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 .
Request for Information under 37 CFR 1.105
It is noted that no IDS was filed in this application. The applicant and/or the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application (see MPEP §§ 704.10 - 704.13). In response to this requirement, please provide a copy of any related and pertinent information, such as non-patent literature, published application(s) or patent(s) (U.S. or foreign), that was used to assist in the drafting of this application and/or similar applications (not necessarily related to the instant applications) filed by the applicant.
Note: if no related or pertinent information exists, than applicant must state this for the record in the next response.
The applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose information that is material to patentability (see 37 CFR § 1.56). A complete reply to the instant Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement otherwise the next response by applicant will be considered non-compliant and not entered. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the instant Office action.
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, second moving and third moving elements which includes a linear track body (not shown), a conveyor (not shown) and a track chain (not shown) and “the shape of each groove is a straight shape, cross shape, star shape, explosion shape, or a polygon” of the “microtube components” (claim 2) 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
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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 limitations are:
i. “moving component” in claims 1, 7, 8 and 10-13, has been interpreted by the examiner as including:
a. “first moving element” 121 in claims 1, 7 and 10-13 has been interpreted by the examiner as including the linear track body 1211, the conveyor 1212, and the track chain 1213 as discussed in applicant’s corresponding US 2025/0128263 (hereinafter ‘263) at para [0033] et seq., or structural equivalents thereof;
b. “second moving element” 122, in claims 1, 7 and 10-13 has been interpreted by the examiner as including a linear track body (not shown), the conveyor (not shown), and the track chain (not shown) similar to that of the first moving element 121, (see para [0034] et seq. of ‘263) or structural equivalents thereof;
c. “third moving element” 123 in claims 1, 7 and 10-13 has been interpreted by the examiner including a linear track body (not shown), the conveyor (not shown), and the track chain (not shown) similar to that of the first moving element 121 (see para [0035] et seq. of ‘263); and
d. “sliding block” 124 (which does not invoke an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as this limitation provides sufficient structure to perform the recited function and does not include a generic placeholder, see para [0012] et seq. of ‘263);
ii. “control element” in claims 1-13 has been interpreted by the examiner as a sensor integrated circuit, a micro control unit (MCU), a microprocessor unit (MPU), a central process unit, (CPU), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a digital signal processor (DSP), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a field programmable gate array, a system on chip (SoC), or other applicable chips (see para [0038] et seq.) or structural equivalents thereof;
iv. “telescopic component” in claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 12 has been interpreted by the examiner as including a driving motor 161 and a telescopic element 162 (see para [0048] of applicant’s ‘263),
a. the telescopic element has been interpreted as corresponding to sleeve kit 1621 or structural equivalents thereof (see para [0048] et seq.); and
v. “microtube components” has been interpreted with respect to the method claims 10-13 as including the sealing screw cover 91, the column tube 92, the collection tube 93, and the sample tube 94, or structural equivalents thereof (see para [0045] et seq. of ‘263). Note: this interpretation will may be applied to this limitation should applicant positively recite it in the apparatus claims.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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 1-13 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, regards as the invention.
The examiner respectfully points out that the instant claims are narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of microtube components” in the preamble and later disclosed in the wherein clause “the microtube components” and “another one of the microtube components”. The latter recitations do not agree in number with the plurality of microtube components recited in the preamble. The latter recitations to one individual microtube component and another individual microtube component should recite something like --one of the plurality of microtube components-- and --another microtube component of the plurality of microtube components-- for clarity. Same deficiency was found in claims 9-13 and has been omitted for brevity.
Claim 1 recites in the wherein clause “the moving component drives the first rotating rod and the second rotating rod to move to be connected with the microtube components”. It is not clear if means that both the first rotating rod and the second rotating rod connect an individual each microtube components in the plurality of microtube components or the first rotating rod is connected with one individual microtube component of the microtube components and the second rotating rod is connected with another (different) one of the microtube components of the plurality of microtube components. Also, the functional recitation “move to be connected” is confusing and indefinite. Same deficiency was found in claims 9-13 and has been omitted for brevity.
In addition, claim 1 recites “a telescopic component 16 disposed on the moving component 12 corresponding to the first rotating rod 153 and the second rotating rod 154”. This is very confusing and structurally unclear. This rejection applies to claim 12
First, it is not clear how the “moving component 12 corresponds to the first rotating rod 153 and second rotating rod 154”. As discussed above, the “moving component 12” invokes an interpretation under 35 112 (f) see para [0033] et seq. of ‘263. This means that the “moving component 12” must include:
“at first moving element 121” that also must include the linear track body 1211, conveyor 1212, and track chain 1213 disposed on the workbench 11,
a second moving element 122 that also much include a linear track body (not shown), a conveyor (not shown) and a track chain (not shown) disposed on the first moving element 121,
a third moving element 123 that also must include a linear track body (not shown), a conveyor (not shown) and a track chain (not shown) disposed on the second moving element 122.
Thus, it is vague and confusing as to how the claimed moving component 12 drives the first rotating rod 153 and second rotating rod 154, when the moving component 12 includes the first, second and third moving elements, which each include a rail, a conveyor or a sliding block. It is noted that claim 1 recites a first motor 151 is “disposed on” the moving component 12, which means that the first motor is disposed anywhere on the first, second and third moving elements, each of which include a rail, a conveyor and a sliding block. The first motor 151 which can be disposed anywhere in the moving component 12 somehow drives the first rotating rod. The structural connections between these elements is undefined. This also applies to the second motor disposed on the moving component. Same deficiency was found in claims 9-13 and has been omitted for brevity.
Similarly, claim 1 recites the telescopic component 16 “disposed on” the moving component 12. That is the telescopic component as claimed is disposed somewhere on the first, second and third moving elements (i.e., disposed somewhere on a rail, a conveyor or a sliding block of one of the moving elements). Also, it is unclear how the telescopic component corresponds to the first rotating rod and second rotating rod when it can be located anywhere on the moving component 12. The telescopic component is also recited as “movable between a first position and a second position”. It is not clear from the claim what structure the telescopic component is moving on or what the telescopic movement does with respect to any of the other claimed structures. In other words, as currently claimed, the telescopic component is disposed and moves somewhere on the moving component and does not interact with any other elements in the claim. This rejection is applicable to method claim 12.
Furthermore, it is not clear whether applicant intends for the plurality of microtubes components to be positively recited as a part of the moving device. As currently written the claims do not positively recite of a plurality of microtube components, and other structural elements like the rotating rods are defined with respect to the microtube components. Thus, it is unclear whether or not microtube components should be given patentable weight. For clarity sake, the examiner recommends applicant positively recite the plurality of microtube components as part of the moving device as other positively recited structures are defined by connecting with the microtube components. The examiner has not interpreted these elements as part of the invention and merely an intended use. Note this interpretation applies to all of the recitations of the microtube components in the apparatus claims 1-9 and method claims 10-13.
Claim 2 is mostly directed to a plurality of grooves of the microtube components. However, as discussed above, the microtube components have not received patentable weight and therefor the limitations to the microtube components in all of the apparatus claims 1-9 have not received patentable weight. Also, should applicant amend the microtube components as a positive element in the moving device, then claim 2 is indefinite because it recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim). See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a plurality of grooves of the microtube components”, and the claim also recites “the shape of each groove is a straight shape, cross shape, star shape, explosion shape, or a polygon” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim(s) are generally considered indefinite when there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In addition, it is not clear what applicant considers an “explosion” shape groove in claim 2, and how that would differ from also disclosed “star shape”.
Also, claim 2 recites “a plurality of grooves of the microtube components”. The location of the grooves on the microtube is undefined. Claim 2 recites a plurality of grooves and each groove is shape. It is not clear how a plurality of grooves on a single microtube component can each have a multiple shapes (i.e., straight, cross shape, etc.). While these recitation are not limiting for the reason delineated above, the examiner believes it would be clear if applicant recites that each one of the plurality of microtube components include a sealing screw cover including a groove, wherein the groove can be a straight shape, cross shape, etc. Note: that the cover is the only element that finds support as having a groove.
Claim 5 recites the telescopic element is “deposed” outside or inside of the first rotating rod and the second rotating rod. Incidentally, the word “deposed” should probably be change to --disposed--. It is not clear how telescopic element (sleeve kit) is outside or inside of the first rotating rod and the second rotating rod. First, the scope of the recitation of a sleeve being disposed “outside of” or “inside of” the first and second rotating rods is unclear and is broad to the point of indefinite. It is unclear how a sleeve can be disposed (located) “inside” of rods, nor is it clear what/where applicant considers “outside” of rods (which can be anywhere on the moving component as defined in claim 1). It is not clear how the sleeve is structurally related to the rods and what it does with respect to the other elements in the claims. Same deficiency was found in claims 10-13 and has been omitted for brevity
Claim 6 recites the telescopic element (a sleeve kit) comprises a plurality of sleeve kits, and the sleeve kits are adapted to sheathe the outside of the first and second rods. This is confusing and indefinite. Parent claim 5 recites the telescopic element, (which is shown in Figs. 3A-B as a single element connected to one motor 161) can be disposed inside of the first and second rods and sheathe the outside of two rods. Also, it is unclear how each of the plurality of sleeve kits sheathe the outside of the first and second rotating rods. The specification is unclear but it appears that a single sleeve kit is disposed outside to sheathe both the first rotating rod 153 and second rod 154. Thus, is it unclear where the plurality of sleeve kits are disposed with respect to the first and second rotating rods. That is, applicant’s disclosure does not support a plurality of sleeve kits, wherein one of the plurality of sleeve kits is disposed to sheathe the outside of the first rotating rod and another one of the plurality of sleeve kits is disposed to sheathe the second rotating rod. Nor would this make sense since a single motor 161 drives the sleeve kit.
Claim 9 recites a centrifuge device is disposed corresponding to the moving device. Again, the recitation “disposed corresponding to” does not provide any definite structural relationships between elements.
Prior art
Claims 1-13 are not being treated with prior art. MPEP 2173.06(II) states, “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” The examiner can make next Official action final should applicant overcome all of the rejections set forth above, including applying prior art.
Note: the instant apparatus claims 1-9 contain a large amount of functional/process/intended use language (ex: “telescopic component…movable between a first and second position”, wherein clause in claim 1, all of claims 3 and 8).
However, functional/process/intended use language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims should distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. That is, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function or intended use, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims. In other words, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim then the manner of operating the apparatus does not differentiate it from the prior art, (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g)).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
While the following prior art listed below has not been applied as prior art in this Official action, the examiner considers the listed prior art relevant to the overall prosecution and may be relied upon during subsequent examination(s) based on applicant’s future response(s).
i. Lo et al., (US 2022/0152608) which teach a system and method for use in a nucleic acid extraction system configured for sealing or detaching the microtube assembly. The microtube operating system includes a column container, a sealing cap, a collecting tube and an operating component. The column container includes a column body. The column body has a first protruding structure, and the one end of the column body has an opening and a first outer thread. The sealing cap has an inner thread matching up with the first outer thread. The collecting tube includes a collecting tube body. The collecting tube body has a containing space and a matching structure corresponding to the first protruding structure. The containing space is configured for containing the column container. The matching structure leans against the first protruding structure when the column container is rotated. The operating component selectively fixes the sealing cap, and the operating component screws the sealing cap on the end of the column container to seal the opening or detaching the sealing cap from the column container in a rotating manner.
ii. Yamasaki (WO 2007/148675) teaches engagement units (31,32) engage with the elastic cap fixed to upper-end surface opening of a test tube by contacting the concave portion of cap, and deform the cross-sectional form of the concave portion from round shape into an ellipse shape. A lift removes the cap from the test tube by lifting elastic cap using spindle (72) that engages with the engagement units into concave portion.
iii. Wong et al., (US 2024/0255535) teach a decapping system and methods of performing a decapping process for screw cap test tubes. In an embodiment, a method comprises loading a test tube rack in a rack holder that holds the test tube rack stationary, where the test tube rack holds the screw cap test tubes aligned in a row. The method further comprises clamping the row of the screw cap test tubes between a pair of jaw members of a row clamp, where clamp surfaces of the jaw members apply a force to opposing sides of the row of the screw cap test tubes. The method further comprises successively contacting screw caps of the screw cap test tubes in the row with a rotating bit of a decapper tool to spin the screw caps in a loosening 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