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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues that the resilient elements (450,451) of Schneider are improperly construed as equating to the claimed elastic elements as the tolerance compensation in the vertical direction as taught by Schneider refers to an arrangement of the top covers of connected transport device units. In response, Examiner would like to refer to Columns 10-11, lines 60-21 of Schneider wherein it is disclosed that while resilient elements 450, 451 connect adjacent transport device units, the grid shaped resilient component 45 holds the resilient elements 450, 451 while connecting to the bottom of the driving surface element 41 by screws. Therefore the sensor board is inherently held to the driving surface element by the resilient component and its resilient elements, as the resilient elements are holding adjacent transport device units by force as well as the screws providing more biasing force holding the sensor board to the driving surface element. Screws can be considered an elastic element due to the clamping force that compresses the two parts together from tightening the screw, therefore providing more biasing force of the sensor board to the bottom of the driving surface element.
Regarding Claims 2-9, Applicant does not provide any arguments based upon the claims respective rejections other than to state these claim rejections should be traversed under Claim 20.
For the foregoing reasons, the claims stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is unclear in the way they are written whether they are independent claims or dependent claims. If they are intended to be independent claims, they should include all the limitations of the claims they are referring to, without reference of another claim. If they are dependent, they should include the same preamble as the independent claim from which they depend.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schneider (United States Patent US 10,578,632 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Schneider teaches Transport device for a laboratory sample distribution system , (Figure 1: Transport device 10)the transport device comprising a top cover having a transport surface, the transport surface being adapted to carry sample container carriers,(Figure 2: Driving surface module 4) an electromagnetic actuation assembly, the electromagnetic actuation assembly being adapted to generate a magnetic field at the transport surface for magnetic drive-interaction with a sample container carrier placed thereon,(Figure 2: Actuator module 3 with electro-magnetic actuators 30) a support structure for carrying the actuation assembly,(Figure 2: Carrier element 31) a sensor board being arranged in between the support structure and the top cover, the sensor board being adapted to detect a position of a sample container carrier placed on the transport surface with respect to the transport device, (Column 10, lines 22-35: "The driving surface module 4 can comprise a sensor board arranged at a bottom side of the driving surface element 41 . Hence, the sensor board can be positioned close to the driving surface across which sample support carriers can be transported. The sensor board can at least form part of a device for sensing a presence or position of an individual sample container carrier moved across the upper side of the driving surface element 41 . In one embodiment, the driving surface element 41 can be transparent to IR light, wherein the sensor board can be equipped with multiple IR based reflection light barriers arranged in a grid, and the sample container carriers can be configured to reflect IR radiation emitted by the light barriers.")and elastic elements which are biased in between the sensor board and the support structure so that the sensor board is held flush against an inside surface of the top cover by a biasing force resulting from the biasing of the elastic elements.(Columns 10-11, lines 60-7: " Further, for tolerance compensation in a vertical direction, resilient elements 450 , 451 can be provided underneath the driving surface element 41 for forcing the stepped portion 43 towards the overhang portion 44 . The resilient elements 450 , 451 , in the embodiment shown, can comprise pairs of hooked-shaped elements 450 arranged underneath each overhang portion 44 , wherein each pair of hooked-shaped elements 450 can interact with a tongue-shaped element 451 provided at sides of the driving surface element 41 having a stepped portion 43 . The tongue-shaped element 451 and the stepped portion 43 can be arranged between the overhang portion 44 and the hooked-shaped elements 450 . Hence, wherein the overhang portion 44 and the hooked-shaped elements 450 can form a clamp for forcing the stepped portion 43 towards the overhang portion 44 and vice versa.").
Regarding Claim 2, Schneider teaches transport device according to claim 1, as seen above. Schneider further discloses comprising at least one of the elastic elements has a substantially semi-spherical portion, a flat side of which faces the support structure, (Figure 15: Resilient elements 450 have a semi-spherical portion on the bottom, with a flatter sides of elements 451 facing the support structure)wherein the flat side is at least partially seamed by a radial protrusion of the respective elastic element(Figure 15: Elements 450 interact with elements 451)
Regarding Claim 3, Schneider teaches transport device according to claim 1, as seen above. Schneider further discloses comprising the elastic elements are distributed evenly around a center of the sensor board , and/or the elastic elements are arranged offside a symmetric axis of the inner surface, and/or at least three elastic elements are present.(Figure 14: Elements 450, 451 distributed evenly around the center of the board)
Regarding Claim 4, Schneider teaches transport device according to claim 1, as seen above. Schneider further discloses comprising the support structure has a grid-shaped body, the grid-shaped body comprises a plurality of recesses, the recesses being arranged in a grid-pattern,(Figure 11: Shows module 3 comprising a grid structure 37 with recesses between the grids) and the support structure has a plurality of spacer portions at least one of which protrudes from the grid-shaped body at an edge of each recess toward the sensor board.(Figure 11: Bearing pins 370)
Regarding Claim 5, Schneider teaches transport device according to claim 1, as seen above. Schneider further discloses comprising the support structure and/or the sensor board and/or the top cover and/or the actuation assembly have a plurality of integral positioning elements for alignment of the support structure and/or the sensor board and/or the top cover and/or the actuation assembly relative to one another.(Figure 2: Shows how modules 3, 4, 5 are aligned relative to one another)
Regarding Claim 6, Schneider teaches transport device according to claim 1, as seen above. Schneider further discloses comprising the support structure, at its lateral edges and/or corners, has complementary ledges and/or snap hooks for detachably coupling several support structures of several transport devices aside one another, the ledges and/or snap hooks being distributed along the lateral edges and/or corners such that coupling is only possible in one orientation of the support structure relative to a respective further support structure.(Figure 2: Corner supports 5, stands 33, 34 and structures 40)
Regarding Claim 7, Schneider teaches transport device according to claim 1, as seen above. Schneider further discloses comprising the elastic elements are biased, in particular compressed, by a screw connection holding the top cover at the support structure.(Figure 14: Screw sockets 410 for fixing the component 45 to the driving surface element 41)
Regarding Claim 8, Schneider teaches transport device according to claim 1, as seen above. Schneider further discloses comprising the support structure has integral ribs for stiffening a body of the support structure and/or for guiding cooling air through an intermediate space formed in between the sensor board and the support structure(Figure 20: Ribs 521, 522, 523 and 524)
Regarding Claim 9, Schneider teaches a laboratory sample distribution system, comprising the transport device according to claim 1 as seen above, and further teaches several sample container carriers placeable on the transport surface , each of the sample container carriers having a magnetically active device for the magnetic drive-interaction with the magnetic field generated by the electromagnetic actuation assembly, and a control device being configured to control the electromagnetic actuation assembly as to control movement of sample container carriers placed on the transport surface.(Column 4, lines 46-55: "The electro-magnetic actuators of the actuator module can be configured to move a sample container carrier on top of the driving surface in at least two different directions using magnetic forces. It is well known to provide a control device, which can be configured to control the movement of the container carriers on top of driving surface by driving the electro-magnetic actuators. A wiring board can be provided at each transport device unit for connecting the transport device unit with the control device and for communicating the actuator module with the control device.").
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABBY ALLURA JORGENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:30.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/ABBY A JORGENSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651