DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/23/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because they do not include an article at the beginning. It is suggested that claims 1 and 9 include “A” or “An” and that claims 2-8 and 10 include “The” at the beginning of the respective claim.
Claim 3 recites “thereat” where this should be two separate words.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, the phrase " in particular " renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 6, it is unclear what a “lamella” is attempting to describe. What is the lamella formed by? How is the lamella connected to other parts of the adapter and how is it being guided?
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yang et al. (Yang et al. Haier Group, Translation of CN 101158534; hereinafter “Yang”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Yang teaches an Adjustable adapter for closing a c-shaped gap in between two modules of a laboratory system (Yang; Fig. 1-7), the adjustable adapter comprising a base extending along a width direction (W) of the adjustable adapter, and a pair of legs each protruding from the base in a length direction (L) of the adjustable adapter so that the base and the legs are arranged in a c-shape of the adjustable adapter, the base being adjustable to set its dimension (D, D1, D2) along the length direction (L) (Yang teaches a base formed by the crossbar of 3 which adjusts relative to legs of part 1 or alternatively adjusts relative to legs of part 2; Figs. 1-7. Alternatively, Yang teaches a base 1 and 3 through which legs of part 2 are adjustable; Fig. 1-7).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 2, Yang teaches the Adjustable adapter according to claim 1, characterized in that the base has two end portions arranged opposite one another along the width direction (W), each leg protruding from the base at a respective end portion (Yang teaches that the legs protrude from the base at the end of the crossbar 3 or at end of 1; Fig. 1-7).
As to claim 3, Yang teaches the Adjustable adapter according to claim 1, characterized in that the base comprises a first unit and a second unit, the first unit overlapping the second unit with respect to the length direction (L), the first unit having both the end portions and the legs being fixed thereat, respectively, a position of the second unit being adjustable relative to the first unit along the length direction (L) as to set the dimension (D, D1, D2) of the base along the length direction (L) (Yang teaches that portions of 1 and 3 overlap, and that they are adjustable with respect to each other, where the adjustment of 3 changes the length of the c-shaped gap relative to the legs; Fig. 1-7).
As to claim 4, Yang teaches the Adjustable adapter according to claim 3, characterized in that the second unit is guided at the legs and/or at the first unit along the length direction (L), in particular the second unit being guided in a drawer-like manner (As best understood, Yang teaches that portions of 1 and 3 are guided at the legs, and also guided along the length direction; Fig. 1-7).
As to claim 5, Yang teaches the Adjustable adapter according to claim 3, characterized in that the adjustable adapter has at least one linear guide for guiding the second unit relative to the first unit along the length direction (L), and/or the second unit being guided, in particular steplessly, in between a first end position (P1) of the second unit and a second end position (P2) of the second unit relative to the first unit (As best understood, Yang teaches that portions of 1 and 3 are guided at the legs, and also guided along the length direction; Fig. 1-7. Yang teaches that portions of 1 and 3 overlap, and that they are adjustable with respect to each other, where the adjustment of 3 changes the length of the c-shaped gap relative to the legs; Fig. 1-7).
As to claim 6, Yang teaches the Adjustable adapter according to claim 3, characterized in that the first unit has a lamella arranged in between a body of the first unit and the second unit, the lamella being guided at the body and/or at the second unit along the length direction (L) (As best understood, Yang teaches that portions of 1 and 3 overlap, and that they are adjustable with respect to each other, where the adjustment of 3 changes the length of the c-shaped gap relative to the legs; Fig. 1-7).
As to claim 7, Yang teaches the Adjustable adapter according to claim 1, characterized in that the adjustable adapter has at least one fastener for releasable fixation of a present adjustment of the base, in particular the fastener comprising a clamping screw (As best understood, Yang teaches that portions of 1 and 3 are guided at the legs, and also guided along the length direction; Fig. 1-7. Yang teaches slots and rails to guide, and also fixing structures for releasable fixation; Fig. 1-7, [25, 32, 45, 47, 50-53]).
As to claim 8, Yang teaches the Adjustable adapter according to claim 1, characterized in that the base and/or at least one of the legs has a through-slot extending along the width direction (W), the through-slot being adapted to receive a fastening element, in particular a threaded bolt, for fastening the adjustable adapter to at least one of the modules (As best understood, Yang teaches slots and rails to guide, and also fixing structures for releasable fixation; Fig. 1-7, [25, 32, 45, 47, 50-53]. Yang teaches holes/slots in frame 1; Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherubini et al (US 20210373042; hereinafter “Cherubini”; already of record) in view of Yang et al. (Yang et al. Haier Group, Translation of CN 101158534; hereinafter “Yang”; already of record).
As to claim 9, Cherubini teaches a Laboratory system comprising two modules (Cherubini; Fig. 1-12), and an adapter, wherein a c-shaped gap in between the modules is closed by the adapter, wherein the base of the adapter is set so that the dimension of the base along the length direction (L) is set in correspondence to the c-shaped gap (Cherubini teaches joining two modules 106 and 108 of a laboratory system with a module connector formed by a c-shaped adapter 120/126; Fig 1-12, [31, 32, 49, 50, 51, 76, 159] and also [156, 157]).
Cherubini does not specifically teach the adjustable adapter is configured according to claim 1. However, Yang teaches the analogous art of brackets connecting components with a base extending along a width direction (W) of the adjustable adapter, and a pair of legs each protruding from the base in a length direction (L) of the adjustable adapter so that the base and the legs are arranged in a c-shape of the adjustable adapter, the base being adjustable to set its dimension (D, D1, D2) along the length direction (L) (Yang teaches a base formed by the crossbar of 3 which adjusts relative to legs of part 1 or alternatively adjusts relative to legs of part 2; Figs. 1-7. Alternatively, Yang teaches a base 1 and 3 through which legs of part 2 are adjustable; Fig. 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the c-shaped connector to connect components of Cherubini to have been adjustable as in Yang because Yang teaches that using the frame and adjustable legs enables reliable and safe positioning (Yang; [32]).
As to claim 10, Cherubini teaches the Laboratory system according to claim 9 (see above), characterized in that a first of the modules is a transport module of the laboratory system, and a second of the modules is a sorter module, of the laboratory system, the transport module being adapted for delivering sample containers to the sorter module, the sorter module being adapted to sort delivered sample containers, in particular by selectively passing delivered sample containers on to further modules of the laboratory system (As best understood, Cherubini teaches a transport line 108 and a laboratory module 106 which would accept containers in an automated fashion, thereby qualifying as sorting the containers; [156, 157]).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Garin et al (US 7044707; hereinafter “Garin”) teaches a laboratory with adjustable clamps on the ends; Fig. 3.
Nizel et al (US 4544214; hereinafter “Nizel”) teaches an adjustable clamp for a laboratory frame; Fig. 1, 2, 10, col. 1 line 50-col. 2 line 5, col. 8 line 7-col 9 line 34, col 11 line 62-col. 12 line 15.
Barry J (US 6236734; hereinafter “Barry”) teaches an adjustable clamp; Fig. 1-2, col. 4 line 39-42.
Haglund et al (US 20150198568; hereinafter “Haglund”) teaches an adjustable bracket; Fig. 1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (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.
/Benjamin R Whatley/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights