18 in [0036]-[0042] in Fig. 1-7);
wherein the mobile equipment is further configured for experimental interactions between the at least two said sample preparation workstations (See how the shuttle robot 26 transfers a sample tray 12 from the staging console 18 to the respective workstation 22 in [0042] in Fig. 1-7).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the workstation of Pang et al. by incorporating mobile equipment (as taught by Deppermann et al. ) for the benefit of placing samples to the sample exchange chamber of the sample preparation workstation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 9-10, 20 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art teaches similar devices and methods: Johns (US9910054B2) and Osanai et al. (US7351378B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITNEY N WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:30pm CT.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights